Forum Moderators: open
1) I think Google is fantastic, no doubt.
2) I think PageRank is a great tools for users. (Thinking as a user, as it must be done)
3) I think that the ODP efforts are incredible and
that this is a very remarkable non profit whole work.
But.....
Looking at the evident problems that ODP is having to get the directory updated, with extreme delays in listings, with add url forms that do not work, with an obvious need of new editors, (many categories without one), and they are NOT replying to most new editor's proposals, with email addresses giving permanent fatal errors, etc, etc, I really can't understand how Google can still having that strong dependence with ODP, which is clearly "pulling down" the overall Google quality.....
It looks to me like a gorgeous Rolls Royce using a VW Beetle carburator....
Can't Google organize it's own directory?
Can't Google help in any way to ODP to suit their actual severe problems?
Just my two cents of devaluated argentine peso.....
Well, that didn't happen, so over time the new theory became that the little guys were the ones squeezing the other little guys :). But perhaps we've come full circle?
Google gives priority to dmoz because that is part of its contract with aol who bought dmoz and wanted to put it to use.
Can't Google organize it's own directory?
Certainly, Google might have adopted ODP as a goodwill gesture for being adopted by AOL search and indeed, Netscape returned the favor by adding the small green ball at the bottom of its category listings which allows a dmoz.org user to switch immediately to the same category in the Google Directory. Fundamentally, however, ODP data is free. Under the terms of the license, AOL cannot stop Google from using it even if their other corporate relationships unamicably divorce.
The truth of the matter is that human-edited directories do not scale easily. Yahoo discovered this half a decade ago and the difficulty of sites getting into Yahoo, especially nonprofit ones, was a key reason why Gnuhoo was established. The LS/Zeal model has some real advantages over pure pay for placement and over the free model, but as it grows it will experience problems as well-- we have already seen complaints here at WebmasterWorld about how Zeal defines commercial or noncommercial sites, and even fewer people on the street have heard of LS than of the Google Directory. And if SEOs develop an obsession with Zeal equally unhealthy as that with ODP, the less scrupulous ones will start playing the same games of cloaking submissions, hijacking domains, etc.
Despite its flaws, real and imagined, the ODP is still the largest directory available, its links are relatively good quality, its data easy to retrieve, and the whole thing is free.
I think that, ultimately, is why Google chose to use a directory off the shelf, and invest its technology resources insted in projects like Froogle, Google News, and Google Answers.
some like dmoz because they get listed under honest editors or they are editors.
some don't get listed because of spammy sites or bad editors that create tons of their own sites and kickout or do not list competitors.
i do not believe google should use an amateur directory where many editors cheat. uder my category (which i go the boot for being competition) the category is filled with the editors own sites.
1) It's free.
2) It isn't a competitor.
3) It may not be 100% comprehensive, but it comes closer than anything else does.
4) The data that it provides may be useful in other ways (if not now, then perhaps in the future).
It would be foolish for Google to create its own directory from scratch, because the audience for general-purpose directories is limited and the directory would never pay for itself. Besides, Google is in the spidered-search business, not the human-edited directory business. For Google, a directory is useful mainly as a place for Googlebot to find links.
#5) If Google ran the directory they use, then what are now complaints about alleged ODP corruption and incompetence become complaints about Google corruption and incompetence. Since anyone can use the ODP, and they don't run it, Google can't take all the blame.
No, what point could that possibly serve?
1) Submission date is not a relevant datum! Site completion date is the ONLY relevant value -- and we know there are many sites that have been completed for longer than that, and not yet reviewed. And the way you would help with THAT problem is to ... find them and submit them to the correct category.
2) A submitter simply can't know whether a site was ignored, lost, delayed, or rejected, or whether it was just mis-submitted so badly that it will take a year to wend its way back to the correct category. Many submitters don't even take the trouble to determine whether it was accepted or not.
3) You were talking about abuse, but you appear to be confused about something. "Not listing a site within three months" is NOT abuse. True, the AVERAGE time to site review is approximately three months or so, but some sites get reviewed almost instantly, and some take longer.
1) It's free.2) It isn't a competitor.
3) It may not be 100% comprehensive, but it comes closer than anything else does.
4) The data that it provides may be useful in other ways (if not now, then perhaps in the future).
#5) If Google ran the directory they use, then what are now complaints about alleged ODP corruption and incompetence become complaints about Google corruption and incompetence. Since anyone can use the ODP, and they don't run it, Google can't take all the blame.
#6) For search engines, it's an authoritative resource for determining topical relevancy not only because of the topical hierarchical structure, but verification by human eyes.
Re #6 I'd rather not hear that some editor crammed some category full of his grandmother's knitting. That's irrelevant. If they're about knitting, they're about knitting. Search engines, Google included, are about relevant search results and using a comprehensive human-edited directory helps establish that.
Personally, I'd like to see Google to take ODP over, if for no other reason than to keep someone else from getting it and destroying it altogether.
I think ODP is a wonderful thing and Google's ownership would make perfect sense on many levels - also I think (IMHO) the editors would have no problem working under Google - especially if G spent a some money on it.
Certainly a better scenario than MSN getting hold of it - EEK!
I think that folks here on the board want the Open Directory to improve in it speed and decision making, and trust that if Google were the owner it would make that happen. A new owner would be good, but not necessarily Google.
Google's results are supposed to be objective and based on the algos. DMOZ obviously impacts the results of the algos, but if it went away they would still be valid.
If Google takes DMOZ over then they will be in the business of determining worth subjectively. I prefer that the subjective decisions be made under a totally different heirarchy and ownership structure than the objective decisions.
So, I vote for Google to use but not own the Open Directory.
Would someone be so kind to explain the importance of ODP and why so many are dying to get listed.
Except for #7 above, a dmoz link is like most others.
Hmm, I seem to recall reading somewhere in Google's blurb that their results are supposed to be free from human (editorial) interference yet they allow a human-edited directory to influence their results. Not just that, it is a human-edited directory that's sole reason for existence is to influence search engines.
Something ain't right here.
Kaled.
Personally, I'd like to see Google to take ODP over, if for no other reason than to keep someone else from getting it and destroying it altogether.
I share the very same thought, Marcia. I think we all are expecting too much from free volunteers who are doing their best to build the ODP. What is required of the moment is for Google to take it over, sit many of its own editors to monitor over the free volunteers, and improve the overall scenario.
If the above happens, complaints will go down by 90% :)
The ODP did not go to the search engines, the search engines went to the ODP because they recognised the value of human as opposed to robot evaluations of websites.
It seems that the greatest detractors of the ODP cannot get their heads around what it is. Suggestions such as: it should be commercialised', 'it should be run by professional editors', 'it should be bought out by a commercial search engine such as Google' etc. miss the point that it is not a capitalist venture.
Not everything is about capital.
Some things are about the spirit of volunteering, community-building, human co-operation, communication and contributing to a more inclusive society. (You might have missed out on this if you were born after the cold war).
No it's not as robotically efficient as a corporation but it's largely a volunteer organisation which is a more worthy thing entirely. It's human and it has human flaws. But it represents something which is a good deal more valuable to everybody in the long run than short-termist profiteering.
Having said that, I strongly agree that prospective editors should be vetted for the topic they apply for in order to make sure - as far as possible - that there are no conflicts of interest.
Hmm, I seem to recall reading somewhere in Google's blurb that their results are supposed to be free from human (editorial) interference yet they allow a human-edited directory to influence their results. Not just that, it is a human-edited directory that's sole reason for existence is to influence search engines.
Yes, they are free from any human interference as I believe.
If we talk about links from a human edited directory, then we also need to take into consideration all the millions of websites on internet which link to each other and which are also created by humans.
The very purpose of Google's technology that revolves around no-human-touch is basically only in terms of manipulation and not relevancy.
To answer the questions that started this thread:
Can't Google organize it's own directory?
Yes they can. It would take resources ($). I guess Google would have to decide if having a directory is worth the trouble (return on investment - ROI).
Can't Google help in any way to ODP to suit their actual severe problems?
IMO, the best thing they could do is put them out of our misery. I guess they could support them with money for hardware, etc., but I believe that an exclusively volunteer and free directory will always be doomed to failure. There is just not enough incentive for people to volunteer in numbers to keep the directory viable. What do they get out of it? What is the return on the investment of their time (ROI again)? It's not like they are feeding the hungry or housing the homeless, things that would at least make them feel better morally. Again, IMO, there is not enough benefit to volunteering to get sufficient numbers to keep the ODP relevant.
If they charged $20 for listing and an editor received $15 for every listing they posted, do you think there would be a backlog?
Communism failed for a reason.
Exactly why is it that people who know nothing about nothing see fit to post about how ignorant they are?
ODP could use a ten person staff, but aside from that the process works pretty well, and well edited sections of the directory contribute to the finest quality search results in *all* the significant search engines.
ODP is the center of the Internet because it far and away deserves it more than anything else anywhere.
If there is no editor for a particular category on dmoz (ODP)would they (DMOZ) consider an application for editor for this category if that person had a pretty good understanding of how everthing works in regards to the internet/search engines etc....?
If yes normally how long would it take before you get a response to yes or no about the app? Thanks!
Google buying ODP would have positive aspects, but if it's part of their business utility to minimize the amount of infantile whining directed at them, then having it seperate makes sense. It is hard to even imagine the level of sniveling that would take place if a search engine didn't rank somebody's crap site highly and also didn't list that crap site in its directory. Man o man, imagine moderating that webmasterworld board...
Golly... is it possible that other people's experiences with ODP are different from yours?
ODP could use a ten person staff, but aside from that the process works pretty well, and well edited sections of the directory contribute to the finest quality search results in *all* the significant search engines.
What do the sections that aren't edited well contribute? Are we suppose to ignore the fact that there are quite a few sections that seem to have been abandoned?
ODP is the center of the Internet because it far and away deserves it more than anything else anywhere.
Is there another Internet that I'm not aware of?
That's the bottom line (although it's easy to lose sight of once all the whiners and whingers get going). No other directory comes close to it.
We'd better tell Krishna Bharat and George A. Mihaila that.
When Experts Agree: Using Non-Affiliated Experts to Rank Popular Topics [www10.org]
We define an expert page as a page that is about a certain topic and has links to many non-affiliated pages on that topic. Two pages are non-affiliated conceptually if they are authored by authors from non-affiliated organizations.We believe a page is an authority on the query topic if and only if some of the best experts on the query topic point to it. Of course, in practice some expert pages may be experts on a broader or related topic.
Scroll down to 1.1 - Related work - where it refers to human classification.
We can't think that Google is using Hilltop, but we can surmise that links from ODP and Yahoo constitute being links from authoritative expert sources.
It sure is a whole lot authoritative and more accurate than paying for clicks, buying Page Rank, begging for links with anchor text and keyword stuffing every hyperlink, nook and cranny on a web page.
[edited by: Marcia at 9:38 pm (utc) on Aug. 1, 2003]
With AOL constantly loosing members, and many of AOL's holdings are not preforming at a fraction of what they were 3 years ago, it is only a matter of time for AOL to do some cost cutting if the budget sheet doesnt move into the black ink range soon.
Anyone know how many employees the DMOZ branch of AOL has?
From reading this thread, it sounds like a few members are not pleased with the lack of paid editors like Zeal has. If AOL has any fiscal responsability (which is debateable) they surly won't be hiring any more people for a branch of AOL that makes them no money.
Also, does anyone have any idea of who to talk to if you get no response for an application? I, as well as many other members of this board, are more than willing to help out and make the ODP better, but are hands are tied if we apply and get no response. R-Z has told me to re apply on numerous occasions, which i do, and continue to get no response.
ODP is a corrupted place. there are editors in some categories that list their sites and sites of their friends, but reject competitors.
Unfortunatly this sums it up because there are some honest
folk editing for ODP.
One bad apple (or many) or just the appearance of impropriety leads to the reputation that ODP has now.
Counter whining by ODP editors will not wash away the taint.
I have never applied for an ODP listing, don't want one and
don't need one. All my very large number of web pages are
in the top 10 of several SE SERPs for multiple keywords snd or phrases and guess what? This has been done without absolutely any dependence on ODP listings.
Good luck to the honest ODP editors but you all should be aware you are not coming anywhere close to providing a highly respected SE or directory or whatever.
AFAIK, 2. Since AOL just paid for new servers for the ODP, it doesn't look to me like AOL is going to discard it.
Who cares? It's one beautiful, non-deliberate effect of a volunteer directory. If nobody cares enough about a topic, it doesn't deserve high relevancy/attention/placement/anything in the Internet world.
There is no problem in "abandoned" categories. If no one edits the Himalayan needlepoint category, gee, I don't care. If it is important, then someone(s) will volunteer to deal with it. If no one makes the effort to volunteer to edit something, there is no one to "blame" and nothing at all wrong with that. The people of the world have *chosen* for this to be the status quo.
It all comes down to this. If some guy in the Himalayas doesn't mow his lawn, then it will be overgrown and it really doesn't concern me. If it does concern you, then for heaven's sake *do* something about it instead of just crying.
Yup, the most highly regarded, universally valued resource on the Internet.
It's no coincidence all the mega-business search engines highly value ODP, while a bunch of lazy folks don't.
Despite some comments assuring the opposite, ODP listings ARE important to pagerank, backlinks,etc... the holy grial that all webmasters are looking for day after day.
Then, I strongly agree with the folks telling that this is not the perfect place to report ODP problems (or abuses, or whatever), but the main point remains the same : If all of us are working day after day to get good ranks on Google, studying lots of information (so hard in my case because I´m a not english speaking person), and ¨trying to make the homework exactly as the teacher wants¨, why should we fight against all the ODP problems?. You can improve your sites to the perfection (not me for sure. :-) , you can search and research for good links, talking to webmasters, working and working, BUT you can not get a single site listed in ODP for momths, you can not apply as an editor despite the targeted category doesn´t have a single one, and, maybe the worse, you can be the most impartial and cooperative person in the world, with the best intentions, but you can do NOTHING to help! but looking at your green bar expecting to receive the heaven benefit to be listed in ODP....
Ps: steveb, I wish to know how many new editors were accepted in DMOZ for the last three months.
Read them again. That is not what it says.
But this is off-topic the thread.
=================================
"Ps: steveb, I wish to know how many new editors were accepted in DMOZ for the last three months."
I don't know. Hundreds? Becoming an editor of dmoz is not hard. Becoming an editor of highly commercial category with a huge number of sites requires a person to put in their dues in smaller, less difficult categories. The selfish folks will never, ever be able to deal with that concept.
[edited by: steveb at 11:09 pm (utc) on Aug. 1, 2003]
No page of links should ever be considered an "expert page" if applications for inclusion are simply ignored either due to technical problems or manpower shortages. If the system worked I would accept it even though I would not particularly like it, but the system does not work.
Kaled.
