21–30 of 157 posts
The problem with https://ooh.directory/ is that nobody can tell what gets added and what doesn't. Submissions go through an opaque review process and a lot of good submissions don't make it. Just try searching your favorite bloggers in ooh.directory. 9 out of 10 times they'll be missing from the directory. I'd prefer a more transparent directory where we can can tell why something is or isn't added.
The fact that it’s not exhaustive and is a reflection of the creator’s taste is a feature, not a bug.
> No blogs or categories were found matching emacs. OK then.
> OK then.
Exactly. This is a deeper problem with ooh.directory, that the review process is opaque. They do not explain why something is added or rejected. I do not care much about Emacs itself but I submitted several of my favourite bloggers who write about retrogames, gaming rigs, and custom keyboards. None of them were added. None at all.
I do not think we should be encouraging closed directories like this in the community. I would much rather see a transparent directory where the review process is clear.
The problem with https://ooh.directory/ is that nobody can tell what gets added and what doesn't. Submissions go through an opaque review process and a lot of good submissions don't make it. Just try searching your favorite bloggers in ooh.directory. 9 out of 10 times they'll be missing from the directory. I'd prefer a more transparent directory where we can can tell why something is or isn't added.
I don't get the point of these sites, because it I want a curated list, I visit the front page of hackernews or reddit -- and trust the system.
Ohh.directory I'd the same thing, except for a different selection process.
You either trust it or you don't.
The problem with https://ooh.directory/ is that nobody can tell what gets added and what doesn't. Submissions go through an opaque review process and a lot of good submissions don't make it. Just try searching your favorite bloggers in ooh.directory. 9 out of 10 times they'll be missing from the directory. I'd prefer a more transparent directory where we can can tell why something is or isn't added.
That's no different than the old DMOZ.
The problem with https://ooh.directory/ is that nobody can tell what gets added and what doesn't. Submissions go through an opaque review process and a lot of good submissions don't make it. Just try searching your favorite bloggers in ooh.directory. 9 out of 10 times they'll be missing from the directory. I'd prefer a more transparent directory where we can can tell why something is or isn't added.
And then what? You're looking at a list of hundreds of submissions and why they have been added or not added, which completely defeats the purpose of that website. I don't get the point of these sites, because it I want a curated list, I visit the front page of hackernews or reddit -- and trust the system. Ohh.directory I'd the same thing, except for a different selection process. You either trust it or you don't.
don't see why it has to be this way. It doesn't take much to tell us what the review process is like and what gets added and what does not. If I know in advance that the blogs I submit are outside their scope, then I won't waste time submitting them.
I also don't see why there can't be an open directory of websites where the community makes decisions about what to add instead of leaving it to a single individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was tried before (e.g. Dmoz) and it does not work after it becomes popular. I'm thinking more like just taking all the text files from 80-90s and making a separate static, frozen in time internet.
Dmoz was trying to replicate the Yahoo! style of directory, which requires being comprehensive. Today we don't need comprehensive, we need maximum signal and minimum noise.
The problem with https://ooh.directory/ is that nobody can tell what gets added and what doesn't. Submissions go through an opaque review process and a lot of good submissions don't make it. Just try searching your favorite bloggers in ooh.directory. 9 out of 10 times they'll be missing from the directory. I'd prefer a more transparent directory where we can can tell why something is or isn't added.
> Submissions go through an opaque review process and a lot of good submissions don't make it. That's no different than the old DMOZ.