DMOZ is a terrible concept

**mikesilvia** · 12-28-2005, 08:19 PM

I hear all the time that people love DMOZ because it is being build by regular Joe's. But did anyone stop and think that the editors are the problem?

I know for a fact that people that own websites BLOCK other entries into their category. Think about it. If I were a guy with a car racing site, why not become a DMOZ editor for the racing area and simply deny other racing sites?

Also, it seems if you know someone at DMOZ, you get listed. If you don't, you are out of luck. Just look at the hundreds of threads on here and other forums of people complaining that they are not in DMOZ after a year of trying.

DMOZ is a terrible concept much like Communism. It sounds great on paper, but is easy to corrupt.

Mike

**CAL** · 12-28-2005, 11:16 PM

Yeh, this has benn discussed many times here.

Do a search for DMOZ and see.

**bbott** · 12-29-2005, 01:58 AM

I'd have to agree with you.

I have two sites listed but only because I know an editor for those categories.

As for my web directory it's been atleast 7 months and no luck.

Don't worry though, DMOZ isn't as almighty as people make it out to be. Just submit and forget about it. You'll eventually get in - just hope you're still alive when that occurs. haha...

**herbal_ali** · 12-29-2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesilvia

DMOZ is a terrible concept much like Communism.

except in communism everyone's equal, in DMOZ it's only the sites the editors like or belong to, so it's more like nazism, trying to cleanse the sites and webmasters they don't want.....

**kline11** · 12-31-2005, 05:06 PM

I think DMOZ is a great concept, poorly executed.

**Fed** · 06:47 AM

yes, you're right
dmoz could be good, but now it's not...it's important for your page rank, but the quality isn't good as you can find there some indecently ugly and useless sites, in cosntruction pages or pages hosted on free services that are never updated, only because they know or are editors
and I have seen sites with lots of effort, excellent graphics and useful content being dropped
I don't understand why google and the others still use dmoz as a base when dmoz's unreliability is evident

**bbott** · 01-10-2006, 01:04 AM

Being one of the largest directories out there you have to respect DMOZ. But we can't deny it's going downhill over the years...

**loki** · 03-01-2006, 12:47 AM

The web evolves fast. Concepts which are considered great today may not remain so, 6 months down the line. To keep pace, one needs to constantly upgrade oneself.

DMOZ core concept is great. But it has not served its purpose well. Its ailing and it shows up in many forms. Whats needed at this point is a rethinking about its goals and achivements by the powers that be and embark on a well organized concentrated effort to wipe out the problems. My 2 cents

**stOx** · 03-01-2006, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kline11

I think DMOZ is a great concept, poorly executed.

I would agree with that. As they say, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If we think about the way editors are chosen, They are people who know about and have sites in the industry that they are editing the catagory for. So if these people have the power to accept or reject their competition when it comes to being listed in Dmoz it's obvious too everyone that most of the editors first thought will be "how will this effect me and my site".

Dmoz doesn't have the respect it should have from webmasters, and soon it will lose the respect it has from google and other search engines..

**Grumpy McGrump** · 03-01-2006, 02:50 AM

Does anyone actually use DMOZ to find stuff?

The few times that I've used it, the results were little more than lists of dead links.

I usually try Wikipedia first. Then Google.

**Music** · 03-01-2006, 08:56 AM

Now DMOZ does more harm than good.

Child Porn

**Music** · 03-02-2006, 02:30 AM

There are lot of visitors coming thru DMOZ.

**Johnney1929** · 04-26-2006, 03:50 AM

Thats right They even told me "you should give up now". They even told another person to "go away and redesign the site". They seem to keep insulting me and thats why we need better editors. I have a good site that got rid of redirections and they still did not accept me.

**tantantin** · 04-27-2006, 07:47 AM

There are Abusive, Lazy, Corrupt and even Idiot DMOZ editors. Nothing new. The system needs to be re-organized.

**SEOclown** · 04-27-2006, 08:31 AM

The creator of DMOZ said when he first built the site that he made it because the search engines not only were giving poor results but taking forever to update so he wanted to make something that would be updated regularly and give good results. Looking back at that now what a joke because there are still spots on that site that havent been updated since 2002.

DMOZ is a fraternity, it not only takes months if not years to get listed and thats if you can get listed, but try and become an editor and you get nasty responses. Seriously what is that about? Talk about EGO's.

DMOZ is a joke in my opinion and i wouldnt waste my time trying to get a site listed in it, your better off trying to register a domain that is listed and expired.

**tantantin** · 04-27-2006, 09:08 AM

I agree with you 100%. DMOZ has become a joke. When I was still a Slave I have seen a submission from 2001.

**doctormarek** · 09-14-2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

so it's more like nazism, trying to cleanse the sites and webmasters they don't want.....

Quote:

As they say, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Quote:

Now DMOZ does more harm than good.

Quote:

DMOZ is a terrible concept much like Communism. It sounds great on paper, but is easy to corrupt.

I absolutely agree.

DMOZ is the most corrupt and hostile site for webmasters on the internet!
If Google do not open its own directory it will loose its power.

**kline11** · 09-14-2006, 01:49 PM

I think DMOZ is a GOOD concept, just poorly run. This is the problem with anything that is run by "Volunteers" with the largest search engine using it. So you end up with "self promoting" editors, giving the honest editors (and there are some) a bad name.