Does the world still need DMOZ

[jdaw1]

In a different thread I have suggested how to recover the DMOZ data. But does the world still need DMOZ?

 

The internet grows by about 2 domain names per second. And the listed domains needed maintenance, even if only changes of description. Way back at the turn of the millennium editors were struggling to keep up with what then seemed to be a flood, but that now seems a mere trickle.

 

Humans might do it better, but we did it too slowly. I dislike the loss of data in the end of DMOZ, but believe that the time for a human-edited directory is now in the past.

[informator]

The data from dmoz is not lost.

 

I guess we never tried to list all sites, only some good of those that existed.

[pvgool]

> but believe that the time for a human-edited directory is now in the past.

That is your opinion.

There are ex-DMOZ editors that think it to be worthwhile to continue a human edited directory.

Only the future will tell us which opinion is correct.

[stillbuyvhs]

I only found out about the directory 2-3 years ago, and I found it useful.

 

Looking through search engine forums people have been asking that question about ALL directories for years now. I'm going to say "yes, we still need a DMOZ and a BoTW and a JoeAnt and many others." Directories may grow more slowly than search engines, but directories allow users to get highly relevant results for general topics, and their classification systems allow users to narrow their results more quickly and specifically than even the best clustering algorithms.

[denisnelson]

I did DMOZ for many years, enjoyed it and the chats with others :-)

I've also been at BOTW for a few years now, not as much fun as DMOZ, but at BOTW, I'm like a meta, so a much bigger playpen. Swings/Round-a-bouts. ;-D

[jdaw1]

The data from dmoz is not lost.

Good.

 

 

That is your opinion.

Sure. If you disagree, please engage with the two-per-second problem.

[stillbuyvhs]

What is the two-per-second problem? Are you referring to the large number of suggestions, or something else?

[informator]

The internet grows by about 2 domain names per second.

[stillbuyvhs]

Ah, yes. Thanks; it had been a week since I read the 1st post. Sorry!

[Elper]

Two per second would be a biggish problem if the directory had the intention of listing all sites... as far as I know, that has never been the aim.

[stillbuyvhs]

24 hours in a day X 60 minutes in an hour X 60 seconds in a minute X 2 domains in a second = 172,800 domains registered a day.

 

With 10,000 editors it should not be impossible to handle that many domain names; it's only about 20 a person. We've had that many people working in the past. Even if we can't handle so many new domains we can still create a useful, well-organized directory.

[arlarson]

But does the world still need DMOZ?

The world needs something like DMOZ. Is there a better form for a future DMOZ-type project? Probably, and if you are the one to come up with it you may be able to turn a tidy profit.

Humans might do it better' date=' but we did it too slowly.[/quote']

The data from dmoz is not lost.

DMOZ did exclude some junk, but for the most part the tendency was to err on the side of inclusivity. That presents a quality issue, but helps reduce the chance of self-serving editing. It does nothing to stop accusations of corruption and self-dealing by webmasters whose sites didn't make it into the directory due to a shortage of editors or due to the low quality of the omitted sites....

 

I think that a successful successor to dmoz will benefit from curating links, not simply indexing them. The "cooling" of sites was a step in that direction, but allowed for only two "cool" sites and created a nest of other issues.

There are ex-DMOZ editors that think it to be worthwhile to continue a human edited directory.

We're still a long way from having AI be good enough to substitute for competent, independent human review. But the successor will have to do something differently than was being done by AOL if it wants to regain even some of the influence and authority that DMOZ once lent to the web.

 

The remaining commercial directories seem to be experiencing even more difficulty with link rot, comprehensiveness and relevancy than did DMOZ on its worst day.

[revr]

The UK section of BOTW is really in trouble for link rot, so may sites that don't return at all.

 

DMOZ had and I hope Curlie will have effective tools to spot redirects and dead links.

[Jaas cellio]

With all of the crazy stories about purchased links, corrupt editors, and the huge delays in adding sites with no explanation, it seems DMOZ is on it's way to becoming more of a "bad neighborhood" than a trusted directory of websites. Of course, almost every SEO guide in the world suggests submission to DMOZ, but is that really a good idea anymore? I'm starting to think it's not worth the headache to get your site accepted, and it probably won't hold any weight at all in a few years. Anyone agree or disagree?

[informator]

Dmoz is gone, so no more headache for seo-people. (And dmoz was never intended to be used for seo anyway).

[Cyber Stampede]

> but believe that the time for a human-edited directory is now in the past.

That is your opinion.

There are ex-DMOZ editors that think it to be worthwhile to continue a human edited directory.

Only the future will tell us which opinion is correct.

I believe a directory with real human oversight will be valuable. What DMOZ had in place for many years was an asset as it insured that only relevant websites were allowed inclusion. The world wide web could use this type of directory again and I am sure it will pick up where it left off with many new valuable ad dons end users can benefit from.