Should DMOZ be regulated?

Thats what discussion forums are all about I love to learn new things - there are many people in the world who know more than me about the net and i hope to learn from them.

You never did tell me ya name! ... Im Jessica - like you didn't guess

My actual name is Veto...
No, it's Jef.

nice to meet you jeff

Correct. One very important part of the project is it overall aims and objective and in all fairness none of the aims include anything about including submitted sites 'quick fast'. While the directory grows for the user it is on the right path and no junctions are required for any reason. In other words there is no need to speed up how quick sites are added from the suggestion pool. The only people that want them processed quickly is the webmaster/company and they are not why we edit.

As for the charging... completely 100% (if not 1000000000%) against the motives of the project and would not happen under any circumstance. The backbone of the project is it non-commercialism and it is that that makes it so successful for the user.

A result of charging for inclusion would instantly give financial bias and motives to the operation of the directory.

Start charging and every single editor I know would leave within 10 minutes of the announcement.

you mention the user.... but exactly who is the DMOZ's target user group?


See one of the problems i noticed is that the main people who visit DMOZ are the webmasters trying to get their sites listed.

Obviously people don't use DMOZ like they would use google - so the only benefit of the dmoz directory if for webmasters.

So lets look at the webmasters need - quick registration / listings.... A good amount if traffic.... But as you just said - the needs of the "actual" users are not important.

Thats where DMOZ goes wrong. The directory works because of ther webmasters trying to get listed - not because of the users trying to find sites.


If anything this is the whole point. Signed post

Volunteer Regional Editor

The word of DMOZ - no... the word of an editor.... the simple fact is - any business emplyee would never reply to a post with the phrase...

In other words there is no need to speed up how quick sites are added from the suggestion pool. The only people that want them processed quickly is the webmaster/company and they are not why we edit.

Because they would knoe who their target market is.

Your kidding right? If users don't use the directory then there would be no point in webmasters trying to get in. There are plenty of ways to get links without getting into DMOZ.

Most of the users who benefit from ODP come from the downstream data users and yes google happens to be one of them. I have a copy of the ODP within many of my sites and they are rather busy sites even though it is an exact copy of thousands of other sites who also include ODP data on their sites.

If users benefit from the Google directory (and yes thousands upon thousands of people use the directory within google) then we, as editors, are pleased that our work is of benefit from the people who are navigating down to find a site by category. That is one of our aims.



Thats for Yahoo to worry about.



I don't see that DMOZ is going wrong. It list sites. It does exactly what it says on the tin. As for the directory going wrong because webmasters can't get in no-one cares. Sorry but that is the hard truth and respectfully this is the one hard facts that gives editors a bad name allbeit an unjustified bad name.

You see and editor saying "I don't care about you - I don't care about your site" and you think that this is bad customer service and that we owe you something more. The fact is a submission is a 'suggestion'. It's a 'heads up' that a site exists. It is NOT an application for a listing. I am a webmaster and I can sympathise with others who want to get their site listed but 'as an ODP editor' that is not my concern.

How would you feel if I asked you to add my 'sponge cake menu' to YOUR menu hobby site and then got really annoyed with you just because YOU decided that it was not what YOU wanted on YOUR site.

ODP is for the users and not the webmaster. Until that fact can be understood no-one will ever get any closer to understanding why dmoz DOES work and continues to work in a very big way. I say again that it only 'don't work' for the webmasters.

Market? Market? DMOZ is not a marketing company or site. It is not business promotion tool. It don't care if your business is going to calapse tomorrow because we delay in your site being listed. I am damn sure I don't care and I will not loose one ounce of sleep (not as an editor anyway).

The simple fact is (and anyone who is reading this can take this how they like) ANY site that relies that heavily on a listing in DMOZ to suceed seriously needs to address their business model.

A listing in DMOZ, if it happens, should be treated as nothing more than a pat on the back that an editor felt your site was of use to our users.

Lol - webmasters do not try and get into DMOZ because of the huge amounts of traffic it is going to send to their sites..... The simple fact is, people do not use directories... they use search engines.

Webmasters.... use directories. - theres a big big difference.

True there are plenty of other ways to get links - but how else can you get a link in google directory? Well you can't can you - not without being in DMOZ....

A single link in DMOZ gives you an average PR link on a lot of sites... these sites covering multiple IP blocks, the way google, yahoo and msn like their backlinks...... No webmaster is going to miss an opportunity like that (not if their in their right mind anyway.)



This is my whole point - your an editor... a VOLUNTEER editor... your giving your voice as the voice of DMOZ... and everyones going to take it as that as gospal.

There isn't a single successful business in the world that would have given that response.



Indeed it does... but where does it say on the tin that the editors have the right to be rude to you and 99% of the time be unhelpful.....

That must be in the small print huh?

Crappy sites shouldn't get into the directory... agreed. If a site doesn't meet the standards then it has no means being there... thats not the argument. But you did make a good point....



Yea.. you guys just don't care...... thats why DMOZ isn't the force it could be. Ive seen websites not make the directory because of the person that submitted it.... (and editors admit this) ive seen sites removed because a new editor took over and the site they removed was in direct competition with them.... all you editors care about is looking after nuumber 1 - you don't care what reflection your comments have upon DMOZ.

Your whole comments have justified all my posts above... the same "i just don't give a damn attitude" that you guys always give.

good analogy witht he sponge cake thing - but really not relevant.....



I think until the editors understand who their user base is - nothing is ever going to change.



lets re-read what i said....



where does that say anything about dmoz being a marketing tool? or a marketing company? nowhere.

I was refering to dmoz's user base.....

You havn't directly answered anything regarding my posts yet you have quoted them.....

To end with - we do agree on one thing -



I couldn't agree more. I seen a comical post on the forums not so long ago saying he was gonna have to close his site down if he didn't get listed.....

Well it is cleary a case of having to agree to disagree. I know why I edit as do I also know why other editor edit and none of them focus on the needs of the webmaster - they are a by-product of the website but not part of 'our' equasion.



I think somewhere there was even the 'my family is that poor we are falling off the bread line and if you don't list us we will loose our house and our kids will go hungry'.

Of course legal threats are always ripe simply because a site don't get listed. <editor hat off> I don't normally refer directly to sites but you should pop over to Resource Zone and check out messages that refer to osca-cars.co.uk and onestopcaradvice.co.uk - this is one of the persistent pain in the arses but does make funny reading all the same.

See http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7163
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9446
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10101
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21914
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?p=115621

<editor hat back on>

Lol - i bet you hear some great stories

what exactly makes dmoz editors qualified for their jobs? Just a few questions and they pass the test?

what happens if your site is rejected by a not so good editor? isnt that tragic?

Im obviously missing your point?

Nobody is saying 5the DMOZ editors are bad.......

I am totally out of point here.
I was just wondering about all these, hence the questions.

It does seem to go a bit deeper than a couple of questions... I.e the y look into your experiences online .....

if you7r site is rejected by a not so good editor... well then they shouldn't have made it through the critique part. Thats up to dmoz to decide.

There cannot be good editors and bad editors for a project to be successful. They all need to be of the same standard......

DMOZ can't be regulated.
It is open to abuse
It is abused
It is not the fault of DMOZ

DMOZ like so many powerful organisations and people totally lacks humility.

If one complaint is (IMHO) voiced more than any other its the length of time it takes to get a site recognised. eg I submitted a site months ago. where is it in the queue ? I have no idea.

A few more automated scripts would go a long way in helping. a way for people to log in and check on the progress of their submission
That way peoples concerns that they are being ignored could be alleviated. and a lot less agro would be generated.