One thing that DMOZ lacks, the main reason DMOZ comes under fire in my opinion, is a constitution. A clear, unambiguous statement of due process that includes checks and balances.
If a site is rejected, what is the recourse? Is a process available to the submitter to appeal that decision?
What was the reason for rejection? What are the valid reasons for rejection? Are these standards being applied to some sites while those same standards are being flagrantly ignored in other cases?
Shouldn't the approval/denial be up to more than one editor? In a community driven web directory, shouldn't the community be able to overrule the decision of one editor, no matter who that editor is?
What needs to be incorporated into the constitution of a DMOZ alternative?
I like the community driven aspect of things, but as with Digg, etc it opens itself to manipulation if the project becomes a success. What happens if your community is anti SEO like Digg - do SEO sites get the raw end of the stick? What happens if a clique group decents to up and leave causing an exodus of members? Your focus changes as the community does.
What consistutes the community? All the editors? All the members? Anyone who cares to join? What if no one votes regularly (I could get my mates to come along and over rule an otherwise sound decision)?
Not that I want to be Mr Negative, but having seen communities gone wild in gaming forums and so on, I just think there are a few unmanagable variables involved.
I dont see any reason why do not accept quality and well promoted web directories. There are tons of crap web blogs and junk sites listed there. I don't see why they are so strict with directories.
I dont see any reason why do not accept quality and well promoted web directories. There are tons of crap web blogs and junk sites listed there. I don't see why they are so strict with directories.
Because people submit junk.
Most reputable directories care about the value they offer to the reader.
Most webmasters are only looking for a cheap source of traffic, or SEO points to get people to click ads.
The two rarely go together because it is 2 different agendas
I like the community driven aspect of things, but as with Digg, etc it opens itself to manipulation if the project becomes a success. What happens if your community is anti SEO like Digg - do SEO sites get the raw end of the stick?
The problem as I see it with seo sites and blogs is that most, MOST, not all, are about the exact same subject. Google.
Same content, just arranged differently. And the sheer numbers of SEO blogs and sites is just repetitive information from 9 or 10 main writers, re written.
There are probably more SEO/Marketing blogs on the web, than anything else.
The web, talking about the web.
To people outside of this industry, it is boring, and they don't care.
Most directories want to attract the most amount of visitors, and the world of internet surfers is not looking for SEO information.
Most of the population don't even know what it means, and most SEO blogs, are speaking to industry professionals, they have to be, because my mom, and my girlfreind could care less, and they are the public.
There is not much original content when it comes to SEO. I am sure we can all name the points of subject matter without peeking. Then the rest is conjecture, speculation,and a ton of "How to get top 10 ranking in 2 weeks", like some kind of new diet craze.
So if I were a directory, being that everyone and their mother is an SEO professional (It's the new day trading) , how many of the same blogs, or sites do I want to include in a directory that is supposed to be diverse with informative content?
Out of a few hundred SEO blogs with adsense on them, when is it enough on the same directory?
Would you want 300 blogs about Hip Hop? Even Hip Hop is 30 years old, but there is only so much to say.
Rule number 4.
(Although it goes against my own situation)
Maybe if this is an issue, there should be a age qualification, to insure that submitted sites have built up enough appropriate and relevant content to offer a benefit to readers, to cut down on 10 day old 1 page sites.
Then there would be an incentive to build quality, and not just submit every new domain registration.
Main thing i'd like to c would be unbiased editors, fast editors and rejection reasons. I know this seems like hey i want to be in it but isn't it supposed to be the open directory ?When you c a crap site listed and yours left in the dust it's kind of deceitful.
__________________
List your items for free at Free Auctions(a free ebay alternative )
W3c valid tableless xhtml+css coder 25$ per page and up. CSS repair 10$ and up. With work examples.
Many of you guys don't know anything how DMOZ works... Saying this, saying that, but no real experience or examples. You don't have access to dmoz editors' forums, you really think it's dead and no-one sits there. It's a mistaken point of view.......
__________________
I work for the UK web design company.
Many of you guys don't know anything how DMOZ works... Saying this, saying that, but no real experience or examples. You don't have access to dmoz editors' forums, you really think it's dead and no-one sits there. It's a mistaken point of view.......
Actually several of us probably know more about DMOZ than you and many here are DMOZ editors and ex-editors.
Actually several of us probably know more about DMOZ than you and many here are DMOZ editors and ex-editors.
I'll be the first to admit, I never knew much about it, other than it was a highly sought after Directory to be in. It was only after my submission was approved that I started to notice all the hoopla concerning submissions and such.
It certainly is big concern to site owners. Those that have sites submitted, think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and those that don't, claim bias, favoritism, and mis management.
Most of it just seems like common sense, and not looking at it from the Directory's point of view, only their own, but, again, what do I know.
(kidding)
