Current status of DMOZ and Google

Google hasn't updated DMOZ since July. What does this imply?

[Johann]

Has anyone made any changes to their listing or added a listing in DMOZ and seen it updated in Google's directory over the last month or two?

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?

[ogletree]

I promise every serious SEO has seen abuse at DMOZ at some time or another. I just saw a site today that I know belongs to a competiter in a cat that he has no business in. I could never get there if I wanted to. You can call all the top SEO houses and they have at least one DMOZ editor on staff and probably more. The funny thing is that my competiter is nowehere to be found. He seems to be trying real hard and has a ton of sites just to get ranked in this subject.

[Meta_Vision]

DMOZ REPORT

I've spent the past week analyzing DMOZ
(and exchanged email with google).

Here are the facts:

(1) FACT: Given the speed of web growth,
NO human-managed directory can keep up
with new entires. BOTTOM LINE: Do the math.
[Straightforward paid listings is, of course,
another matter.]

(2) DMOZ can't even keep up with
cleaning up outdated entries.
(In the area I checked, a full 90% were
dead, long abandoned, mislabeled, junk)

(3) Using junk data would significantly
lower search quality.

(4)Google is not run by stupid people.

(5) There are "political reasons" (having
to do with the hours invested/WASTED
by many many people) which prohibit
an immediate obvious dumping of DMOZ.

BOTTOM LINE:
The End of DMOZ significance is Near

Change is hard -- especially for those
invested in an old idea that's passing.
Save the "Don't Bash DMOZ" diatribe:
Do the math. Google has.

[kctipton]

I eagerly await Google dropping the ODP database (or at least saying that they've dropped it). This should reduce the spam submitted for review while significantly increasing editor productivity.

[SlowMove]

I think what's needed is a directory of directories. There are a lot of category specific directories all over the web that are put together by people that are experts in their fields.

[flicker]

I'm not even sure what's meant by "dropping DMOZ data." You mean no longer offering a directory mirror? That would be too bad. I like the Google directory; it adds value to the DMOZ directory by allowing powerful searches within-directory, something the DMOZ directory alone hasn't got the resources for. Still, that decision is entirely up to Google, and it's as a user that I'd mourn the Google directory's passing, not as an ODP editor.

If you mean not spidering and following links from the DMOZ directory, though, you're completely on crack. Google is never in a hundred years going to stop using directory pages, ODP and otherwise, for its algorithmic calculations. Why would they? They're just about the most valuable spider food imaginable; the idea that Google would stop counting them for its results while continuing to count, say, porn portals, is faintly ludicrous.

[pleeker]

I think what's needed is a directory of directories.

isedb.com, anyone?

[outland88]

>I eagerly await Google dropping the ODP database (or at least saying that they've dropped it).

Can you imagine any quality employee of Google, Yahoo, or any company for that matter making a statement like this. It's like I said join DMOZ and see first hand the quality of these meta editors. These metas at DMOZ spend more time in forums than placing sites. That's why people are constantly complaining they can't get a site listed in DMOZ.

[g1smd]

Time to close this thread.

[kctipton]

spend more time in forums than placing sites

Of course! We really should edit nonstop and let these anti-ODP rants be more one-sided, but some of the inane comments around here just scream out for replies.

[IITian]

(In the area I checked, a full 90% were
dead, long abandoned, mislabeled, junk)

I believe you. Must be a commercial category. Most businesses (about 90%) fail within the first five years of their existence. More likely to be more so for the internet-based businesses that anybody can start with $5 annual domain name fee and $1 monthly web hosting fee. This is one more reason why I feel that the DMOZ editors should be spending less time on the commercial categories since most of the sites added are going to be dead soon so why waste time reviewing and listing them, and spend more time in adding quality informational sites.

[skibum]

Looks like this thread has run its course.