DMOZ still having issues

All,

I've been monitoring DMOZ for almost 2 months now and the submission
feature is still turned off. I believe its because they are so backed
up, that it will take 3 - 5 months until they can clear the backlog.
It's simply too much demand and not enough editors. The only hope you
have of submitting a site would be to sign up half the planet as a DMOZ
editor and start reviewing websites.

Just be patient!

Michael
http://www.marketingscoop.com

"mfleischner" wrote ...

I've been monitoring DMOZ for almost 2 months now and the submission
feature is still turned off. I believe its because they are so backed
up, that it will take 3 - 5 months until they can clear the backlog.
It's simply too much demand and not enough editors. The only hope you
have of submitting a site would be to sign up half the planet as a DMOZ
editor and start reviewing websites.

Worse than that; it's a hardware recovery problem - apparently someone at
AOL servers failed to backup, just before a crash.
But the details may have changed in the telling ;o)
--

Andrew
Editor
http://www.seo2seo.com/

"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3 (AT) heenan (DOT) net> wrote

"mfleischner" wrote ...
I've been monitoring DMOZ for almost 2 months now and the submission
feature is still turned off. I believe its because they are so backed
up, that it will take 3 - 5 months until they can clear the backlog.
It's simply too much demand and not enough editors. The only hope you
have of submitting a site would be to sign up half the planet as a DMOZ
editor and start reviewing websites.

Worse than that; it's a hardware recovery problem - apparently someone at
AOL servers failed to backup, just before a crash.
But the details may have changed in the telling ;o)

I've heard that they have lost all sites that were
waiting to be reviewed, so all those people
who have submitted in the past 12 months and
who were told to be patient and not re-submit
are stuffed.

--
T.J.
http://www.uksmallbusinessdirectory.co.uk

mfleischner a écrit :

DMOZ? What is DMOZ?

--
Fred

canadafred wrote:

mfleischner a écrit :

DMOZ? What is DMOZ?

What is Google good for? If not answering this question?

"T.J." wrote:

"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3 (AT) heenan (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:U23fh.2202$KT2.803 (AT) newsfe2-win (DOT) ntli.net...
"mfleischner" wrote ...
I've been monitoring DMOZ for almost 2 months now and the submission
feature is still turned off. I believe its because they are so backed
up, that it will take 3 - 5 months until they can clear the backlog.
It's simply too much demand and not enough editors. The only hope you
have of submitting a site would be to sign up half the planet as a DMOZ
editor and start reviewing websites.

Worse than that; it's a hardware recovery problem - apparently someone at
AOL servers failed to backup, just before a crash.
But the details may have changed in the telling ;o)

I've heard that they have lost all sites that were
waiting to be reviewed, so all those people
who have submitted in the past 12 months and
who were told to be patient and not re-submit
are stuffed.

DMOZ is having problems, and may never come online again.

Beyond the hardware issues, there is the issue o popularity and
relevance.

First, there is the "unfriendliness" of the presentation of data to the
public. The data structure and page layout are not easy to follow,
unless you've taught yourself how. There are better layouts available,
and better ways to present such informational adjuncts as related cats
and pointers up and down the tree. There are more colours than acid
green and purple.

Also, there is the matter of keyword tagging. DMOZ could profit by
adding such a field. I think this is important. It bridges the gap
between algo-driven and human-driven lists. To ensure consistency, the
keyword tags shold be drawn from a thesaurus database (as previously
noted), not made up on the spot by editors.

Finally, i think the worst aspect of the DMOZ interface as it now stands
is the mindless attempt to force bi-valent logic on sites: They are
either "informational" or "shopping" -- and cannot be both -- NOT. They
must fall into one cat or another, never two or three or four cats --
NOT.

Anti-deep-linking policies and bi-valent logic are what have led to the
ODP being replaced in value by algo sites like google.

ODP has always had a vaguely "punishing" attitude toward sites run by
polymaths, but google treats each page as a unique window into the
interests of the polymath and does not discriminate against such pages.

Example: if i want information on evil eye customs and beliefs, i can go
to google and find a couple of really good sites (plus wiki) in the top
three -- but at ODP, one of those sites (mine, as it turns out :-)) was
DELETED because some editor considered it a deep-link and removed it.
Who loses? The ODP user, of course, who is deprived of a link to one of
the three most popular and linked-to sites on the evil eye.

Why was it considered a deeplink? Probably because back in the days of
expensive domain hosting, i set up the equivalent of 20 different sites
on widely varying topics at one domain name. Years ago my site was
considered "approved for deeplinking" by someone high up at the ODP, but
as time went on, this approval was forgotten, -- and now the ODP won't
link to all of my sub-sites, despite their informational value.

But google will link to them. Ergo, google is a better help to the
searcher for information and it also provides a better reward to
polymaths such as myself who provide free educational pages to the
public.

Is there a need for the ODP? Yes.

Why? Because google is vulnerable to cloaking, link-farming, hidden
text, and other "black hat SEO" tricks -- but the ODP is not.

I think the ODP's best chance for survival is to get bought by google.
If it were provided with a modest budget for editorial oversight, and
messages were sent to all former editors inviting them back, and there
was some serious updating to the interfaces, both backend and frontend,
the ODP would be the perfect accompaniemnt to google's algo.

An unlikely scenario, sure, but that's how i see it.

cat yronwode, polymath:

http://luckymojo.com/blues.html blues lyrics and hoodoo
http://luckymojo.com/evileye.html the evil eye belief
http://luckymojo.com/sacredland.html sacred geometry and architecture
http://luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html African American folk magic

catherine yronwode schreef:

"T.J." wrote:
"Andrew Heenan" <andrew3 (AT) heenan (DOT) net> wrote in message
news:U23fh.2202$KT2.803 (AT) newsfe2-win (DOT) ntli.net...
"mfleischner" wrote ...
I've been monitoring DMOZ for almost 2 months now and the submission
feature is still turned off. I believe its because they are so backed
up, that it will take 3 - 5 months until they can clear the backlog.
It's simply too much demand and not enough editors. The only hope you
have of submitting a site would be to sign up half the planet as a DMOZ
editor and start reviewing websites.
Worse than that; it's a hardware recovery problem - apparently someone at
AOL servers failed to backup, just before a crash.
But the details may have changed in the telling ;o)
I've heard that they have lost all sites that were
waiting to be reviewed, so all those people
who have submitted in the past 12 months and
who were told to be patient and not re-submit
are stuffed.

DMOZ is having problems, and may never come online again.

Let me briefly answer this one:

Why? Because google is vulnerable to cloaking, link-farming, hidden
text, and other "black hat SEO" tricks -- but the ODP is not.

The ODP, is more vulnerable than Google will ever be.


--
Website Design: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/
Being found: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/being-found.html
Css templates: http://vision2form.nl/websitedesign/css-templates.html

"catherine yronwode" wrote...

DMOZ is having problems, ... but that's how i see it.

Now that was what I call a comprehensive ODP-bash.

Just missed the pint that ODP is desiogned neither for webmasters nor for
'users' - otherwise, great fun!
--

Andrew
Editor
http://www.seo2seo.com/

catherine yronwode wrote:

Finally, i think the worst aspect of the DMOZ interface as it now stands
is the mindless attempt to force bi-valent logic on sites: They are
either "informational" or "shopping" -- and cannot be both -- NOT. They
must fall into one cat or another, never two or three or four cats --
NOT.

Anti-deep-linking policies and bi-valent logic are what have led to the
ODP being replaced in value by algo sites like google.

Thank you Catherine. I have been saying this too, for quite a while.
Pigeon hole thinkers at ODP almost always reply "but ODP is
a directory!" ........as if that was supposed to somehow prove that
each website on the net should only have one identity.

Their bi-valent logic (as you put it) inevitably ends up *hiding*
information.
Even within their shopping category, stores are forced to choose a
single
identity. Ski shops in the Rocky Mountains typically sell white water
rafting
and kayaking equipment in summer (snow is a problem in July).
But ski shops, in ODP, cannot be associated with river running.

In other words, if you used ODP as an information source, you would
conclude no white water rafting equipment was available in
any ski town any where in the USA. This goes beyond bad policy.
This is absurd. For an absurd policy to have (or have had) so much
power is borderline insane.

On 11 Dec 2006 19:30:00 -0800, "darnel" <Sandy.Pittendrigh (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
wrote:

catherine yronwode wrote:

Finally, i think the worst aspect of the DMOZ interface as it now stands
is the mindless attempt to force bi-valent logic on sites: They are
either "informational" or "shopping" -- and cannot be both -- NOT. They
must fall into one cat or another, never two or three or four cats --
NOT.

Anti-deep-linking policies and bi-valent logic are what have led to the
ODP being replaced in value by algo sites like google.


Thank you Catherine. I have been saying this too, for quite a while.
Pigeon hole thinkers at ODP almost always reply "but ODP is
a directory!" ........as if that was supposed to somehow prove that
each website on the net should only have one identity.

Their bi-valent logic (as you put it) inevitably ends up *hiding*
information.
Even within their shopping category, stores are forced to choose a
single
identity. Ski shops in the Rocky Mountains typically sell white water
rafting
and kayaking equipment in summer (snow is a problem in July).
But ski shops, in ODP, cannot be associated with river running.

In other words, if you used ODP as an information source, you would
conclude no white water rafting equipment was available in
any ski town any where in the USA. This goes beyond bad policy.
This is absurd. For an absurd policy to have (or have had) so much
power is borderline insane.

Right place, right time. Google needed something human-edited to act
as counterbalance for the inadequacies of their software-driven algos,
DMOZ just happened to be there. Now increasingly it just happens to
not be, which is kind of interesting.

BB
--
http://www.kruse.co.uk/seo-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/art-prints-sitemap.htm
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/lithographs.htm