Is it are really to get into DMOZ?

[Mia]

Originally Posted by Jack_Carry2003

I have source which has about 30 000 uniques images.
It's the largest collection in the world and all it is a free.
There are some other sites which has no thas 3 - 5 thousands.

More than 2 years I can't to get into DMOZ

What do you think about it?

I'm really not certain that DMOZ has even been actively edited in about 2 or more years. That might be part of the problem. Last I heard, they were on the chopping block up for sale.

[Birdie]

What utter rubbish. Where did you get your information from? or do you just make it up?

Originally Posted by Mia

I'm really not certain that DMOZ has even been actively edited in about 2 or more years.

DMOZ is adding >2000 new sites a week, making it the fastest growing directory on the www!

Last I heard, they were on the chopping block up for sale.

There were a couple of reports, but why could you not check your facts first before making a comment. It was a rumor started by shoemoney who has a track record of making things up about DMOZ ....

[Mia]

Originally Posted by Birdie

What utter rubbish. Where did you get your information from? or do you just make it up?
DMOZ is adding >2000 new sites a week, making it the fastest growing directory on the www!There were a couple of reports, but why could you not check your facts first before making a comment. It was a rumor started by shoemoney who has a track record of making things up about DMOZ ....

Eek.. Sounds like I pissed off another DMOZ editor.

Let's review. There are several categories where the same site is listed more than once. Same description, same URL, etc.

There are several dead sites.

There are several sites in irrelevant categories.

No, I'm not going to waste time posting specific examples. Visit Dmoz.org and search for yourself, they're not hard to find.

Where did I get my information? From the source. Did I make it up? No.

2000 duplicate sites? Seems to me that they should concentrate on editing the ones they have. The duplicates, the dead ones, and the irrelevant ones.

That's what I am taking issue with.

I'm not a shoemoney groupie. Rumor or not, as I recall, I said, "last I heard". Not read, "heard."

And I did not hear it from Jeremy. In fact, this is the first I've heard of Jeremy having anything to do with that particular rumor mill.

Apparently by your own admission, it would appear that quality, not quantity is the new direction for "the internet brain". That my friend is what I take issue with.

The biggest? Perhaps. The best? Hardly.

Why do you guys get so defensive when someone offers up some constructive criticism?

[Birdie]

I not an editor.

What directory does not have dead sites listed? DMOZ is still the fastest growing. Download successive RDF dumps and see the number of new sites added.

PLEASE, show us ONE place where DMOZ being mentioned for sale that does NOT quote shoemoney as the source.

[jim_noble]

There are several categories where the same site is listed more than once. Same description, same URL, etc.

I'm sure there are. Not all editing is done with the category visible and there are several ways that duplicates (or more) can be listed accidentally in the same category. Provided that the website is listable and is listed in the right place, I don't see that duplicates are a major problem for the surfer.

Don't forget that very few cats have dedicated editors so mirrors and fraternal mirrors aren't always spotted either .

There are several dead sites.

ROFLMA. I'm sure there are a lot more than that. However, it does take a finite time for our robots to get around the whole directory - and they're going to have problems spotting the "Brenda and Terry thank our past clients but we have now retired" ones anyway.

There are several sites in irrelevant categories.

Sure there are. Category structures are amended over the years, editors make mistakes (gasp!) and domain names are repurposed from time to time. Unless a human being inspects each listing these aren't likely to be found - unless surfers tell us about them by using the 'update listing' link that's at the top of the category page. You might choose not to do that but others do.

2000 duplicate sites? Seems to me that they should concentrate on editing the ones they have. The duplicates, the dead ones, and the irrelevant ones.

It really isn't realistic to expect a few thousand editors to manually inspect a few million listings on a regular basis - particularly when only a thousand do the majority of the work (Pareto rulez). IMHO, it's better to concentrate on growing the directory as new topics emerge. If we followed your view, there wouldn't be a 2012 Olympic Games category for example .

In summary, of course there are QC issues. It's a large directory, so there are going to be quite a few of them: Attempting to achieve perfection would have a poor cost/benefit ration IMHO. Some surfers will love ODP despite it's flaws. Those who demand perfection would be better served elsewhere (where is that BTW?).

[Mia]

Originally Posted by Birdie

I not an editor.

em K...

What directory does not have dead sites listed? DMOZ is still the fastest growing. Download successive RDF dumps and see the number of new sites added.

Again, its about quality, not the quantity.

PLEASE, show us ONE place where DMOZ being mentioned for sale that does NOT quote shoemoney as the source.

Heard, not read. No, Jeremy was not the source either.

[johnnywww]

DMOZ headaches again!? Just submit and forget about it, it wont make or break you! If you are lucky with the category editor, your submission will be reviewed in a few months!

[iamyri]

My sites didn't wait for a long time. One about 1 month, another about 2 weeks.
If you wait for more than 1 month submit your site to another area. Editors there are different. In my case it helped when one of my sites waited for very long time (2 months or so).

[msright1981]

LOL. Either become and editor or find an editor. Else you got no luck