 |
|
08-20-2005, 10:53 PM
|
 |
WebProWorld Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Loxahatchee, FL
Posts: 40
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cbp
Quote:
|
I was indeed listed in their directory back in 1999.
|
Are you sure it was for that URL?
According to the DMOZ notes attached to that URL, it was never listed.
CBP |
Unless I was drunk (which is entirely possible!) :) I am sure - it is the only URL I have ever had. (We incorporated in 1997) I am going waaaaaay back. When I stumbled on dmoz I thought it was a really cool idea and I submitted.
Ah the good 'ole days when getting a good rank in the engines was free and all you needed was good metas to magically appear.
__________________
Lead or follow......just get out of the way.
|
08-27-2005, 09:13 AM
|
 |
WebProWorld 1,000+ Club
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kajabbi N.W Queensland - (Outback)
Posts: 1,276
|
|
Is someone saying there is actually someone that lists sites at dmoz. . Nope, I do not believe it.
If you find anything of mine in there - get it out., I wouldnt be seen dead there ...
|
08-27-2005, 06:17 PM
|
 |
WebProWorld Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 89
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cbp
Quote:
|
I've tried over a dozen times to get one of my client's sites moved to a more appropriate category or even get the description corrected with no success. (Again, no editor for that category.)
|
Having no editor has nothing to do with it. Maybe the reason is not good enough for a move. Have you done the right think and checked for the reason at the DMOZ forum for it not being moved? Why come and bash DMOZ here - you are doing your client a diservice by spamming DMOZ with over a dozen requests.
|
No surprise a DMOZ editor leaps to defend the DMOZ.
How can you state "having no editor has nothing to do with it"? when you then say, "maybe the reason ..."? Maybe? If you don't know with certainty, how do you know the editor has nothing to do with it? Perhaps it does, as your follow-up was vague at best. And maybe the guy *did* check the DMOZ forum (resource-zone.com).
Why not bash the DMOZ - many of the "editors" deserve it, as has been documented above.
My own experience is mixed - one URL, two category submissions, one accepted, one still - STILL - in queue - after 1 1/2 years now. I also applied for an editor position to help out, but the application was apparently lost.
Old directory, badly in need of an overhaul.
Bill M. |
08-27-2005, 08:42 PM
|
|
WebProWorld 1,000+ Club
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,987
|
|
Quote:
|
Is someone saying there is actually someone that lists sites at dmoz. . Nope, I do not believe it.
|
I am curious as to where you are getting your information from? Since this thread started DMOZ has listed >750 000 sites.
CBP |
08-27-2005, 08:47 PM
|
|
WebProWorld 1,000+ Club
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,987
|
|
Quote:
|
My own experience is mixed - one URL, two category submissions, one accepted, one still - STILL - in queue - after 1 1/2 years now.
|
DMOZ's experience is that you broke the submission guidelines by submitting to more than one category and now you are complaining about it ....don't figure..
Quote:
|
Old directory, badly in need of an overhaul.
|
DMOZ is the largest directory on the www (no other directory comes remotely close)
DMOZ is the fastest growing dirctory on thw www (no other director comes remotely close to DMOZ's past and current growth).
That does not look like needing an overhaul.
CBP |
08-27-2005, 09:44 PM
|
|
WebProWorld 1,000+ Club
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kajabbi N.W Queensland - (Outback)
Posts: 1,276
|
|
cbp - I only look at the classic car section. . happy to argue about how useless this section is and its faults. But I do not think I want to do it online. My opinion of DMOZ is very very poor, I would hate to take it out on the one editor (seemingly) that seems at least to be attempting to achieve something.
Basically DMOZ is not looking after searchers, yes I could gratefully accept another dozen visitors, But DMOZ does not like the way my site is configured. OK. . But please accept a lot of us do not like the way your site is configured. Let the users decide . . that's my solution.
I would not be seen dead with my site in DMOZ (attempting reverse phsychology here)
I have a ton of classic car classified ads -
Your users do not see them on your site unless I rebuild my web site ????
http://www.restored-classics.com/parts - sounds silly to me! |
08-27-2005, 09:46 PM
|
 |
WebProWorld Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: KY USA
Posts: 761
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wbmcl
... No surprise a DMOZ editor leaps to defend the DMOZ ... Why not bash the DMOZ - many of the "editors" deserve it, as has been documented above ... My own experience is mixed - one URL, two category submissions, one accepted, one still - STILL - in queue - after 1 1/2 years now. I also applied for an editor position to help out, but the application was apparently lost ... Bill M.
|
Well Bill, I'm not an ODP editor ...
DMOZ may not be perfect, but continually bashing it can serve little use except to waste your own time and efforts, and degrade what is otherwise a very respectable and powerful source of information.
Saying "many of the editors deserve it (bashing)" is like someone labeling an entire police department as bad apples because of one bad cop or experience.
I won't lie and say that my experiences with ODP have been 100% great, but I don't waste my time fretting over it when I could be focusing on getting other things done like building more content, pages and links.
With every birthday, I remind myself that I'm always too young to think I know it all, but more importantly, I'm too old to get wrapped around the axle over things that I can't control.
__________________
W. R. Mineo
|
08-27-2005, 10:09 PM
|
|
WebProWorld 1,000+ Club
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kajabbi N.W Queensland - (Outback)
Posts: 1,276
|
|
Quote
"DMOZ's experience is that you broke the submission guidelines by submitting to more than one category and now you are complaining about it ....don't figure.."
Catagory??? in the classic cars section - DMOZ has not bothered to list a vehicle make catagorie for classifieds. my site that is medium sized catering for classic car enthusiast has well over 120 seperate catagories in classified adverts for "chevrolet" about the same for 'Ford'.
As far as I could find you only have a catagory for 'classifieds'. . let the users do the searching? - terrific policy..
The submission guidlines on my site are a lot simpler. you send me an advert - If I can read it, understand it and it looks honest I will list it even if I have to make a new catagory - I list over 200 classic car ads per day seven days a week. (and delete them to)
The difference in submission policies is that I want more parts to list because thats what my users want.
Dmoz creats submission policies to stop people listing, not realy worried about what users want....
|
08-28-2005, 04:16 PM
|
|
WebProWorld Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 89
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cbp
DMOZ's experience is that you broke the submission guidelines by submitting to more than one category and now you are complaining about it
|
The rules appeared to have changed in the year and half since my submission. It stated that one could submit a single URL to a regional and a subject category. Even in my submission thread, moderator "Hutcheson" says as much:
"We can't speak for your priorities. But some sites potentially have both local and global focii, and we are happy to list them twice (although, as you see, sometimes we are quicker with one or the other listing.)"
I wouldn't have submitted to two proper categories had DMOZ said it was not acceptable.
Quote:
DMOZ is the largest directory on the www (no other directory comes remotely close)
DMOZ is the fastest growing dirctory on thw www (no other director comes remotely close to DMOZ's past and current growth).
That does not look like needing an overhaul.
|
The U.S. government is the largest goverment on the planet (no other government comes remotely close.) It and the DMOZ are inefficient, unorganized, and rife with conflicts of interest and graft (see examples above).
Question: do you perceive the DMOZ as perfect? You have yet to agree with any point offered.
Bill M. |
08-28-2005, 09:18 PM
|
|
WebProWorld 1,000+ Club
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,987
|
|
Quote:
|
do you perceive the DMOZ as perfect?
|
DMOZ is not perfect. But, you are basing your critisicm of DMOZ based on your misunderstanding that DMOZ is a listing service for webmaster. Its not.
CBP |
08-28-2005, 10:39 PM
|
|
WebProWorld Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 89
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cbp
DMOZ is not perfect. But, you are basing your critisicm of DMOZ based on your misunderstanding that DMOZ is a listing service for webmaster. Its not.
|
No, I'm basing my criticism of DMOZ based on (their) seeming incompetence and malfeasance.
As for the former, I submitted an application to be a moderator for a category that I'm familiar with, and with which out of 18 displayed links, there are at least thee of which are dead or dormant. DMOZ "lost" the application.
As for the latter, even a few ex-DMOZ moderators have admitted as much in the above thread.
You didn't admit to your own error of (at least at one time) the allowing of potential multiple categories, though you leap to accuse of others of misinformation.
It is clear that you are blindly defending an online directory merely due to being part of it's internal process, and despite the dozens of claims of incompetence and corruption.
Bill M. |
08-28-2005, 10:46 PM
|
|
WebProWorld Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Posts: 89
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wrmineo
DMOZ may not be perfect, but continually bashing it can serve little use except to waste your own time and efforts, and degrade what is otherwise a very respectable and powerful source of information.
Saying "many of the editors deserve it (bashing)" is like someone labeling an entire police department as bad apples because of one bad cop or experience.
I won't lie and say that my experiences with ODP have been 100% great, but I don't waste my time fretting over it when I could be focusing on getting other things done like building more content, pages and links.
|
Well, I hardly "continually bash" the DMOZ - I put my 2 cents into this singular thread for a grand total of maybe 10 minutes of writing time. And my pennies won't degrade the DMOZ - like a beauracratic entity, it's been doing that on it's own for some time. To use your analogy, it's much like the LAPD of the '90's - not just one bad cop or experience, but a multitude.
Bill M. |
08-30-2005, 01:33 PM
|
|
WebProWorld Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tampa, FLORIDA-USA
Posts: 27
|
|
Came across this page that explains the guidelines a DMOZ editor looks at when considering your real estate site for submission to DMOZ. It appears that real estate sites come under closer scrutiny (probably rightfully so) and if you follow these guidelines you'll hopefully stand a better chance of having your site approved. Hope it helps.
|
08-30-2005, 04:06 PM
|
 |
WebProWorld Pro
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Colorado Rockies
Posts: 157
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tubby
I list over 200 classic car ads per day seven days a week. (and delete them to)
|
Sorry, Tubby. . . according to my calculations, you have only listed 66,000 or so since this useless DMOZ permathread started, to DMOZ 75,000 (with how many editors?)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cbp
Best advice in this thread....
How to get listed in DMOZ:
1) Have a site that would really add value to the category and has lots of unique content.
2) Write a pefect guieline compliant description and title (I list them quicker and initially ignore the spammy ones as they require more work)
3) Submit once to the one best category
4) Check at resource zone after a month to see if waiting (tech problems do happen)
5) NEVER resubmit, unless told to by an editor
6) Forget about it. There is othing more you can do. Move on. Promote your site elsewhere. Get overit.
|
But according to http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?p=193060
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by useless resource zone
Following discussion by, and consensus of Moderators and Administrators of this forum, we have chosen to discontinue site status checks effective May 21, 2005. Closure of the existing Site Submission Status forums will happen by this date, and we will not be accepting any new status check threads after this time. The submission status forums will be archived.
|
Maybe the new rules guidelines should be: - just forget about DMOZ - why waste your time finding the category and submitting
unless you are an insider, of course ;)
|
08-30-2005, 04:47 PM
|
|
WebProWorld 1,000+ Club
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kajabbi N.W Queensland - (Outback)
Posts: 1,276
|
|
Quote
" Sorry, Tubby. . . according to my calculations, you have only listed 66,000 or so since this useless DMOZ permathread started, to DMOZ 75,000 (with how many editors?)"
WOW!, somebody counted them?
can you count how many users DMOZ sent to relevant sites?
|
08-30-2005, 06:29 PM
|
|
WebProWorld New Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10
|
|
The most amazing part of the DMOZ issue is that Google is what made DMOZ relevant and all. I know the concept for why DMOZ was originally created, but it derailed from that noble path soon after it was first created.
The only reason why DMOZ is still around is because webmasters feel it could give their sites some kind of SEO advantage (you are fooling yourself if you think it is traffic they are looking for).
And the only reason why webmasters think it has some kind of SEO advantage is because Google has kept it afloat in their algorithm. DMOZ is bad enough, but I blame Google for not waking up 5 years ago and eliminating DMOZ as a possible factor.
__________________
"As with everything in life and business, we didn't create the rules. Just learn to play by them better than anyone else can."
|
08-30-2005, 08:33 PM
|
|
WebProWorld Pro
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Colorado Rockies
Posts: 157
|
|
Here Here
I second that thought - I have only one of my many sites in DMOZ (from a looong time ago, when it was a real directory), and it appears to make NO difference whatsoever (except for the cool little icon you get at the bottom of Firefox if you have the PageRank plug-in). . . if we (the webmasters) would let it die, then it would.
|
08-30-2005, 09:53 PM
|
|
WebProWorld 1,000+ Club
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kajabbi N.W Queensland - (Outback)
Posts: 1,276
|
|
shame
What is a shame is that there seems to be no positive leadership. Obviously there must be a core bunch of editors that put the hours in. Its a shame that they seem to get side tracked into a non productive existance.
Google? Well, people lie, cheat, steal content, buy, bribe, (I do not know of anyone that has killed to get google recognition) but It would not surprise me. Google has caused a lot of damage to the search market. Ad revenue has 'Twisted' what was once called content into anything that can be conjured up to display on a web page. DMOZ is caught slap bang in the middle and has no-body at the helm with enough 'charactor' to straighten it out . . Who is in Charge of DMOZ anyway. Wheel this person out so I can take a look at who it is. . Lets get some direction from the driver of this monster. . Or it it rolling along with an L plate on the front..
Editors have taken a fair bit of flack in this thread, Some of them are defending in a manner th | |
