3 ms·

Good riddance! It was crap anyway. I must have submitted sites of mine half a dozen times or more. None of them ever showed up in DMOZ's directory—even though t

Good riddance! It was crap anyway. I must have submitted sites of mine half a dozen times or more. None of them ever showed up in DMOZ's directory—even though they made you do most of the work for them, by filling out submission forms. Contrast that with Google, who often have content of my sites returned in search results, within days of it being published—without me having had to lift a finger. The idea of "human curation" is fine in principle but, as sites like DMOZ, Wikipedia, StackOverflow, etc show, it very often ends up being monopolised by a few self-important nobodies seeing it as a way to wield some authority in life.

bhartzer 10y ago
I do agree that dmoz did a very terrible job at fulfilling the requests. That ultimately was the downfall and why so many didn't like DMOZ. But there were way to get in, no matter what (unfortunately).
bayouborne 10y ago
Exactly my experience as well.
zem 10y ago
the latest iteration of this idea seems to be the "awesome" lists on github [https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome], which are a bit more decentralised and crowd-sourced while still being human-curated.
- vic20forever 10y ago
  Exactly - the first time I looked at https://github.com/bayandin/awesome-awesomeness https://github.com/bayandin/awesome-awesomeness my immediate thought was that we're recreating Yahoo, or maybe publishing a webpage with all of your bookmarks is making a comeback.
_delirium 10y ago
I found DMOZ pretty well curated and responsive to requests... 15 years ago. If you tried to submit something recently though then, yeah, you were submitting to a zombie site. Wikipedia, as it happens, curated some data illustrating the growth prior to ~2004-05 followed by complete stagnation; see the graph in this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMOZ#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMOZ#History
empath75 10y ago
FWIW, it was run by one engineer on an extremely part-time basis.
- bhartzer 10y ago
  One engineer... but a LOT of volunteer editors.

bhartzer 10y ago

I do agree that dmoz did a very terrible job at fulfilling the requests. That ultimately was the downfall and why so many didn't like DMOZ. But there were way to get in, no matter what (unfortunately).

bayouborne 10y ago

Exactly my experience as well.

zem 10y ago

the latest iteration of this idea seems to be the "awesome" lists on github [https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome], which are a bit more decentralised and crowd-sourced while still being human-curated.

vic20forever 10y ago
Exactly - the first time I looked at https://github.com/bayandin/awesome-awesomeness https://github.com/bayandin/awesome-awesomeness my immediate thought was that we're recreating Yahoo, or maybe publishing a webpage with all of your bookmarks is making a comeback.

_delirium 10y ago

I found DMOZ pretty well curated and responsive to requests... 15 years ago. If you tried to submit something recently though then, yeah, you were submitting to a zombie site. Wikipedia, as it happens, curated some data illustrating the growth prior to ~2004-05 followed by complete stagnation; see the graph in this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMOZ#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMOZ#History

empath75 10y ago

FWIW, it was run by one engineer on an extremely part-time basis.

bhartzer 10y ago
One engineer... but a LOT of volunteer editors.