Does Dmoz Need A Web 2.0 Make-over? Options

[AbleReach]

Imagine DMOZ with a little amazon.com and eopinions.com style visitor power thrown in.

• Vote for favorite resources
• Write reviews
• More?

I think it'd be a kick.

[bragadocchio]

I'd love to see this, Elizabeth.

I'm afraid that DMOZ has become too much of a walled garden to consider the idea, but it could become much more of a relevant resource today than it is if they make some intelligent changes.

Even if they added some simple touches, such as some portal features on the front page of the site - last added sites today, last added sites one year ago, featured categories of the day, etc., that would be nice.

There's so much focus upon individual categories, and not upon the development and growth of the site as a whole. I wish there was more.

[lee.n3o]

Totally agree with Bill.... The structure seems to be there only focus, and some nifty little widgets or even a nice facelift (Including adding some font styles!!) might make a difference

Although I do wonder if after all the problems a few months back no matter what they do people have just had enough of DMOZ... I have to say I haven't submitted a site there in ages..

[stokelake]

on a web 2.0 directory which is taking the best bit of dmoz and then adds web 2.0 functionality, ie. the ability to vote and write comments for each listing, the votes effect the sites position in the category.

This post has been edited by stokelake: Feb 15 2008, 05:25 AM

[jayarch]

i fully agree it needs some sort of major reconstruction, if not extinction all together. i have been submitting sites to the DMOZ for over 7 years. i build small artist portfolio sites that do not sell anything directly nor do they have advertisements or affiliate partners.

only 1 of the 20 or so sites i've submitted has been accepted. compared to the similar sites that have been accepted in related categories, i don't buy an argument my sites weren't of the proper caliber or that the art was not appealing. in a sample of 20 sites out of 160 in my personal category (Photography: Photographers: Abstract and Experimental), 2 were dead links, 10 were mis categorized, some were enitrely browser noncompliant and/or "under contsruction" and only 3 or 4 were decent enough to remain in the category. When they argue quality control they have little back that up.

whatever their reason is- mis-categorized, i missed a comma and had bad grammar in my submission, the editor is blind, the editor is competitive and won't let good sites in- whatever it is, it has rendered DMOZ more or less useless. this would be different if their current directory were a shining light of information. how many people actually know the DMOZ outside of the web business? how many of us within the business actually use it to search? i understand it is the foundations of many search results and PR, but i thought we were supposed to not count PR that highly, at least not highly enough to continue to inflate this directory's ego, no?

and another question is google's increasing lack of concern for directories. they're so 2002! if they don't want paid links as they've stated recently, then shouldn't they discount the yahoo directory? and, as they realize that DMOZ has nothing current, little of value, no social ranking system, and a bunch of yahoos running it who love only to be vague about what they do and hide behind their famous "wait wait wait" and "why didn't you follow up" paradox, won't they too lower their opinion of DMOZ, isn't it a matter of time?

i'd love to see a PR update on them to put them back in the sandbox to get their s-t together!

with that said, i still throw them a bone when it's ready to be rejected by them.

This post has been edited by jayarch: May 29 2007, 06:18 AM

[john928]

AbleReach I can't see it ever happening. They find it hard enough to even approve sites than having to find the time to also change their design and add more features. lol