Search Engine Watch
SEO News

Go Back   Search Engine Watch Forums > Search Engines & Directories > Other Search Engines & Directories > Open Directory Project
FAQ Members List Calendar Forum Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-10-2005   #21
krisval
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The US of A
Posts: 190
krisval has a spectacular aura aboutkrisval has a spectacular aura aboutkrisval has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
It may well have been, but it was based on your perception of DMOZ being something that its not.
Unless I am mistaken, only I know my perception and I am very well aware of DMOZ social contract. Also, regardless of what something is today....it can always be improved upon. Moving on..

Last edited by krisval : 02-10-2005 at 07:26 PM.
krisval is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2005   #22
xan
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 238
xan has a spectacular aura aboutxan has a spectacular aura about
I always liked DMOZ.

I use it often to test results on. Its a good quality manual index, so comparing with an automatic topic detector or something is a great way to assess reliability.

Its a voluntary effort, and i always find it amazing that all these people go out there and take the time to actually categorize everything. I edit at DMOZ too, and I know editors have a hard time of it. So many sites are submitted everyday, and of course we can never go fast enough. Most have jobs and families to look after

The encouraging thing is that they do not forego quality for speed. They never have in fact. So far no other directory of its type has even reached its ankle.

well...that's what I think.....
xan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2005   #23
Windsun
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 36
Windsun is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbp
Why? DMOZ is not in business of providing a service to submitters. I think you have a major misunderstanding of what DMOZ is and for.

And it is exactly that attitude, in part, that antagonizes so many.

>Improve the search

Why? DMOZ is a directory, not a search engine. You browse directories and search using search engines. The DMOZ search works perfectly well at finding categories associated with a keyword - whats wrong with that?

The simple fact is, the directory structure is a total mess. You can quite easily find examples of similar websites being listed in 15+ different categories. I complained about it quite a bit when I was there, and it only got worse. Nobody is in charge there, so there are no rules for directory structure.
DMOZ has many many problems. But many within refuse to see it. And we are not talking about the DMOZ "haters" that you refer to. As a user, I find the directory nearly useless since it is so outdated, similar sites are scattered all over the map, and many of the descriptions totally suck.
Windsun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2005   #24
Windsun
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 36
Windsun is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by xan
The encouraging thing is that they do not forego quality for speed. They never have in fact. So far no other directory of its type has even reached its ankle.

well...that's what I think.....
The quality vs speed issue, and the horrible structure, is what finally ended up getting me fired from DMOZ way back in the dark ages. Some people did not like my critical views on DMOZ.

After seeing example after example of edits being rejected for very minor issues - one of the most common was failing to put a period at the end of the description - while millions of sites languish for months and even years is totall ludicrous.

And the so-called quality is not there overall. Some few categories with interested editors are quite good. But the majority are filled with outdated sites, dead sites, URL redirects, spam sites, affiliate sites, and the like.

But by far the biggest single problem with DMOZ as a directory is that there is no logical order to it. The split of categories at the top into business vs everyone else means that you often have two to ten totally seperate trees, all with sites with identical topics. For example, I found "coffee" in 19 different categories and subcats.
Windsun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2005   #25
St0n3y
The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Here. Right HERE.
Posts: 621
St0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to all
I would be more than happy to pay for a DMOZ listing for imporoved communications when submitting sites. I think with DMOZ being a "free" service it allows some of those invovled to get on a high horse and disregard all legitimate and constructive criticisms.

I don't know anybody at DMOZ or any editors so I have no beef with anyone. Nor do I have a problem if DMOZ wishes to remain just as they are with no vision of getting better, as percieved by the masses. What I don't understand is why Google places so much importance on such a directory. I don't cede any moral authority just beause an organization is not-for-profit.
St0n3y is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2005   #26
meechp123
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 22
meechp123 is on a distinguished road
So, after all these concerns and issues, what will the people at DMOZ do? Are they planning to fix their problems or will they just brush it off, thinking that their directory is superior?

It would be great if someone from DMOZ (higher people) responded.
meechp123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2005   #27
hardball
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 83
hardball will become famous soon enough
Crawlers will always need a "safe" starting point; one that involves human judgement, DMOZ isn't perfect (the human factor) but it is as xan mentioned, of reliable quality.
hardball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2005   #28
sarumu1
Eamus Catuli!
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: chicago
Posts: 77
sarumu1 has a spectacular aura aboutsarumu1 has a spectacular aura about
Is DMOZ really that great? The idea of DMOZ is perfect.

Of the major directories available to the casual websurfer, DMOZ certainly has a great reputation. How many other directories can you think of that have the same global scope that DMOZ attempts to capture?

The problems with DMOZ are warped when most of us examine it - specifically, those of us who own websites that we're optimizing offsite, or those of us who are doing so for clients.

Assuming we have a quality site that deserves to be in DMOZ (that's a major assumption), there isn't a conspiracy to keep us out. The DMOZ editors want desperately to let us in. They don't want to do it for us-the-webmasters or for us-the-SEO dudes, even though we're swell guys and gals, but they want to do it for us-the-casual-websurfers who are looking for good sites that contain the info we need - and not deal with the typical spam and sites backed by deep pockets that are spit out by the major search engines.

For us - the webmasters and seo dudes - a listing adds credence for our sites, and might direct some traffic our way. We curse at DMOZ as we wait and wait and wait to be listed. But we're being kept out by a numbers game - I think it's safe to assume that the number of editors compared to the daily submissions received is miniscule. They don't want to accept every Tom, Dick or Harriet (pc) as an editor to help them deal with the overflow because they want to maintain the quality of the directory.

People seem to think that not getting listed in DMOZ hurts them. If the site in question is truly good, then people will come - and backlinks will be created - and it will eventually be listed in DMOZ. But if you think having a right-here-right-now listing in DMOZ is central to your web marketing campaign, you're wrong - and that's the succinct description of one of the groups (the larger group) of people frustrated with DMOZ.

The other group of frustrated people are the ones who wants better, more up to date sites listed as they try to mine the net for information. Again, it's a numbers game and the editors are trying to make a dent in the submissions they receive. Remember, they're volunteers. If you're that frustrated, you should apply to be an editor and help them out. If you don't want to be an editor, then you should simply say "thank you" to those who are instead of muttering curses under your breath.

Complaining of poor communication as you wait for your site to be listed? Again, it's a numbers game. Communicating with you to say your site isn't going to be listed for **** reasons takes time away from evaluating more submissions. Again, that's the attitude of a site owner waiting to have their site listed. If you were simply Joe Blow walking down the boulevard (of broken dreams) and found a great site that you have nothing to do with, and if you were a smart web denizen, then you'd submit that site to DMOZ as well. A lot of people do that. Why should DMOZ communicate with the person who has no vested interest in the site they submitted? And that's the answer that you don't want to hear. DMOZ isn't a service. It's an attempt at categorizing the web. They're not going to communicate with the person who has no vested interest in the site, and they're not going to communicate with the person who does (although, they do communicate in the resource-zone, just enough to let you know that your site hasn't evaporated into electrons and is awaiting review). They want to do their volunteer work and not be bothered as they go about it.

DMOZ has lofty goals. Insurmountable goals, to be precise. The web is growing far faster than they can categorize. They want to do it the free and democratic way, which is very noble. The little guy has the same opportunity as the big corporation. If they offer a paid/ expedited review as an option, the listings produced for little guys will be equivalent to a figurative trickle or leak, compared to the deluge of listings backed by money. Eventually, DMOZ's corporate owners may introduce that as an option, but I honestly hope they don't. I think as the web becomes more popular, more people will want to help with it's organization, and DMOZ will get the quality editors that they so desperately need.

Subbu - A frustrated webmaster just like you who would like to see his site listed in DMOZ.

Last edited by sarumu1 : 02-13-2005 at 11:01 AM.
sarumu1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2005   #29
macdesign
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 63
macdesign is on a distinguished road
My wife never heard of DMOZ, my wife never uses it, my wife does not care. My wife makes money from clients that came to her web site from people doing searches from sites that use DMOZ data - not from Google. I doubt if any of those people ever heard of DMOZ either.

My wife is happy - she made money because of DMOZ despite nt knowing what it is.

Her clients are happy, they found her services without knowing or caring about DMOZ.

Whichever editor added the site [before I ever became an editor] provided a service to some users of DMOZ.
macdesign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2005   #30
semchick
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5
semchick is on a distinguished road
DMOZ=Link

IMO, DMOZ is a strong backlink to your site, and nothing more.

It's admirable that long ago, someone decided to create a human edited directory, but I agree with some of the other posters that many of the editors have become lazy and elitest (in general - I know some editors are great and really care)

Just my 0.02
semchick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2005   #31
Windsun
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Arizona
Posts: 36
Windsun is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarumu1
.....If they offer a paid/ expedited review as an option, the listings produced for little guys will be equivalent to a figurative trickle or leak, compared to the deluge of listings backed by money. Eventually, DMOZ's corporate owners may introduce that as an option, but I honestly hope they don't. I think as the web becomes more popular, more people will want to help with it's organization, and DMOZ will get the quality editors that they so desperately need.

Subbu - A frustrated webmaster just like you who would like to see his site listed in DMOZ.
As much as AOL might like to make DMOZ a pay service, according to the original DMOZ charter or contract, they cannot. Legally they would have to totall disband it and start over.

However, AOL handles DMOZ pretty stupidly. They could make it a flagship advertising pull - "see!! look how neat we are - we offer this FREE service because we are AOL!!!" kind of a PR, doing it for the public good type thing. Instead, they offer almost no support - it is essentially a leaderless orphan.
Windsun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005   #32
krisval
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The US of A
Posts: 190
krisval has a spectacular aura aboutkrisval has a spectacular aura aboutkrisval has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
As much as AOL might like to make DMOZ a pay service, according to the original DMOZ charter or contract, they cannot. Legally they would have to totall disband it and start over.
I have read this a lot. Mostly from editors, but is this fact? I am not an attorney nor are most in this forum. I sincerely doubt, however, that the social contract is a non-reversible binding contract. I would like to hear from someone that really knows if this is true and quote a source within AOL/Time Warner/Netscape.

I would like to quote one line from the contract that seems to dispute this belief that the contract is permanent and binding:
"We may edit, move, or delete any content on the ODP (including content that you have provided) or terminate all or part of the ODP without notice or liability for any reason at our sole discretion."

Last edited by krisval : 02-15-2005 at 04:45 PM.
krisval is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005   #33
macdesign
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 63
macdesign is on a distinguished road
IMO - It actually doesn't matter if it's reversable since the majority of editors and certainly the 20% that do 80% of the work, would quit, and ODP would cease to exist. At that point it would have to start over and rebuild itself - it's much easier to start a new paid directory.

Also once they started charging - Google would drop ODP as a source, and then no one would want to be in ODP.
macdesign is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005   #34
St0n3y
The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Here. Right HERE.
Posts: 621
St0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to allSt0n3y is a name known to all
Quote:
Google would drop ODP as a source, and then no one would want to be in ODP.
That's the issue for me. For Google to pretent that DMOZ is somehow superior to other directories because they do not charge is pretty lame. If getting paid is bad, then Google shouldn't be in the business of Adwords or Adsense, or anything else. It's downright hypocritical. Google should focus on the quality of the directory and its internal structure, not whether its free or not.
St0n3y is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005   #35
krisval
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The US of A
Posts: 190
krisval has a spectacular aura aboutkrisval has a spectacular aura aboutkrisval has a spectacular aura about
Editors would quit - I agree
It woudn't be valuable - Disagree
Look at Yahoo. They offered free submission at one point. Look at MSN.
The directory is growing very quickly. Depending on the price and the amount of exposure, people would still be willing to pay to get in. Especially if they featured the directory on their home page as Yahoo does and also included the results in their SERPs powered by G.

Regardless, At some point they will need to make some decisions -sell it, kill it, build it. They are a publicly traded company with a lot of turmoil and growing pains from the mergers, I can't imagine that they will run an unprofitable property forever.
krisval is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005   #36
Phoenix
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 97
Phoenix is just really nicePhoenix is just really nicePhoenix is just really nicePhoenix is just really nicePhoenix is just really nice
Quote:
This has happened to me on several occasions; I use a simple search query such as "rhode island mortgage" and I get this error:

The Open Directory search is currently under a heavy load. Please try back later. No Open Directory Project results found
As I understand it, DMOZ was never made to be a search engine, so it can't accomodate many searches, and as far as I have heard they don't care if you can search or not.

I completely stopped visiting DMOZ, submitting sites, submitting client sites, wasting my time trying to find the right category, spending time in resource zone about a year ago. I have not looked back, nor has the decision adversely affected business or the SEO I do. I realized DMOZ was creating more more headache than it was worth, whats the point I kept asking? Anything you can obtain at DMOZ can be found somewhere else. If you are going to submit to DMOZ I would recommend submitting and then never think about it again. If it happens it happens, if not you tried.
Phoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005   #37
xan
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 238
xan has a spectacular aura aboutxan has a spectacular aura about
It depends how you look at it. From my point of view in IR research its priceless. Its a good knowledge base that is compiled by humans. We don't use it for results at my end, we use it to compare automatic classification to human classifiation or hierarchical taxonomies of documents.

Some of you have just discovered WordNet, it has always been a very common tool, and it is often used in combination with ODP for the creation of ontologies(topic maps also get used here). I can tell you that Google and other SE's download the information from the ODP through the Resources Description Framework (RDF). The data then has to be dumped in a database somewhere. Its not secret that ODP doesn't really provide an interface like WordNet has or CyC.

For my purposes, beautiful. Seeing it hasn't got an interface still, could it be its made to be used by machines?

DMOZ elitists are only like that because they have been given reason to be.
xan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2005   #38
randfish
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 436
randfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to allrandfish is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix
I completely stopped visiting DMOZ, submitting sites, submitting client sites, wasting my time trying to find the right category, spending time in resource zone about a year ago. I have not looked back, nor has the decision adversely affected business or the SEO I do.
A very wise choice.

However, I do wish to take issue with search engines (particularly Google) not recognizing or penalizing for the duplicate content use of the DMOZ directory. In my industry, there are 15+ pages in the top 100 results that are the same DMOZ category listed again and again on other sites that use the results. I have no problem with sites wanting to copy DMOZ info, but this is a poor move by (in this case) Google that can easily be avoided.

Secondarily, the links from DMOZ deserve their value, but they do not deserve the additional link popularity that comes from all the DMOZ clones. Google and other need to find a way to de-value these links. Two sites I compete against rank in the top ten with less than a dozen backlinks, very poor quality sites (and poor quality business ethics I might add), yet are ranked highly because the DMOZ clones all link to them with their anchor text (thanks to a wise SEO who changed their name for the web). Link popularity from DMOZ clones needs to be discounted - it's technically only one link.
randfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2005   #39
donp
Roughing it in the Keys...
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida keys
Posts: 6
donp is on a distinguished road
Dmoz

If you think Google is broken, DMOZ never worked. Any company or entity that takes 6 months or more for a fairly simple routine is broken - this is not the Manhattan project. I have applied several times over the years to become an editor - I figured maybe I could help solve the problem rather than bitch about it, but have been politely declined each time.
I do submit my clients sites to them as best according to the guidelines as I can - it's good business, but I have always ranked my clients sites without them, so I'm thinking that their impact is becoming less and less as an authoritative source, and that's a very good thing.
donp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2005   #40
PortProphecy
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13
PortProphecy is on a distinguished road
DMOZ is most definitely broken. I frequently search the site and get a message such as "due to heavy traffic your search cannot be performed". GEEZ! Why would anyone want to have a site listed in directory that sometimes can't handle a search query? I don't want to offend those associated with the ODP and it's admirable goals, but Yahoo is the standard of directories as far I'm concerned.
PortProphecy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off