- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Lol, there are at least a couple thousand decent gaming sites out there, probably more. I really don’t think they will ever all get listed. The lists per category are fairly short in all categories.
@Dominique 226010 wrote:
Lol, there are at least a couple thousand decent gaming sites out there, probably more. I really don’t think they will ever all get listed. The lists per category are fairly short in all categories.
It can’t be that difficult can it? Heck last I had seen more than a few “regulars” have 2, 3, 4 + sites listed each – must be pretty simple. :dajudge:
It’s quite simple to apply. It’s hard to attract the attention of a volunteer. Too many sites, not enough volunteers.
I think most sites in there offer extensive info, but some of them you got to wonder what use they are to anyone.
Personally, I would want to know that a site is stable, updated, and isn’t the same thing you find thousands of times on the same topic.
At one time I was thinking of creating a search engine that only delivered top quality results, and I got to thinking how top quality can mean a lot of things to a lot of people.
I eventually abandoned the idea totally because it seemed an almost impossible task.
I guess that is what DMOZ is intended to be. Except I have never met anyone who actually uses it for searches.
I think DMOZ needs better guide lines, as in a site has to have been updated every xxxx for a period of xxxx. Whatever it attempts to cover should be covered extensively, so that it would be a good resource. Of course all the content would have to be unique, and I agree that sites that hurt your eyes with an excess of flashing banners shouldn’t be listed. And there should probably be a lot of other criteria.
I think the guidelines are way too vague.
As far as having a million sites listed for a topic, that makes it the same as google then, and where on earth are they going to find enough volunteers to review them all.
@Dominique 226019 wrote:
I have never met anyone who actually uses it for searches.[/quote]
Hence my comment “most webmasters do not want a link in dmoz because they think the dmoz listing will bring them lots of traffic! They do it because it boost their Google rankings and potentially their pocket-books if things go their way!”
@Dominique 226019 wrote:
As far as having a million sites listed for a topic, that makes it the same as google then, and where on earth are they going to find enough volunteers to review them all.
‘Million’ wasn’t a realistic expectation – it was merely meant to demonstrate that if the site(s) meet all the guidelines, as you had suggested, then IMO the site should be granted a listing. Further, I would propose that if sites meeting all the guildelines were being turned away that should clearly serve as an indicator that something is amiss.
Maybe just maybe better days are ahead.
As I have said here, there and everywhere. If you feel that the directory could be improved, become part of the solution and apply to become an editor.
If some individuals put half the amount of their energy and effort in discrediting the directory into an application to become an editor. Then you would find more volunteer editors, able to dedicate their spare time into improving the directory as a resource.
Better days will be ahead when there are enough volunteers to actually review all submissions.
And IMO, there shouldn’t be more sites listed, but fewer and better categorized ones.
What good is a directory that lists 100 sites that are almost identical in content? A directory should provide a finite number of sites per category, making it easy for users to see what they are looking for. All these sites should meet a high quality standard. X number of them with the highest quality score should be admitted.
That’s my opinion of how it should be. But even that cannot be accomplished unless there are a lot more volunteers.
Admitting all sites that meet vague standards like you propose is not only counterproductive to what the idea of a quality directory should be, it would take so much man power that it could never be achieved.
And finally, why don’t you volunteer and straighten some of it out in a hands-on manner, in a way that is productive?
Become an editor… but become an editor for the right reasons, because you are passionate about a category in DMOZ and feel that your experience, knowledge, and skills could benefit the ODP.
@Dominique 226044 wrote:
And IMO, there shouldn’t be more sites listed, but fewer and better categorized ones.
I think that might be in direct conflict with the projects mission, but I reckon if thats truly your opinion then you might wish to consider requesting that your 3-4 listings are all removed.
@Dominique 226044 wrote:
Admitting all sites that meet vague standards like you propose is not only counterproductive to what the idea of a quality directory should be, it would take so much man power that it could never be achieved.
I didn’t write the standards – all I am saying is if a site meets the standards for a listing then it should get a listing. If you disagree with that, then your issue isn’t with me, its with yourself.
I don’t have an issue either way, I thought we were discussing the way DMOZ works, and what could be better.
You would like to see it as is, with the current guidelines, but with more editors so more sites would get reviewed.
I would like to see it changed, with categories that are more niche and so it could do justice to very focussed, smaller sites too. And I would like to see only the very best informational sites in there.
Personally, it gives me pride in my work that I can be listed there. I think it’s discouraging when one applies and applies and can’t get reviewed. I took the rejections as motivation to improve my sites.
I wouldn’t want to be a gambling editor though if I decided to join. I would edit in an area that interests me and where I have base knowledge but would like to spend time learning more. That way it could be like a hobby and fun. Something like gardening. But – I don’t have the time.
@Dominique 226050 wrote:
I don’t have an issue either way, I thought we were discussing the way DMOZ works, and what could be better.
You would like to see it as is, with the current guidelines, but with more editors so more sites would get reviewed.
I would like to see it changed, with categories that are more niche and so it could do justice to very focussed, smaller sites too. And I would like to see only the very best informational sites in there.
Personally, it gives me pride in my work that I can be listed there. I think it’s discouraging when one applies and applies and can’t get reviewed. I took the rejections as motivation to improve my sites.
I wouldn’t want to be a gambling editor though if I decided to join. I would edit in an area that interests me and where I have base knowledge but would like to spend time learning more. That way it could be like a hobby and fun. Something like gardening. But – I don’t have the time.
Well said Dom, and I do think that as DMOZ ages, it will become further niched. Editing in an area which you have a keen interest in as a hobby, or do it for fun, is it a great way to go.
Some people say its hard to become an editor, but I was rejected a couple of times, and probably rightly so. On my 3rd-4th application, taking into account feedback from editors I made it as an editor.
DMOZ wants more editors, but I would say not self interested applications.
