No sleep 'till DMOZ (- a sorry tale of abuse) Options

[peter_d]

Ya gotta laugh....

[Grumpus]

Motorhead and Phil Taylor.

G.

[Adrian]

Hehe, very crafty from DMOZ, teach you for telling everyone you were going to do it, and being too well known for them not to notice

[Respree]

Stock knows his music. But I think the drummer is Mikee Dee (i.e. fast). :wink:

[peter_d]

Very good Stock! Put through a free listing.

Ah.....Motorhead. Takes me back to my teenage years. "Fithy Phil "the Animal" Taylor is the correct answer. From No Sleep 'Til Hammersmith.

teach you for telling everyone you were going to do it, and being too well known for them not to notice

<grin>

[Grumpus]

Cool. I was figuring that you probably already had a winner or I would have e-mailed ya. Will submit my movie site in a bit. Thanks!

G.

[Jean_Manco]

Peter - I did take a look at Rubberstamped soon after you announced its launch. I liked the lack of advertising. But it didn't have enough content to list in the general directories category. Since those in charge feel the same way, I'm afraid that the listing of Rubberstamped was brief.

More on our criteria for listing directories here:
http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/inde...?showtopic=4837

[Black_Knight]

Yay, Peter wins!

Refusing a listing to RubberStamped is the greatest proof of the value of RubberStamped. That was the whole (unsubtle) message.

It is a shame that Skrenta was the only one to note the harm to DMOZ's reputation, and that Peter's RubberStamped was in fact following DMOZ's own birth - a reaction to widespread dissatisfaction with the big directory of the time, Yahoo!

Congrats Peter. Getting the idiots at another forum (one I'll not name to spare their blushes) all riled up enough to go on a crusade to have your directory removed was a masterstroke. :glasses:

[Jean_Manco]

I'm sure that Rubberstamped has a value for webmasters right away. If it gets large enough to be useful to searchers , then there is no reason why it wouldn't be listed in the Open Directory.

[Black_Knight]

So, if I were searching for a new directory to submit to, one not swamped with listings already, DMOZ can help me ... how?

[Black_Knight]

http://www.rubberstamped.org/2005/01/polit...s-of-search.htm

[Jean_Manco]

So, if I were searching for a new directory to submit to..

Good question Ammon. We aim to make a distinction between sites primarily for the searcher and those aimed at website promotion, which are over here http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Des...ment/Promotion/

Several sites there (particularly those in the directories subcategory) list suitable directories to submit to. Some give useful guidance on relative usefulness, pricing, etc.

[Black_Knight]

How regularly do you review the sites in the promotion category to see which directories now have enough content to garner a second listing as a directory of use beyond promotion?

[Jean_Manco]

Sorry - I may have been misleading there. The Promotion/Directories category is for directories of sites which relate to site promotion. That includes directories of search engines and directories which are clearly angled towards the webmaster.

Computers/Internet/Searching/ is the main category for directories of SEs and directories. Some sites listed there would be useful to websmasters and searchers alike.

[Black_Knight]

http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31571 is quite an eye-opener.

I was especially disgusted by the posts of 'Ishtar' such as this one in particular.

Last night I went through every site listed in this directory and I found 19 sites that were not listed in dmoz and possibly should be. The others were either listed or were total crap. As soon as I find the correct categories to list these sites in, there will be no point in listing the directory. And it will be deleted. This will probably happen sometime today, but no guarantees.

This editor is publically admitting to raping the content of the directory.

I mean, let's not be deceived here. They first claim the directory had no value. Then use it to improve dmoz, and outright states that only after they've used the directory to find sites DMOZ doesn't have listed will it no longer be valuable to DMOZ.

It's rather like a newsagent copying all the top stories out of the papers each day, putting them into his own newsletter without any creditation or guilt, and selling his newsletter - not even putting the real papers on the shelves/rack.

Its scummy in the extreme.

Let's look at that disgustingly unethical behaviour one more time, just to be sure we're not hallucinating:

As soon as I find the correct categories to list these sites in, there will be no point in listing the directory

Bolding added to show the important parts. That Ishtar is knowingly making the directory unworth listing through plagiarism.

So there it is.

That behaviour absolutely stinks, and if Ishtar is not kicked out of DMOZ for that behaviour, it will say all that ever needs be said about DMOZ.

But hey guys - **Newsflash** - Ishtar won't be removed for such behaviour, because that is pretty much the DMOZ policy on how to deal with other directories. If they are small, scrape all the value out and don't list them. Only if they are too big to rape should you list them. It was often stated in the editor fora while I was at DMOZ. I'll bet it still is now. Call it official policy, its so much nicer than calling it ripping off the hard work of smaller directories.

<edited to add bolding to the quote from Ishtar to better show the problem I have with what was stated. BK>

[Black_Knight]

Of course, I am not suggesting that the editor abused their position. Far fom it, I am stating that the editor followed DMOZ policy to the letter, even though obviously unethical. DMOZ do not consider inappropriate or unethical actions by an editor as 'abuse'.

No, abuse is all about webmasters getting listed when they don't deserve it, or about editors unfairly promoting sites they are affiliated with. Oh hang on - isn't this editor affiliated with DMOZ, and abused their position to copy the unique content of a submitted site, place it into the site they are affiliated with, and then refuse listing to the site thay'd found so useful for taking content from?

Yeah, but that doesn't count. They're DMOZ editors and we're all just webmasters. You're just lucky they let lowly folks like us even look at their directory and don't you dare forget it. They even disparage Skrenta because he was enough of a webmaster to build the damn directory they like to play god in.

[peter_d]

It is a shame that Skrenta was the only one to note the harm to DMOZ's reputation, and that Peter's RubberStamped was in fact following DMOZ's own birth - a reaction to widespread dissatisfaction with the big directory of the time, Yahoo!

Rich was the only one to see it, and is to his eternal credit that he made DMOZ look good, has a fine sense of humour, and a keen grasp on the problems DMOZ faces. Contrary to some opinion posted elsewhere, there was no bribery. Rich contacted me after he had approved the listing.

The rest of the events played out, sadly, in highly predictable fashion.

The issue here is not Rubberstamped. The issue is the queues of webmaster "suggestions" that go unanswered. And dead categories. And the fact there is no effective policy in place to deal with either.

[Black_Knight]

Exactly.

The issue is that DMOZ is now in a worse state than what it was created to be an improvement of - the Yahoo! Directory of all those years ago. It has many times more dead links, much longer waiting times, much more arbitrary listing rules, far less accountability, far more pomposity, and is even more deaf to criticism than Yahoo ever was.

The article referenced earlier promised that Gnu-Hoo (what DMOZ was called back then) was scalable. The submission queues alone prove that was a false promise.

DMOZ has failed. Bring out the next thing.

[cbp]

>DMOZ has failed

DMOZ adds ~2000 new sites a day. What other Directory comes remotely close to that?
DMOZ lists almost 4.5 million sites. What other Directory comes remotely close to that?

How is that a failure? I think its an incredible achievement.

[Black_Knight]

What is the point of adding 2,000 new sites a day when you need to be adding 5,000 just to have the absolute cream of the crop of what is created each day. Instead, each day that you lag behind the speed of development is widening the gap between what you can handle, and what need to be handled. Each day ~3,000 sites that should be listed are not.

The facts remain, and are only becoming more factual.

It has many times more dead links, much longer waiting times, much more arbitrary listing rules, far less accountability, far more pomposity, and is even more deaf to criticism than Yahoo ever was.

DMOZ didn't scale with the internet. That is its failure. DMOZ failed. Even now, no dramatic new initiatives to address this scalability problem will be discussed or devised. All that might happen is that a few editors will moan about the anti-DMOZ sentiment, and carry on chasing away those who were once strong advocates. In fact, I'd bet $1,000 there's a editors' thread like that right now.