Is ODP turning into Wayback Machine ?

[chaos127]

But of course after I found the 'quality' Tripod and Geocities websites listed in ODP I wonder about the quality that is actually acceptable to ODP.

It could well be that those sites were listed when our guidelines weren't as strict, and/or when the quality of their content relative to what else was available was much better than it is today.

 

If webmaster do a little research and see what is accepted and what is not than maybe it is no wonder you are reiceiving a lot of crap submissions.

I don't think it says anywhere that we judge sites relative to the worst sites that we currently have listed. (If anything we would be judging them relative to the better ones in the category -- if it's not good compared with them, what value would the extra site add for our users?) What we actually do is look at the sites with reference to our site selection criteria. This is what webmasters should read before suggesting their site.

 

Even if they don't read all the details there, everytime you suggest a site, you have to agree that you've read and understood the submission guidelines at http://www.dmoz.org/add.html I wonder how many people take the trouble to do so (in particular the items under "step 1")?

 

editors seem to look at it as a hobby

That's not surprising, since we're all volunteers, so for us it is a hobby.

[crowbar]

I hope it's a hobby, cause the pay ain't that great, . You might like to read what our Editor-In-Chief just posted:

http://blog.dmoz.org/

 

It sounds very much like what we've said in here, for some reason.

[Baufi]

It could well be that those sites were listed when our guidelines weren't as strict, and/or when the quality of their content relative to what else was available was much better than it is today.

 

And could well not be, that is the point. But now you know of them and you can tell me, does those sites bring a value to ODP ? if they do you should not be surprised that other webmasters submit sites of similar caliber to ODP. If they don't than they should not be there any more or what?

I don't think it says anywhere that we judge sites relative to the worst sites that we currently have listed.

 

I never said that you judged it, but the webmasters probably do, and if those sites belong in ODP why should theirs not?

 

You get submitted sites to ODP based on the sites/content that can be found in it already.

 

Even if they don't read all the details there, everytime you suggest a site, you have to agree that you've read and understood the submission guidelines at http://www.dmoz.org/add.html I wonder how many people take the trouble to do so (in particular the items under "step 1")?

 

Is there a possibilty that it takes more than 1 or 2 minutes to read this form and comply before submitting as:

 

It takes barely a minute or two to fill in the form to submit your site to the ODP. That's hardly "a lot of work".

 

I don't think it says anywhere that we judge sites relative to the worst sites that we currently have listed.

 

I can't see what you are saying, but can you agree with me that those same webmasters the 'whiners' actually look at those crappy sites listed and look at them as (and rightly so) a poor judgement as those sites clearly are in there.

 

Maybe webmasters believe after been surfing ODP and see those sites that you judgement just isn't any better?

 

I don't know but It makes me think why a respected site like ODP is receiving a lot of 'crappy' sites from whiners.

 

But now there is a great opportunity to show a good judgement and remove those examples I gave earlier as they do not represent those quality sites ODP wants to list.

 

I think no one would miss this one from ODP http://www.-/

 

Would you?

 

That's not surprising, since we're all volunteers, so for us it is a hobby.

 

Also are most of the people at The Red Cross volunteers, but I hope they treat there work with more professionalism, and don't call people whiners if they are not all so happy about the work and have suggestions for improvement.

 

Doctors with out borders are volunteers, they don't react badly if someone has suggestion for improvements.

 

Basically ODP is kind of a Pro-AM 'thing'

(http://-)

so even you are all working for free you can't allow yourself to be anything less then professional and take critisism as a professionals, working for a project that is taken seriously like ODP is, than it has to be taken as more than a hobby to do it.

[brmehlman]

Doctors with out borders are volunteers, they don't react badly if someone has suggestion for improvements.

I imagine they'd react very badly indeed if most of the suggestions were ways they could better improve their service to the pharmaceutical industry. As badly, perhaps, as we react to the unending stream of suggestions about how we could better serve webmasters.

[spectregunner]

But of course after I found the 'quality' Tripod and Geocities websites listed in ODP I wonder about the quality that is actually acceptable to ODP.

 

Let's explore this.

 

When an editor talks about a quality site, we talk in terms of content. Unique content.

 

When a webmaster talks about a quality site, they usually mean, design, technology (please -- no more flash sites, I think I'll gag), blaring music, and, accidentally, some content.

 

Geocities and tripod sites are often quite glorious in terms of content. Design often stinks, but is rarely an impediment to getting to the content, and oh what content it is. People who love a topic enough to write about it, show pictures and experiment with all purple websites -- while never making a dime. I'd personally rather spend two hours looking through either of those two outfits, looking for really interesting sites that are listable on the basis of content, then to have to wade through a stack of heavily templated, spit-and-polish auto dealer or real estate web sites.

 

You can't have it both ways, complaining that we only list websites that have deep pockets, and then complain that we list very ugly, grossly unfunded geocities websites. Our first choice is always to list sites with interesting, unique content.

[Eric-the-Bun]

The role of an editors is not to review suggestions, but to build categories. To do that the pool of suggestions may be a useful resource (though not in the spammed out categories) and reviewing the suggestions is one, easy way of building that category.

 

I've just added a new category Arts/Performing_Arts/Dance/Sacred_and_Circle_Dance/Circle_Dance/ which I believe is currently the best directory resource on the topic on the net. If you examine the quality of the sites they vary from 'scraping the barrel' to good, a lot having a 'home-made' look.

 

So:

 

1) I think only 1 of these sites were produced by a 'webmaster', most were produced by teachers, dancers, choreographers, events organisers etc who are using a website to publicise the real and tangible things that they do in real-life. Most of them have not got a clue about seo beyond a vague idea that you exchange links, leaving the rest to universal harmony and spiritual intervention.

 

2) Who is that category supposed to serve? Well anyone interested in Circle Dance. It saves them having to search for 'n-ty' hours on the web and the information is available either through one of the many sites that use our content, links from any site that finds the category useful or through the sites having a higher profile in the search engines as a result of the listing.

 

3) Value for 'time spent' - The first twenty links were easy to get, equivalent to fishing in the suggestion pool, but the last ten took quite a long time to find, the last one being the result of 3 hours surfing. In that 3 hours I could have added perhaps 10 or more club websites on English Country Dance. Each of the potential 10 deserve to be listed and argueably on numbers should have been listed instead of the 1. However our role is not about merely listing sites, it is about providing a resource. At the stage of getting 1 site after 3 hours, I personally feel I've exhausted the options (apart from telling other editors that I have, so they can go and prove me wrong by supplying sites I've missed ) and can stop looking.

 

4) If you thought " WTF? English Country Dance? Circle Dance? ROFL!" then you have missed the point of the ODP. Go to the front page and actually look at what it covers, the distribution of sites and think about what 500,000+ categories means.

 

It may bring home what is meant by volunteers, Editors edit in their areas of interest to build a resource, whilst 'webmasters' produce web sites for financial gain - there is very little in common between the two. Out there 'webmasters' try to pretend that they represent the bulk of website owners whereas in fact they are a very, very small. but vocal, percentage. In SEO forums they may be big fish but they in a very, very, tiny little pool. They are certainly outnumbered by Folk Dancers

 

Anyway, end of shameless plug for a new category,

 

regards

[crowbar]

Nice post, it reminds me that I've been neglecting a certain watergarden category that I took on, .

[Baufi]

It may bring home what is meant by volunteers, Editors edit in their areas of interest to build a resource, whilst 'webmasters' produce web sites for financial gain - there is very little in common between the two.

 

And what is wrong with webmasters making sites for financial gain? Do ODP editors have something against that, do you consider sites made for financial gain less valuable to me as a user than a site that isn't done for financial gain?

 

Here is an example, I look for 'Migraine' in ODP (which actually does not give any results for that) I would be more likely to find a site telling me what it is, how painful it can be, how many people suffer from it, but I could not find a site that offers me a treatment or recommends/sells medicine for it as ODP editors felt it was wrong to list a site that was created for financial gain?

 

If I was looking for a solution or information about a migraine, would I believe the information/solution given on the website to be more true if it was a from gsk (GlaxoSmithKline) or a website telling stories about an uncle that has Migraine?

 

Let's say that I like Circle dancing, I want to buy a book about it or sign up for a lessons or where to get the proper dancing clothes and shoes, is there a site in your new category that offers it? Or was the idea not to list sites that will make any financial gain from being listed, so much so that actually useful sites to users are excluded.

 

So, Information is fine, stories of uncle and his dog is also fine, but If the uncle wants to sell the damn dog then you would NOT list the site?

[motsa]

Let's say that I like Circle dancing, I want to buy a book about it or sign up for a lessons or where to get the proper dancing clothes and shoes, is there a site in your new category that offers it? Or was the idea not to list sites that will make any financial gain from being listed, so much so that actually useful sites to users are excluded.

I think you're completely misunderstanding how the ODP lists sites. And you missed the point of Eric-the-Bun's comment. Some categories are informational in scope. Others are about and for businesses. Some are a combination of both. Arts categories generally don't contain sites selling dance clothes or shoes or the like -- those kinds of sites would be listed elsewhere in the directory (likely somewhere in Shopping, Business, and/or Regional).

[brmehlman]

Nicely chosen example. Thank you for that.

If I was looking for a solution or information about a migraine, would I believe the information/solution given on the website to be more true if it was a from gsk (GlaxoSmithKline) or a website telling stories about an uncle that has Migraine?

GlaxoSmithKline is indeed listed in Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Neurological_Disorders/Headaches/Migraine/ along with other drug manufacturers and shady outfits like the American Acadamy of Neurology.

[Eric-the-Bun]

Let's say that I like Circle dancing, I want to buy a book about it or sign up for a lessons or where to get the proper dancing clothes and shoes, is there a site in your new category that offers it? Or was the idea not to list sites that will make any financial gain from being listed, so much so that actually useful sites to users are excluded.

Yes as part of the Circle Dance activity, the various websites are mainly about lessons, classes and events including holidays that they offer, plus they advertise books they've written, CD's they've made etc etc. and they will link to sites they find useful in that respect.

 

A good proportion of the sites are by people making their living or supplementing their income in this way.

 

However the target audience of the category is people wanting to know about and do Circle Dancing - whether the practitioner is a 'hobbyist' running a non-profit weekly group or a professional making a living is immaterial to a listing, it is not relevant. As a dancer, I would be pleased to know that my efforts increased the number of people dancing and, if this means dance groups become profitable and teachers can continue to offer their services, then great.

 

If I were interested in shops selling Circle Dancing (apparantly you can buy 'Circle Dancing' on Ebay ) then I'd arrange to create a category in Shopping somewhere. I am not, so I don't. Effectively you seem to be suggesting that there is something wrong with me in being interested in certain topics rather than general financial asperations.

 

You can't lump all sites in one giant block and generalise. The directory is huge. The situation in Shopping and Real Estate areas, Dancing, Sport, Wyre Piddle etc are all different from each other. Editors tend to think and work in categories not on a huge and unwieldy, amorphous lump of websites. As a result we get an insight into what is going on in the real-world in the topics that interest us and are usually well disposed to people in those areas.

 

regards

[Eric-the-Bun]

do you consider sites made for financial gain less valuable to me as a user than a site that isn't done for financial gain?

I would distinquish between sites offering services, as I pointed out, by people making a living through the services or products that they offer and for them a website is just a form of advertising that is a small proportion of their business activity. The sites are produced for financial gain but not by a 'webmaster'.

 

If someone creates a site merely for financial gain then it is less valuable to me in that it is not part of real-life. If someone wants information on dancing, then a site that contains gems such as 'Ballet is a form of dance. To learn ballet you need to have lessons which are usually given by a teacher. You need to wear ballet shoes which can be bought in shops. It is a good idea to make sure they fit' surrounded by adverts, and affiliate links is not a valuable resource.

 

regards

[spectregunner]

And what is wrong with webmasters making sites for financial gain? Do ODP editors have something against that, do you consider sites made for financial gain less valuable to me as a user than a site that isn't done for financial gain?

 

Absolutely nothing, just as there is nothing wrong with us building a directory for the surfers, rather than one designed for the webmasters.

 

We list plenty of for profit sites. Several million in fact.

 

What we do not do is give commercial sites a priority over other sites in terms of site listings. Just as we do not give a priority to sites that are suggested to us.

 

I think part of the problem here is that you are trying to paint us in terms that are absolute in nature, when in fact, "all of the above" usually applies.

 

We don't prioritize suggestions, but we don't totally ignore then, either.

 

We cherish hobbyist sites that have lots of unique contents, but we still list the car dealers, sewing machine stores, airplane parts manufacturers, and ostrich breeders.

 

It is not us against the webmasters, it is about us being FOR the surfers and against the spammers.

[Baufi]

brmehlman you are welcome but you are missing the point here.

 

I wasn't asking about where GlaxoSmithKline was listed, I was making a point.

 

Would it make a difference in the discussion if I had mentioned vistor.is which is not listed in ODP, as If I thought it would make a difference for the point I was trying to make I would of course mentioned that one as they are not listed, but that is NOT the point.

 

You have to read from the beginning to the end before you reply.

 

I would distinquish between sites offering services, as I pointed out, by people making a living through the services or products that they offer and for them a website is just a form of advertising that is a small proportion of their business activity. The sites are produced for financial gain but not by a 'webmaster'.

 

I understand that sites built around advertisement and stirctly just selling something with no informational value isn't off favour to anyone but I wonder where you draw the line between

people making a living through the services or products that they offer and for them a website is just a form of advertising that is a small proportion of their business activity.

 

It has been mentioned in this thread that webmasters are whining and complaining so it sounds to me like it is you against them.

 

What we do not do is give commercial sites a priority over other sites in terms of site listings. Just as we do not give a priority to sites that are suggested to us.

 

To me it looks actually like that you are giving non-commercial sites priority, but still saying that there is no preferential treatment for anyone.

 

But in can be understood from the posts in this thread that there is.

 

You seem to have an issue with webmasters that are creating sites for financial gaines, so there is a less reason to list those.

 

If I wanted to buy satellite program to have on my PC and I found a site listed on ODP (Google Directory) would you not have served me just fine?

 

I'm just curious, would any of those site be listed in the directory?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=is&q=satellite+on+PC&btnG=Google+leit&lr=

 

I assume the link will be deleted as all the other links that support what I'm saying has been deleted but before you do that would any of the editors here tell me if even one of the sites their would get listed or if you would find them to be 'webmaster' sites.

 

That might help people (me) to understand better how you list sites.

 

p.s why do you delete the URL's from the posts when they are being uses to support someones case?

[old_crone]

There's only 2 actual sites on that first page of the search return, all the others are sub-pages of a larger site. Those 2 sites will not get a listing in the directory and the guidelines clearly state why.

[chaos127]

It has been mentioned in this thread that webmasters are whining and complaining so it sounds to me like it is you against them.

They're complaining largely because they are under the misapprehension that we are a listing service, and set their expectations accordingly. It's not that we're against them, it's just that we don't provide the service for them that they would like us to.

 

To me it looks actually like that you are giving non-commercial sites priority

It may be that some individual editors prefer to work in categories which are dominated by non-commercial sites, but in terms of our eligibility criteria there is no preference or disfavour for non-commercial sites.

 

I wonder where you draw the line

If the site provides unique content, i.e. content / services that can't be found elsewhere then it's probably a site that we'd like to list. If the site provides minimal unique content and exists primarily to generate income by enticing the user to click on adverts, then it's not the sort of site we'd like to list -- instead we'd help users by listing the advertised sites instead, cutting out the unnecessary middle-man. If the site is just a front-end for another distribution service (drop-shipping) then we'd just list the main website for the distribution service. If the site is for a local shop, it can contain unique information about that shop, even if all the products sold are available elsewhere. Full details can be found at http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html -- this is the document that editors work from too, so should contain everything you need to know.

 

why do you delete the URL's from the posts when they are being uses to support someones case?

Because we've found from past experience that discussing individual websites isn't productive -- it too often degraded into an argument between the owner and the editors, when the owner won't accept that their site isn't listable, or that "no-one's got around to reviewing it yet" is indeed the reason why it hasn't been added. I'm afraid the large vocal group of people who refused to take what editors told them at face value have ruined it for the people who would benefit from being able to discuss individual sites here.

 

Hence no discussion of individual sites, and therefore no need to provide links to your sites. The links are removed to prevent link-dropping an remove any temptation for others to engage in discussing the individual sites.

[brmehlman]

brmehlman you are welcome but you are missing the point here.

I didn't choose that example, you did. And the point it illustrates, which I don't think I missed at all, is that we attempt to list useful sites whether or not they are commercial.

[pdub]

I actually think that some of the negative opinions people have about the directory are completely understandable. Recently has there been a concerted effort to better communicate about the directory (via the blog), and I hope that continues to gain momentum.

 

I understand your frustration, because I believe some of your questions/statements could simply be answered by a better understanding of the directory taxonomy. But here's the thing... most people relatively unfamiliar with ODP probably don't immediately get the distinction of categories. Not every visitor can be expected to read the top level category charter or FAQ before drilling down into the subcategories. On the other hand, since editors deal with the directory structure regularly, categories make more sense to them. I actually think that the two sides tend to neglect each other's viewpoint, thus creating a little bit of friction.

 

For example:

 

Let's say that I like Circle dancing, I want to buy a book about it or sign up for a lessons or where to get the proper dancing clothes and shoes, is there a site in your new category that offers it?

You probably wouldn't find a commercial site in his category, because it is not in a Shopping hierarchy. That makes perfect sense to an editor or seasoned dmoz.org visitor, but isn't necessarily clear-cut to the casual browser.

 

To me it looks actually like that you are giving non-commercial sites priority, but still saying that there is no preferential treatment for anyone.

In some categories, non-commercial sites get the ONLY priority because there are more appropriate categories for commercial sites. In turn, there are probably not many non-commercial sites (intentionally) listed in Shopping.

 

You seem to have an issue with webmasters that are creating sites for financial gaines, so there is a less reason to list those.

Not to beat a dead horse, but there is a pretty large inventory of sites in the Shopping section.

 

Also, it is quite possible that editors in any non-Shopping category immediately move or (unfortunately) delete sites that are commercial, even if there is sufficient and relevant non-commercial content. In some cases, the category description and submission instructions explicitly direct commercial sites to submit to a specific Shopping category, but not always.

 

Over time, an editor (who is human) may become acutely aware of commercial sites that can't be bothered to read submission instructions, many of whom are prone to spamming their submissions. That editor may decide to reject them all with little discretion. That doesn't mean there is a directory-wide prejudice against commercial sites. If anything, there is a prejudice against "webmasters" that can't read submission instructions.

 

But to be fair, probably thousands of websites are moved, by editors, to more appropriate categories on a regular basis, rather than just being immediately deleted.

 

At any rate, I hope that more is done over time to help the visitor understand and navigate the 500,000+ categories that are available, and I believe that will happen. The ODP isn't perfect... by any stretch. I think you'd be surprised by the number of editors that agree.

 

P.S. All of my rejection and listing scenarios are fabricated to make a point. I certainly don't speak for the ODP or its editors. Parts and accessories sold separately (somewhere in the Shopping category).

[crowbar]

That's very insightful, pdub, I believe you're correct. After working as an editor, you do have a tendency to forget how much you've learned (and take for granted as common knowledge) and perhaps forget that the public never had the same information in their background.

 

It's something that I always keep in mind when mentoring a new editor (to never assume anything, especially how much an editor actually knows) and to go into detail about the simplest things, but, I've never applied that to the posters in here for some reason.

 

Over time, an editor (who is human) may become acutely aware of commercial sites that can't be bothered to read submission instructions, many of whom are prone to spamming their submissions. That editor may decide to reject them all with little discretion. That doesn't mean there is a directory-wide prejudice against commercial sites. If anything, there is a prejudice against "webmasters" that can't read submission instructions.

 

In the Regional section of the Directory, sites are placed by their actual brick and mortar address/location. Many times a site owner who is located in Podunk,USA wants their site listed in the nearest large city, or at the State level for "more coverage" (like in a newspaper ad), which is incorrect.

 

I'd say, at least 50% of the site suggestions we get in Regional have to be moved to where they belong, rather than where the wishful thinking of the suggester has submitted them to, . This creates a lot of work for us, but, it's a common occurance, and sites are not deleted for that, they're just moved to the correct category. (that's one of many other jobs that editors normally do, instead of reviewing site suggestions)

 

It's more an "irritation or an "inconvenience"" than a "prejudice", no one webmaster is going to be singled out and punished for not knowing better, but, because it's so rare, a webmaster that consistantly submits a proper title/description (by following our guidelines), is bound to get noticed by an editor who works in that area, , and I, personally, keep an eye out for that type of webmaster out of appreciation. That's really the only time, I can think of, that a webmaster might get noticed (other than multiple submissions of the same site).

 

Most of the Regional sites are either commercial or informational. If they offer online shopping and also have a walkin business, they would most likely quaify to be listed in both Shopping (a topical category) and in their city/locality within Regional. So, really, some commercial sites have a big advantage over non-commercial sites.

 

There are so many categories in the Directory that it is not surprising that so many people get confused about where to suggest a site. There is a Topical part of the Directory called "Shopping" which is massive, but, within the Regional part of the Directory, each locality/city (depending on how many sites there are) may also have the subcategory "Shopping" under each city.

 

Good post, .

[Baufi]

pdub, crowbar good posts, thank you.

 

I wonder about the spamming, what do you consider spamming, is it someone submitting to more than one category, submitting once a week or once a month?

 

Could a lot of the spamming problem be solved by allowing the submitters to understand what happend to their submissions?

 

People submitting their sites to ODP do that because they understand the value of OPD is it simple as that and if someone submits his/her site to a category and than 3-6 months later it still haven't showed up it might mean that either it was not accepted because the category choosen was wrong, it was deleted, it just isn't acceptable to ODP or for any other reason that there could be for it not to be listed yet.

 

The same person is very likely to try to submit it again, to a different category, different title and description or change what ever he/she might have 'thought' was the reason.

 

Now I don't know what tools you do have in the back but I wonder if it would really be that difficult to allow sumbitters to know something about their submission, if it was wrongly placed, has been deleted or just is still sitting in the que waiting for someone to review it.

 

I understand that all of this might be a lot of work to do but that basically is what it takes to build a great directory, a lot of work.

 

After I started to look better into this I can see that if I was submitting site to ODP I would run into a problem, probably submit to often and very likely to the wrong category and maybe without never knowing that I was.

 

If I decided to create a site to sell books about circle dancing I would try to follow the submission guidelines and would search for 'Circle dancing books' and guess what, I would end up in Eric the bun's new category http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=Circle+dancing+books

 

As I believe I did follow the guidelines I would submit it, it would not get listed so I would submit it again, maybe somewhere else but still close to there and that would make me a spammer I guess

[crowbar]

I wonder about the spamming, what do you consider spamming, is it someone submitting to more than one category, submitting once a week or once a month?

 

That's another area of miscommunication. A normal person automatically considers "spamming" means the kind of spamming you get in your e-mail everyday, viagra, porn sites, unwanted offers, and opportunities to get filthy rich by helping some diplomat sneak out of his country with millions. (most of which you'll get yourself) .

 

For editors, spamming the Directory covers much more:

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/spamming.html

 

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#notinclude

 

Submitting any of these is considered spamming, I believe.

 

Site status reports is what every site owner would like. Why? Curiosity. They want to know if the suggestion is there waiting. Perfectly normal.

 

So, I tell you, "Yep, it's there", and.... what will you do with that information, how has that helped you? Multiply that by hundreds of thousands of requests, and you can see that answering just that one question would help neither the editors(who would spend all their editing time doing it), nor the requester (because it changes nothing) .

 

The next questions would be, "When will it be listed? How can I talk to the editor about it? Why was it rejected? (if it was) How can I make it acceptable? Why is that site listed, but mine isn't? How can I file an abuse report against that editor? Why can't I see what the editor wrote in the editor notes?

 

The answers to all of these questions creates a debate that will waste countless editing hours and will still not change the status of the site suggestion, because we're not a listing service for site owners (as much as most people might like us to be), .

 

There are very honest, legitimate webmasters and seo folks out there, but, it's a cut throat industry and there are many not so honest ones out there. The latter will use any means available to use black seo tricks to get an armlock advantage over the honest ones and regular mom & pop sites who know nothing about the web.

 

Those kind of characters would love to have this kind of information as a tool to gage their success or failure. Not providing them with it protects both you and the Directory, .

 

People submitting their sites to ODP do that because they understand the value of OPD is it simple as that and if someone submits his/her site to a category and than 3-6 months later it still haven't showed up it might mean that either it was not accepted because the category choosen was wrong, it was deleted, it just isn't acceptable to ODP or for any other reason that there could be for it not to be listed yet.

 

We all understand that site suggesters consider a listing in the ODP as essential, but, the value you refer to was created by our current system, I believe. Honestly, the most likely reason a site hasn't been listed is much less ominous, , an editor just hasn't reviewed it yet.

 

Let me ask you something. If you were an editor, and you had 10,000 site suggestions waiting, which one of those equally important sites would you choose to review? The oldest? the newest? the ones in a certain category? a certain type of site, like a real estate , education, or business sites? maybe all the sites in one city?

 

Those are the sort of choices an editor has, so it's very random, depending on what our interests are, and whether we're working on a project or not, . Every site is on the same level playing field and has an equal opportunity of being reviewed, but some categories are very unpleasant to work in because the type of sites submitted are sites that need a lot of investigation before we list them.

 

A government or educational site is pretty trustworthy and straight forward to list, but a real estate or travel site are known for attempting multiple listings using multiple tricks, so they need to be investigated in order to be fair to the honest site suggesters that they are trying to get an advantage over.

[Eric-the-Bun]

If I decided to create a site to sell books about circle dancing I would try to follow the submission guidelines and would search for 'Circle dancing books' and guess what, I would end up in Eric the bun's new category http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/searc...+dancing+books

This is a common occurance in many niche categories and the local editors forward the sites to the appropriate place. Personally I would understand someone reasoning that as a niche CD category that would be the closest fit and ignoring the fact that it is a shopping site.

 

A new niche category in one area can give rise to an equivalent new one in another area as an editor trying to fill a category sends sites 'unsuitable' for one area to the right place.

 

regards