Multiple submissions to DMOZ? - Page 3

edbarton · 11-05-2003, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnScott

Bitching

I believe the word you are looking for is Biatching

webmastery · 11-05-2003, 12:52 PM

http://editors.dmoz.org/editors/editunrev2.cgi

What is the meaning of the appearance of that URL in a log file?

edbarton · 11-05-2003, 01:09 PM

And in the spirit of things

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...=Google+Search

**John Scott** · 11-05-2003, 01:41 PM

Phil,

What it comes down to is DMOZ's failure to live up to expectations. Think about why the ODP was started.

It was started because Yahoo wasn't able to keep up. DMOZ Why do you think they own the domain www.newhoo.com ?

According to the principle that started the whole ODP, if a directory cannot keep up with the growth of the Internet, it's a failure.

Well, according to that principle, the ODP has failed.

Fruit & Veg · 11-05-2003, 03:12 PM

I appreciate that DMOZ is doing it's best, but the main problem is that each category needs an 'expert'. The experts are usually experts because they work in that particular field. So DMOZ not only needs to find expert editors to run categories, it also needs to find 'independent' expert editors that will run a category in their spare time.

I applied to a category that I work in - I admitted it, produced the urls I work for, etc - and was refused (I went over the application with a fine tooth comb, so I wasn't refused for spelin erorrs, etc). I don't mind, it's written in the T&C, but this does cut out a lot of willing editors that are being prejudged to be biased even before they've done anything biased.

It could help the DMOZ if they are willing to accept that there are a few people out there that are just willing to help. Wouldn't it be an easier job for a Meta to overlook 20 editors for bias than running 20 categories completely?

'According to the principle that started the whole ODP, if a directory cannot keep up with the growth of the Internet, it's a failure' - ummm, yeah, OK.

check out - http://www.dmoz.org/about.html - 'Instead of fighting the explosive growth of the Internet, the Open Directory provides the means for the Internet to organize itself. '

It's not perfect, I'm sure every person in existence could tell you that, but failed? I think you're having a laugh.

**John Scott** · 11-05-2003, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fruit & Veg

It's not perfect, I'm sure every person in existence could tell you that, but failed? I think you're having a laugh.

How often do you use it?

PhilC · 11-05-2003, 03:29 PM

There isn't a human edited directory that can possibly succeed according to that principle. DMOZ has done better at it than any other though.

I've been thinking about directories a little bit and wondering if some of the hands-on parts could be automated. For instance, all the main directories (DMOZ, Yahoo!, and the smaller ones) rely on 2 sources of new sites - (1) submissions and (2) editors finding them. Submissions are ok but so many sites aren't submitted - most sites aren't submitted to the smaller ones. There are many editors in the various directories who don't go looking for new sites. They just deal with submissions and for most categories, there aren't that many of them. It means that many active editors don't actually do very much, but they would do more if more sites were submitted to their cats.

But it seems to me that it wouldn't be difficult to automate the finding of sites by a crawler. It would still require the hands-on editing of titles, descriptions and, to some extent, the category for each site, but the last one could partially automated.

Another improvement which would help DMOZ and any other 'open' directory is to allow good editors to edit much larger parts of the directory, if not the whole of it. They do have such editorial levels (with DMOZ, they are Editall and Meta) but only a comparitively few people are given it. That may be a mistake and speaks to the view that a comparitively few people prefer to keep what power they have to themselves. That wouldn't normally be a bad thing, but in the case of these open directories, it certainly hinders progress.

An immediately obvious problem with that idea is that there is no way to prevent people from performing their own agenda once they get the power to edit large parts of a large directory. When the directory is quite small, it would be easy to control but, as the directory grew larger and larger, it would be very difficult, though not impossible, to control.

Anyway....they are just a few thoughts.

Fruit & Veg · 11-05-2003, 03:41 PM

a link checking tool would help get rid of the deadwood for starters.

There's a search engine called Goggle or something, that uses ODP I think.

**John Scott** · 11-05-2003, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fruit & Veg

There's a search engine called Goggle or something, that uses ODP I think.

LOL. Yes, it's here: http://directory.google.com/

How often do you use it?

PhilC · 11-05-2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webmastery

What is the meaning of the appearance of that URL in a log file?

I haven't studied it but, judging by the URL, it looks like a visit from an editor who's doing a revue of the site.

PhilC · 11-05-2003, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fruit & Veg

a link checking tool would help get rid of the deadwood for starters.

Dunno where that comment came from but....

DMOZ does use a link checking tool that identifies broken links. It informs editors of broken links but doesn't automatically remove them. They prefer to find out if a site has changed URLs, which sometimes happens, and if it has, keep the listing with the new URL. Simply deleting a listing because the link is broken is not wanted over there. If the site can't be found, it gets deleted of course.