Forum Moderators: open
Creating directory software is easy. The complicated part is deciding what to list, and how to classify it consistently across cultures and across time, and how to handle the Internet's transience and low barriers to entry. Librarians have struggled with the former since the beginning of written communication, and consider how much cheaper/easier it is to publish a hundred thousand junk urls than a hundred thousand junk books. YH does it one way, LS another, and ODP yet another.
I'm an ODP advocate, but I'm well aware that the ODP is far from invincible or perfect. It has changed considerably just as the web has changed in the last four years. If it cannot keep up with the change, its continued existence will not be justified, and it will lose its funding, and more vitally for a volunteer-based program, its volunteer community. Whether that point is now, two years from now, two years ago, or never is probably outside the scope of this thread.
Some of the proposals for improved, automated directories proposed by posters in this thread were tried by Go Guides, Wherewithal, or others, with varying degrees of success.
The failure of GO had nothing to do with the model of the GO Guides directory. The model worked fine. The directory was very high quality. The only problem was they were a day late and a dollar short.
Google isn't strapped with the financial burdens that Go had. They also enjoy three times the marketshare that Infoseek ever had. If they rolled out a GoogleGuides program tomorrow, they would be buried with volunteers who would be willing to become editors.
If they used a Zeal type model, they could have an Army of editors working for free to list non-commercial content and a staff of in-house Editors to take paid commercial submissions.
As far as the other directories mentioned, they weren't even close to being in the same league as Google, so they aren't even worth discussing.
Google has all the ingredients necessary to bury both directories if they choose to do so. It's just a matter of timimg.
Yahoo and the ODP are in competition even if one is commercial and the other in not for profit they are always going to be in competition simply because they are the no1 and the no2 in the web directory market. Some say yahoo is better some say ODP is better. But people only say this one way or the other if it effects them. IE if your site gets dropped by yahoo odp suddenly becomes great. likewise of you cant get an odp listing then yahoo is cool.
Because yahoo! and ODP are in this situation it is very important for either of them to provide result on Google. Yahoo can pay for it ODP cant (unless AOL caught up) and I cant see them doing that. If yahoo get the Google deal then they are nailing one more nail into the ODP coffin. It has to be said though that ODP don’t have a lot to loose from it because they don’t gain anything from it. Yahoo can pay though...and this may be the determining factor in the entire decision.
Another reason that Google may use yahoo! data is because no one else can. Yahoo don’t release their data for other sites to use in such a way as the ODP do.. so it would be a feather in the cap for Google if they where the only non-yahoo site that had the yahoo directory.
If Google where to go alone and build their own directory it could be very beneficial for them to do this.. More exposure for ad words on directory pages ect (although they could do this with any directory provider.) But if they do go alone it would make them one of the few se's with it's own directory and would put them ahead of Fast who may decide to do the same. In a way this could give them a jump start in the directory battle.
Yes, I can see that. I wonder if they will choose to do so.
Are you a DMOZ editor? If so, surely you can see that this thread is shining light on the fact that having corrupt editors, even though they are a small percentage of all editors, could be enough of a negative so as to influence Google to drop DMOZ altogether. You should diplomatically tell the metas (I know how they are) that a zero-tolerence policy needs to be invoked.
It wouldn't be that hard to implement; all editors would need to sign affadavits stating that they have no commercial interest in the categories for which they edit, and would not accept monies from outside interests for directory inclusion, and under no circumstance may they have their own (or a relatives) site included in any DMOZ category. Make it clear that violating these terms could very well mean jail time, just as CEO's are now starting to serve jail time for their corrupt dealings.
In order to flush out the bad ones that are there now, you should create a site, accessible by folks that make the Internet their business (such as the folks here on Webmaster World), where one could anonymously report solid findings on corrupt editors. The current reporting system is ineffective. At the very least, put an e-mail address in your profile, so that people here could reach you to report a corrupt editor. (Sticky mail removes anominity, to a degree.)
If you are not with DMOZ, then never mind :)
if google has 50 resident geniuses capable of building a search engine that produces relevant results, then they also have the capability to build a directory. why they haven't done so yet is another matter.
these 50 geniuses seem to have trouble seeing the simplicity in adding many other features that have been repeatedly asked for, many of which are being implemented on other engines such as FAST. GoogleGuy asked us for a Christmas Present [webmasterworld.com] way back last december. many of these suggestions are fairly simple to implement, but how many have actually been implemented? google still doesn't even have numbered SERPs ....
in fact, google doesn't seem to have done very much at all over the last 9-12 months other than introduce adwords select (which i trialled around january) and create new partnerships.
as WG says, it would make sense for them to control any directory they use. i also agree that it'll just be a matter of time. but personally, i think that google will be almost forced into doing it rather than doing it purely and simply to improve google.
IMO, google has been riding the hype for a long time now without making any real improvements. meanwhile, FAST has vastly improved it's
service - better spidering (including dynamic sites), more search options, relevant results and so on. when knowledge of this becomes more public, the hype will switch to FAST and it's partner sites (Lycos etc). then google will have to do something major, which may include creating their own directory.
If the number of complaints by disgruntled webmasters in this forum were any useful measure, then Google should have folded their own business long ago. I actually think that the amount of unfounded complaints that both Google and the ODP receive (and which significantly outnumber the legitimate ones) makes them ideal partners... ;)
Ready_to_Roll, the rest of your post is way off the topic of this thread, so I'll refrain from repeating the same old arguments all again. If you want me to look into anything specific, then you'll just have to trust the sticky mail system here (I'm not a meta, though, so all I can do is look and relay stuff to more competent people).
But one thing that Google can do to create even BETTER results is to create its own professionally maintained and supervised directory. Google gives an awful lot of weight now to dmoz, which has problems stemming in some cases from not-good editors and in other cases from having no editor for a category, and to Yahoo where spam can buy its way in.
Perhaps this would take five to ten times the work that takes place to maintain dmoz, but it's the clearest thing Google can do to improve. Buying dmoz and starting from where they are wouldn't be a bad idea.
If Google "dropped" ODP, what would the effect be? Since ODP gets no revenue from the data users it wouldn't be a financial problem. I guess the main effect would be that the people submitting for the purpose of getting higher Google PR would be less focused on getting ODP listings, and any corrupt editor would have less opportunity to corrupt the directory.
That doesn't sound like it's all bad too me. ;)
One thing we should remember is that this whole thread here is purely speculative. Brett threw a question out in the open. But if you go back and look at it, then you'll find that it's really just a question and a request for opinions. The question also wasn't whether they should drop the ODP, but just about the probability of them doing so. Looking at Googles past activities and the direction they are heading for, I am unable to detect any danger that such a thing will happen in the foreseeable future. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my take on it.
What hstyri says is absolutely true. At the same time, what the ODP and Google have in common, is that they both don't really care about those people who "want their sites seen", which triggers a very similar set of complaints about both. They both try to give the searcher the best and most relevant links on any specific topic. Although they use almost diametrally opposite methods towards this goal, they both succeed more often than not. Ain't that a marriage made in heaven? ;)
The corruption at ODP goes more higher than you may think.
But one thing that Google can do to create even BETTER results is to create its own professionally maintained and supervised directory.
Why? Does Google actually need a directory? How many people even use the Google Directory? And aren't Google's powers-that-be likely to believe that technology (in the form of a better spidered search engine) will ultimately deliver results that are at least as good as a human-edited directory?
I think the days of general-purpose directories like Yahoo and the ODP are numbered. The Web is just growing too big to be represented adequately by an all-in-one directory. It makes a lot more sense for subject specialists to develop their own Web directories for commercial reasons or as labors of love. The Mining Co./About.com had the right idea a few years ago when it recruited people to run niche sites (with a heavy directory emphasis) on their favorite topics. Unfortunately, About.com's execution left much to be desired, but the *concept* of "vertical niche sites" was appealing both editorially and in terms of targeted advertising sales.
IMHO, there's only one reason why Google should maintain a relationship with the ODP, and that's to discourage spam from floating to the top of search results by counterbalancing the effects of SEO techniques with the PageRank bestowed by human-edited directory listings.
A human directory is a natural counterpart to the algo Google, and is a natural spam-fighter. Google shouldn't drop ODP until it is ready to do a better job itself, and it seems to me that they are ready.
If Google still keeps using ODP for its descriptions on the serps it should refine this.
If a site has multiple listings in ODP, I think Google chooses the description and category listing from the highest Pageranked ODP listing. Thus a site covering topic A and B for 40% each and C for 10%, will be listed and described as topic C, if the latter topic's category has the highest ODP Pagerank.
Google should try to conclude the site's most important topic.
do you also know how google chooses the category match (eg. when you serach for altavista, you get 2 categories on top of SERP)?
i'm getting a very strange result there, see this thread [webmasterworld.com].
Could it be that you need a very high Pagerank for your site plus a high Pagerank for the to be listed ODP category?
Anyone?
Yahoo still has tremendous word of mouth advantage over Google. You find out about Yahoo when you are a newbie. You find out about Google when you get more experienced using the web.
Those days are long gone (newbie? what's that, Grandad?); Google has an excellent and very successful PR team, and has shown what Yahoo! never did - a sense of humor.
Google also has a reputation for being kewl - upholds the 'free' web values - and innovative - groups, images, for example - though as noted, little substantial of late.
Yahoo! is increasingly seen as tired, spam-ridden and cash obsessed.
ODP provides quality data to Google and others; interesting that almost all the complaints are based on personal experience; none are based on broad evidence.
Fact is, disgruntled spammers, genuinely slighted submitters, and corrupt editors tend all to float around the same areas - 99% of users never know, and are simply not affected.
ODP goes in cycles, in case you hadn't noticed; new, enthusiastic Metas do a good, consciencious job for a while, then relax or get institutionalized, and start ignoring complaints. Then there's a shake out. A few get their cards, others sulk, others get back to work. New faces rise ... then the cycle repeats.
Evidence from the 'public forum' of meta arrogance, and increasing reports of power games within ODP suggest that another explosion is imminent. Further evidence is the fact that a major reorganization is occurring - management eyes are off the Metas for the moment.
I appreciate the idea behind ODP. And a lot of editors did and do an excellent job for free. Of course, like in any large organization, for profit or non-profit, there are abusers.
But it seems to me the free directory concept of ODP can't survive in the long run anyway. Internet is getting professional and more moneytized. Given the huge number of new sites coming, and the maintenance of old and present sites, I sincerely doubt ODP will survive based on a free model. If Google drops ODP, it will just accelerate the death of one of last living free internet projects.
Well said.
It has always been political.
The problem with your logic is you are tending to think of the Internet in terms of professionalized and monetized. Remember, what is relevant to a lot of people using this forum (professional webmasters) isn't what is many of the users of the Internet, which use search engines. I'm rarely looking for anything commercial on the Internet. Think of the value of the ODP in terms of noncommercial websites. Maybe the ODP isn't great for commercial categories, but consider things like hobby sites and such. There is more to the WWW than e-commerce.
Also, I can't see Google dropping the ODP unless they had a replacement. Does Google want to start up its own version of the ODP, and pay the money to do so? Unless Google went the way of Yahoo, with a directory that is pay for play on the commercial side, the new Google directory would be just a cost center. Why replace the free ODP with something that will cost Google money. The only way Google could make money is if they went the Yahoo route. It is very much unlike Google that they would allow their results to be influenced by money.
At least you can search in the ODP - (nobody does I know) and still find what you are looking for immediately !BAM! without having "car insurance", "stock quotes" and "book" sites forced down your throat.
Therefore in terms of quick quality results the ODP towers over Yahoo, I don't think any search engine that charges for inclusions could ever be the most popular for ever.
Maybe few use the ODP directly, but remember there is that link on the Google home page "Directory", which is just the ODP. Thus the ODP may get a lot more use, it is just that people think it is the "Google directory". If people get !BAM! what they want from the Google directory, this is good for Google.
