Forum Moderators: open
The directory where my listing is in DMOZ has not been updated in Google's directory since July. The cached copy of the DMOZ page shows that as well.
Is Google developing a new type of directory with human editors?
1) Inefficient from who's point of view? The webmaster who wants to promote his site or the editor who wants to build a category?
2) What would Google replace it with?
I for one, would welcome a new Google directory that didn't rely on DMOZ with open arms.
Searching 3,307,998,701 web pages on 4,087,814 sites with 60,870 editors and 546,245 categories
If sites are submitted which are not up to standards, then let them know that they were rejected and indicate the reasons. End of story.
I think people would probably have greater respect for DMOZ if they were to approach it this way. The secretive nature of the process is part of the problem, it allows for tremendous subjectivity.
As far as efficiency for the user, I don't really use the directory to find things to be honest because I can find things much quicker on Google's SERPs or any other search engine.
What would Google replace it with? Their own directory. I'm sure they could come up with something better if they wanted to invest their energies into doing so.
>>DMOZ is so bureaucratic and inefficient that it warrants replacement.<<
60 days ago, maybe a little longer, I would have agreed with you. But to my pleasant surprise, DMOZ has been cleaning up a bunch of the spamy stuff that was in it.
For example, there was a person that was associated with a site that went online 4 years ago. This site tried to get an association with us, and I refused based on their lack of knowledge of the topic. This person was able to become an editor and added a bunch of links in a bunch of categories they created in DMOZ. This aided them in becoming very popular, and as the years went on I saw them grow and grow in popularity. Not because of their knowledge of the topic, but because they started a forum and because of their positioning in search engines as time went on, they are now number one on all search engines for a 2 word KW. They are able to charge $800 a month for advertising.
Because I didn’t care for them from the start and would not associate with them, that person would not enter our site into the appropriate category. This went on for years. This has cost us dearly. The catogories that the said editor was creating to put their web site into and the web site of their advertisers into have all been deleted and the editor is gone. Unfortunately, too little too late for us. I am sure this is not the only instant of this happening, and I wonder if it is humanly possible for DMOZ to insure that it could not happen again, and if it is, how.
However, they do deserve a few ‘dat-a-boys’ and ‘dat-a-girls’ for cleaning up at least some of these kinds of issues.
The idea of having "volunteer" editors is going to give way to people who just want to serve their own needs or help out friends or as you point out get back at sites that they have a grudge against or who may represent competition for them. I'm sure there are some editors who have honest intentions, but realistically speaking, why would someone want to devote that much time to something, just for the sake of volunteering. If it is to help out, there are many other ways to volunteer and have a much greater impact on people's lives.
What DMOZ needs is a full time knowledgeable staff, who is neutral, has set guidelines for approving or disapproving sites, lets users know what those guidelines are rather than being secretive and subjective about it, and who are dedicated to producing a quality directory which is useful to people on the web.
I don't see this happening at DMOZ, although it's good to here there are at least some signs of change occurring.
(time for bed) :-)
If it weren't for Google and the boost a dmoz listing get's in G's index, no one would care if DMOZ rolled over and puckered up for good...
Any time you present an environment where people can exert power over some other entity, you won't get impartial judgement... I hope Google dumps 'em tomorrow, and DMOZ dies the quick death, that it should have two years ago..
If DMOZ is so bad, just forget it.
If you can't forget it because it is so important to you, then build something better.
But complaining that something that is free isn't worth the money is pointless. And, in this case, against WMW TOS.
So what does that tell you? Build another one? Like rabbits, we'll be multiplying directory websites all over the Internet. Spare me the headaches.
Since DMOZ does offer something for free and has a large usage base, that is all the more reason to listen to people's complaints. Your suggestion to go off and build another directory doesn't address the problems. You just run away from the problems.
Nevertheless, I do feel that there is a need to develop a completely new type of directory system. One that does have volunteers but where the volunteers are only allowed to edit for a maximum of 6 months with a break of one year or longer. It should be a system where any company listed in a category has an equal right to become an editor. This is what is dramatically missing from DMOZ. It is a non-democratic organization. "Dictators" rule.
I actually submitted a suggestion to the W3 Consortium on how a new type of directory system could be built that includes the following:
* bases its categories on a higher granular scale
* normalizes category IDs across languages and cultures
* has built-in features that make search engines like Google able to extract higly relevent data
* does not return content sorted by entry names but constantly randomizes the order of entries
* is based on XML but includes a newer technology that utilizes keywords in a better way
* cannot be manipulated
* restricts editors
The W3 Consortium is really the best place to initiate such a directory system. They are one of the very few organizations that are really neutral and see things entirely from a scientific and universal standpoint.
So yes, a new directory system is in the works and sooner or later, it's bye-bye DMOZ. The sooner the better.
[webmasterworld.com...]
The directory link tab has gone from the Home page and the Serps result pages. (Just the Web, Images, Groups and News Tab are displayed) with a more linking to the other services which you can then reach the directory by. (This is a change from the earlier screenshots displayed in the other thread linked to from the above thread)
Also the Dmoz Categories are not displayed in the Serps.
If this New Design is the future then it looks like DMOZ is being downgraded.
However, as it is the PR benefit that most people are interested in then I think that DMOZ will be important for a good time yet - no matter if Google uses it as a Directory or not.
Sorry victor, but I don't agree with your comment on that. Sure, anyone can build a new type of directory for free. But no matter who does, sooner or later, there will be complaints about it just like there are for DMOZ.
I think that's why it's important to stay focused on DMOZ's mission statement. If they had one, it would read something like this:
A volunteer effort to catalog, for free, websites with unique content
Change almost any word in that definition, and you decribe another potential organization, some of which already exist. Soem of the niches remain to be filled.
Most discussions of DMOZ's faults usually center around it not having a different mission statement, rather than it failing to fulfil its existing one at its own pace.
Usually, these discussions are along the lines of "DMOZ's mission is costing me money".
That may be true, but the fault is not with DMOZ.
[edited by: skibum at 11:58 pm (utc) on Jan. 21, 2004]
[edit reason] fixed quote [/edit]
The post above by a long time DMOZ editor is an example of the total lack of professionalism exhibited by many DMOZ meta editors. That’s why people wait lengthy periods to get listed. Go to DMOZ’s public forums and see if it isn’t littered with the same arrogant, sarcastic responses by other metas. Would any type of responsible individual make a post like this virtually telling people to “kiss off”.
DMOZ incorporates a philosophy with it’s volunteer editors that they want them “mild and meek” so they can manipulate them. Staff and owners pay no attention to what goes on except to collect their own paychecks. How else can you explain a post like this from one of their long time metas.
Go ahead become a DMOZ editor. See if these metas aren't even worse once you become an editor.
That doesn't mean he isn't right. In terms of the directory growing at a faster pace, the large number of affiliate spam and other crud submissions does impede that goal.
>DMOZ incorporates a philosophy with it’s volunteer editors that they want them “mild and meek” so they can manipulate them. Staff and owners pay no attention to what goes on except to collect their own paychecks. How else can you explain a post like this from one of their long time metas.
The owner is Netscape/AOL, and they don't make any money on the ODP. In fact, they just lose money from it, as it is a cost center. As for the paychecks of staff (all of 2 people), I fail to see how this makes any difference in their pay.
Nevertheless, I do feel that there is a need to develop a completely new type of directory system. One that does have volunteers but where the volunteers are only allowed to edit for a maximum of 6 months with a break of one year or longer. It should be a system where any company listed in a category has an equal right to become an editor.
There are such directory systems in place today. Albeit small, but still with a steadily growing user base. In such a system, each volunteer has the right to index one web page in any category, and to define all the data for the page including the description and the title. The only difference to your proposal is that the volunteers are not time restricted, but restricted to web pages for which they are the webmaster or owner (i.e. where they have access to the source code of the page).
CalArch90 said: The idea of having "volunteer" editors is going to give way to people who just want to serve their own needs or help out friends or as you point out get back at sites that they have a grudge against or who may represent competition for them. I'm sure there are some editors who have honest intentions, but realistically speaking, why would someone want to devote that much time to something, just for the sake of volunteering. If it is to help out, there are many other ways to volunteer and have a much greater impact on people's lives.
redzone said: DMOZ is the biggest joke on the web... payments under the table to editors, editors administering cats that their own website exists under.
Johann said: Nevertheless, I do feel that there is a need to develop a completely new type of directory system. One that does have volunteers but where the volunteers are only allowed to edit for a maximum of 6 months with a break of one year or longer.
Johann said: It should be a system where any company listed in a category has an equal right to become an editor. This is what is dramatically missing from DMOZ. It is a non-democratic organization. "Dictators" rule.
Regarding talk of Google dropping the ODP, please don't make the mistake of thinking that the ODP will curl up and blow away if that ever happens. Frankly, quite a large number of editors would be ecstatic at the sharp decrease in unlistable crap that'll be submitted to the ODP if that happens (whoops, there goes me, paraphrasing kctipton again).
The problem with the DMOZ is that google uses it as it's directory. In the modern world of mass communication, fast moving economics and instant supply and demand anything that takes over a year to produce results is redudant.
I have tried to get my site listed and I've applied to be an editor of other catergories not even related to me but it's like a big black-hole with no response. It now isn't worth my time or effort. I can't help thinking that if more and more people think like me then the DMOZ becomes worthless.
It's by far the worst service google offers and should be dropped like the dead dog it is.
and I've applied to be an editor of other catergories not even related to me but it's like a big black-hole with no response
If you did not receive any response to editor applications something must gone wrong. Did you receive and reply to the e-mail that was sent out automatically a short time after your application in order to verify your e-mail address?
The topic of the ODP goals has been covered monthly for many years.
The fact that the ODP goals overlap, but do not directly coincide with, webmaster goals has been mentioned in detail hundreds of times.
The same old people come up with the same old baseless supposition every few months.
.
I used to be a daily visitor to this forum, but now I only bother looking in every few weeks or more. Nothing has changed.
I'm not the same old person whining every few months. It's the first post I've ever made about DMOZ, here or anywhere else.
The thread was about DMOZ and Google, and the facts are that the directory isn't "fresh", there are inherent problems in a "volunteer" based staff, and that Google should drop using DMOZ.
As for naming specific examples of editor corruption would violate the TOS here, but if you think it doesn't go on, you are kidding yourself. Anything that affects rank in Google has been influenced by money. But aside from that, I'm sure that the editors that have integrity, are proud of their work and the directory. Unfortunately, the directory is "stale", many submissions go unprocessed, or are biasely declined, and Google should not associate with this type of information base, as they are about "fresh", current, up to date information. (Isn't that what this thread was about?)
To the rant section. I think people just want to get it out of their system and see that others are upset as well. We all have bad ODP stories. I actually have a few good ones but that was a long time ago.
Realistically rfgdxml how many companies run operations that hurt profits. ODP pays none of the volunteers (or atleast they so), has no payroll except for the upper echelon, has no health care costs, and to quote you only two employees and you're telling me they're losing money. The true question is how could they lose money? The reality is DMOZ provides free content for AOL and Netscape without employee costs. This free content without employee expenses allows these companies to sell millions in advertising.
Do you actually believe RD Keating of DMOZ is just "getting by" running the DMOZ directory. I've got some nice land I'd like to sell you.
Its like I said, go join DMOZ. The proof is in the pudding. See if many of these metas aren't children, prisoners, emotionally unstable, ruthless business people, or people with a lot of time on their hand for various reasons. See if the metas don't invade the privacy of submitters and editors with some pretty invasive tools supplied by Keating. Business screen for things like that with employees. Faceless volunteer editors can be anybody on the Internet. Go find out why few these lower editors seldom report abuse at DMOZ. They have the good sense not to trust the metas in DMOZ.
[edited by: skibum at 11:04 pm (utc) on Jan. 22, 2004]
Hey, guys, make up your minds. Are editors domineering, sarcastic meanies who derive sadistic enjoyment from deleting your affiliate sites, or meek, trampled slave labor too frightened of the metas and the evil AOL overlords to speak out against our miserable existence there?
'Cause your flip-flopping is confusing me, and I need to know which underwear to wear tomorrow. ;-)
Please stop complaining about DMOZ. DMOZ does not exist to support webmasters. DMOZ exists to support web users.
And personally, if I were a DMOZ editor getting the same spammy site submission over and over and over again, you bet I'd just delete it.
The web needs good content, useful commerical sites and fun entertainment. DMOZ exists to list those resources so users can easily find them.
And someone who is donating time and effort for such a good cause can, in my opinion, be as arrogant as he or she wants. I prefer to think of them as "noble".
It's not just me :-).
--
Jim Noble
Volunteer ODP meta editor
[dmoz.org...]
