Talk:List of web directories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 15, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents


[edit] Old Comment

I really find it hard to understand the purpose of this page. It seems like an open invitation to spam. I'm highly inclined to remove all the external links and just keep it as a list of web directories notable enough to have Wikipedia entries.-- ALargeElk | Talk 15:24, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting...

I read somewhere recently, I think in Wired, a breakdown of the cost of words or characters in Wikipedia. Basically, entries are so cheap that you need not exclude anything. So, with that in mind I think it makes sense to include anything that anyone might find potentially useful.

Okay, now that I've said that, here's what brought me to this entry - I'm looking for appropriate (I'm not a spammer) places to link to my new website, which is a wikimedia based internet directory. Too many directories charge for listing, or are exclusive in who they list - I think it is in the nature of the web (and in the nature of a wiki) to be inclusive. Now, in all honesty, I am hoping to make a few bucks from it by way of Google ads, so it's a dot-com, and not a dot-org... I won't go ahead and list it in the article, because it might look too much like spam, but I think it's appropriate to suggest on this talk page: wikidweb.com. I look forward to the discussion... --Aerik 18:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DMOZ clones

Isn't Google's directory a copy of the Open Directory? Maybe Yahoo too, but I'm not sure... Will research it if I get time, but if anyone knows off hand... would be worth at least mentioning this on the page.--Aerik 20:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Google is an exact (but often out-of-date) clone of DMOZ. Yahoo is an entirely original directory, made by Yahoo staff. It was Yahoo's founding product. --rob 10:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Google's Directory is not an exact clone. Google adds a sort functionality that's not available anywhere else, and that's the ability to sort the sites in their directory in order of importance. (Google's measure of importance being PageRank.) I'd agree that it's usually out of date, because Google doesn't update their feed from DMOZ very often. Rray 09:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criteria for "notable"

To anyone else watching this page - how about we try to put together some criteria for what should be listed? There are a couple or more dmoz clones, I don't know if these really add any value... So, what's "notable"? Look forward to discussing it. --Aerik 03:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unless a definition of "notable" can be found, this page is certainly quite useless. I completely agree with ALargeElk that this page's purpose is hard to see and that is is an invitation to spam. Maybe getting rid of "notable" would be a start. "Useful" might be a better term here because it is a little bit easier to define. Before listing any site here, a couple of questions should be answered: What is the audience of the resource? Is there an editorial system and how does it work? Who can contribute links? Who can remove links? Is there any kind of qualitiy rating for links? ... I guess these questions could be refined and added to, but some of them simply need to be answered for this page to be of any use. Manni 10:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about we apply a a "uniqueness" criteria - directories should offer something unique and useful (agree with you there), and not be a dmoz clone. To further this idea, how about we describe what is special (or unique) about each directory.--Aerik 08:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Right. This sounds like the only sensible way to tackle this. A user should be able to anticipated something before he clicks a link. Manni 19:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not be a Dmoz clone?... So what about "Google directory" in this list?!!!...

A good point. I read (somewhere) that Google is moving away from DMOZ, but I think (imho) as long as it's a clone, it's probably not "notable" (particularly unique). Anyone else thing otherwise?--Aerik 17:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I've gotten to this discussion late, but I think that Google's inclusion of the ability to sort and search their clone of DMOZ grants it a certain unique status. You can view the results in PageRank order, which is theoretically a way of sorting those pages according to the importance of the sites. Rray 09:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] annuaire.biz.ly

Someone keeps adding annuaire.biz.ly back to this list. The site is (IMHO) complete nonsense and likely to crash your browser. Moreover, it's completely in French so that I don't see why it should be listed on en.wikipedia.org. Does anyone else think that this is spam? Manni 15:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- You have problem of browser?... Stop using IE!... ;-)

- Do you know Manni, some people on Earth not using english language!... A site in french (or dutch, like Startpagina) seems not to be considered as a spam... But perhaps you have political reasons... Are you a texan guy eating only "Liberty fries"?... ;-)

I would say that anything that throws up one pop-up when I open it has too much baggage to be seriously considered. Other than that, my humble opinion is that directories in French should probably be referenced on the French Wikipedia...--Aerik 09:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

And what about "Startpagina" (in dutch...)

[edit] Recent Reverts - Thoughts on PR.com

You know, I looked at pr.com and it looked like it might have some unique value - did anybody else look at it? I was impressed that that 66.65.156.92 added a detailed description - kind of looks like he read the talk page. Any thoughts? --Aerik 20:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

I suggest that the list should be split into two separate lists. One with the directories that are actually part of the history of the Web, and another which lists directories without external links. In this way we can avoid spam and if someone is interested he can always look for the directory's name in Google. vaganyik

I reverted your edits, because it's not our role to declare that some directories are more important than others. If a directory is significant enough to justify an article, then it deserves to be listed here. Spam is unavoidable; all we can hope to do is control it. - EurekaLott 02:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Fine with me. But 'declaring that some directories are more important than others' and 'deciding if a directory is significant enough to justify an article' are very, very close to each other. So I will try to avoid decisions like this in the future. :-) - vaganyik
The entry for NZPages should go and so should the NZPages page, that is shear spam, the directory may have been around for a while, but is not comprehensive, significant nor even well know within NZ (if that lists here so should 10million others). --AGoon 12:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is WikiDirectory worthy of inclusion?

Rather than just putting it in I figured it would make sense to ask for consensus first. Do others feel that WikiDirectory [1] [2] is ready to be included in this list? I believe it is the largest directory using Wiki technology out there and it has a reasonably respectable Alexa rating [3]. --StuffOfInterest 23:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Remove

I'm so wondered by the speed to remove the link to Smart Travel Directory I added in this article. Now i know that isn't possible to insert links in this way, i'm sorry.

(update) Opps, i forgot my sign (2nd time...) --Ciro07 14:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't take it personally, it's a learning process. It takes time to learn all the ins and outs of what should or should not be included. I'm certainly still learning myself. Don't let it stop you from continuing to edit. --StuffOfInterest 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinked entries

I'm cleaning out the redlinked entries again. Please make sure there is an article for the site before putting it in any "List of" pages. If the site isn't important enough to be an article then it doesn't need to be here. Sorry, but it is the only way to keep the page free of two million junk link directories. --StuffOfInterest 20:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] helpful list of links added

I added a helpful list of links to web directories. Looking at a web directory also explains what a web directory is. --Chuck Marean 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Linking to the articles describing the web directories already does that, since each of those articles includes a link to each directory. Wikipedia is not a link list, and a list of links to externals sites isn't appropriate at the beginning of an article.Rray 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a list of external links. If you want some of these external sites included in the article, please integrate them in a manner fitting the rest of the article. --mtz206 (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ego reverting

The ego reverting by EurekaLott or Mtz206 has been interfering with the project.This page should include convenient links to web directories. Seeing a web directory is the best way to learn what a web directory is. Furthermore, it would be help people find web directories. Even if those directories put their urls here themselves, which they did not, such a list would be helpful the users of the encyclopedia. Web directories aren't that easy to find. Here are some I got out of a computer magazine:

genius find

ask for kids

giga blast

google directory

librarian's

open directory

redzee

yahoo directory

--Chuck Marean 18:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "ego reverting," but quite simply, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links or Internet directories. The policy is quite clear. --mtz206 (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

It appears that User:Chuck Marean merged Web directory to this page. I'll do a little cleanup. --mtz206 (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why he did that, but if the articles were to be merged, it would certainly make more sense to merge this page into the web directory article. My first inclination, though, is to revert the unexplained change and let the two articles stand separatly the way they have for the past few years. I'll wait for consensus before making any further changes, though. - EurekaLott 05:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it makes more sense to have Web directory remain as the surviving article. --mtz206 (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I officially propose that this article be merged into Web directory. --mtz206 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, see my comment on the talk page there. · rodii · 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This page is totally redundant, there is a Category:Web_directories that performs the function of listing wikipedia pages that describe web directories. I think the vote to delete needs to be revisited. --AGoon 12:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
List pages offer one big things that category pages do not, the ability to offer context with the item being listed. Even a few words can help to establish why a particular item is in a list. You can't do that with category pages, although it would be nice if you could. --StuffOfInterest 12:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well if we must have this page ...

I looked at the delete vote and see there were few voices in favour of getting rid of it. So if it's to stay you guys are going to have to be vigilant :-). Thought we might as well structure it to look like the List of internet search engines so have added a Defunct category to put Zeal in. I expect Regional and Specialist divisions will follow.
There are zillions of web directories out there and I expect we'll get increasing numbers of spammers. It has been agreed in previous discussions that listings here must reference a wikipedia page - which simply means spammers create a wikipedia page, then create an entry here (which makes it real easy to find their spammy pages :-). How about a protocol of:
1) Immediately remove entries without a corresponding wikipedia page.
2) If there's a new suspect entry, remove the entry here and immediately nominate their wikipedia page for deletion (lack of website notability or general notability or neutral point of view may be relvevant criteria) - if they survive, their entry comes back in here? --AGoon 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history of this page, you'll see that this is pretty much what is happening already. Several of us keep an active eye on the page to remove spam links (direct externals) immediately, kill off redlinks as soon as they arrive, and check out and possibly AfD (or CSD under new criteria) any new pages which looks suspect. --StuffOfInterest 11:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll take that as an AGREE :-).
Are new entries with wikipedia pages investigated rigorously? - Example NZPages created 13-Oct 6:41, entry here 13-Oct 6:42, author newly registered 13-Oct 6:18, no other contributions before or since. To me it seems clear that they created a wikipage specifically because we said they must have one to add an entry here. Their wikipedia advert describes their site as a directory although the site is a very general "do everything that'll generate traffic" one (including lotto results, news, personals etc). I'm surprised no one took any action against their entry until I did on the 27th - so maybe I'm wrong, others with more experience than me will decide if they should go - please contribute your wisdom to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NZPages ASAP. If it gets to stay, I look forward to new pages from at least the 705 pages that google lists as having "website directory" in their URL ;-) --AGoon 00:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing links

Please don't remove links to suspect articles until a decision has been made on the article. If an article is nominated for deletion and you remove it from the list then we have to add it back in if the article surivives deletion. It is very easy to see if the article is removed as its link will go red. Before then, if it is an article about a web directory, it has justification for being here. --StuffOfInterest 19:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In case you can't guess, I disagree :-) - The policy of demanding that links on the main page have entries in Wikipedia has simply led to people creating entries then making links here. Like handling graffiti, paint it out straight away so as not to encourage more :-) --AGoon 20:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Associated articles nominated for deletion

Pending a decision on their fate, following are links to discussions of articles that have been linked to the main page but are currently nominated for deletion. Feel free to update it and also make submissions on the pages deletion.

--AGoon 20:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored four articles that were speedy deleted on the 22nd and listed them at AFD, because I think some further discussion is in order. They are Gimpsy, GoGuides, MusicMoz, and Skaffe. If you'd like to voice your opinion, you can do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/web directories. - EurekaLott 03:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updates and questioning LookSmart

I've added other sites that qualify which were in the Web_directories category - feel free to nominate any for deletion :-)
From the description on the LookSmart page, and attempting to navigate through the site, it appears that Looksmart is no longer a web directory. (results listed appeared to be by key word matching). I'll remove it from the web_directories category and from here unless there's a great objection (maybe put into a historical or the defunct section?). --AGoon 11:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd support moving LookSmart to the Historical section. My wife actually worked for them back in their prime days, but the company has pretty well fizzled out since then. --StuffOfInterest 12:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the section name of "Historical" - worried that readers might be confused and think that these are history-related web directories. Was "Defunct" really all that disparaging? It seems to be an accurate adjective. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't really thought of the alternate "historical" connotation. For some reason "defunct" just doesn't settle well with me but I have no objection to changing it back until or unless we can find something better. Defunct tends to mean out of business where some of these websites are still around but have changed focus. --StuffOfInterest 20:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, problem partly caused by me shortening other headings from the repetitious General web directories, Regional web directories etc. Maybe Notable Defunct Directories otherwise "Defunct" might mean directories of defunct webpages (archive.org maybe :-) --AGoon 21:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but aren't they automatically notable if they have articles? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, by definition - if they're not notable they shouldn't have a wikipedia page ;-) --AGoon 22:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That's my point. Ergo, "Notable Defunct Directories" would be redundant. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Redundant to readers? Do they know that wikipedia standards only allow notable entries ;-) (remember this is a heading rather than just a category definition). Defunct also just means "inactive"[4] so I propose to get rid of these contentious deliberations, we call it Defunct directories --AGoon 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thought of a new heading - Nostalgia :-) --AGoon 02:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_web_directories_7c59.html"