<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar/12774203?origin\x3dhttp://directoryeditor.blogspot.com', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

ODP Report for 2005

Thanks to Threadwatch.org for tipping me off on the annual report released by the ODP's volunteer administration.

The report was compiled to inform the editor community and public about the development of the ODP project in 2005. It seems that the web's most comprehensive human-edited directory grew almost 5% in the year 2005 - adding 221,552 new listings.

The report also discloses the amount of volunteer editors currently involved with the project. Interesting to see that DMOZ accepted 4,776 new editors in 2005 but they finished the year with less editors then when they started! SeoBook from ThreadWatch said it best:
"That is some SERIOUS editor churn..."
What's interesting to me is that the report documents 7,744 "active" editor accounts on December 31, 2005 and about 221,552 new listings added for the year. That averages out to about 28 new listings per active editor! 28 new listings seems awfully low to me. I know it's mostly about quality and not quantity with DMOZ and editor responsibilities certainly consist of more than just adding sites - but 28?! Most editors I know can add 28 quality sites in under an hour. How dedicated are these 7,744 DMOZ editors?

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Best Looking Directory

When it comes to web design, I have never been one to care much about being the most fancy or even the "best looking." In fact, I tend to favor the usability of a website rather than its bells and whistles. This is partly why I never bought into Flash design.

Sure, I think it's fine and maybe even cool to have a personal website designed entirely with Flash Animation but when it comes to designing a corporate website where you are selling a product or service, I think it's always better to follow the KISS principle. Make it as easy as possible for your users to find the information and/or purchase the product they want. Enable them to do so without having to leave your site to download the latest Flash or Java extensions.

Unfortunately, by keeping things simple, it's likely that your website will not win any "best looking" awards. However, this hasn't stopped the Best of the Web Directory from receiving a couple of honorable mentions in the Digital Point thread titled "Best Looking Directories." Thanks to WhatiFind, muchacho, and clasione for the props on the new BOTW design. Even though we yearn to be considered "The Best Directory" period; this is still very nice and appreciated. :-)