google & ODP

[genordell]

ODP shot themselves in the foot

firstly, the directory is extremely difficult to get into -- the time & effort involved in each submit, and then the low likelihood of approval

secondly, many categories are without editors, or they disappear, and so the effort to submit is wasted

thirdly, it is extremely difficult to become an editor, they do not want your help

fourthly, the categories skip many areas of interest AND a page can be in only one category

ODP is basically a closed shop, and their small amount of content has made them increasingly irrelevant -- compared to Google & Fast's one-click fullsite submission and their 2+ billion URL databases

the absence of ODP on Google's main page is an improvement and a wise decision

[cbp]

You really need to spend some time understanding what ODP is about...

firstly, the directory is extremely difficult to get into -- the time & effort involved in each submit, and then the low likelihood of approval

Thats becasue ODP is not a free listing service for webmasters. Do you actually know why it takes so long? (HINT: it has nothing to do with the activity levels of editors and has a lot to do with so many spammy submissions; submission to wrong categories; most sites submitting non-guidleine compliant descriptions etc that waste an editors times.)

It is not the role of an editor to process submissions - they are really only suggestions. It is the role of an editor to build the category.

secondly, many categories are without editors, or they disappear, and so the effort to submit is wasted

Wrong. All categories have lots of editors.

thirdly, it is extremely difficult to become an editor, they do not want your help

ODP does want help, but maybe not your help - it only wants good editors. Its easy to become an editor, if you follow the guidelines. No new editor is going to be approved for a large category (or even a small spam prone category); not going to be approved if they do not submit 3 URLs in the application with typo or non-guideline compliant descriptions (common); lie in the application (common); or worse submit 3 URL's in the application that do not even belong in that category - imagine the damage an editor can do if they do that? Having an editor that screws up additions to the category etc, wastes more time of other editors who have to fix it up.

fourthly, the categories skip many areas of interest AND a page can be in only one category

And the problem with that is ...? Guidelines are explicit. One site = one category (unless it exceptional in which case the editor will decide to add it)

ODP is basically a closed shop, and their small amount of content has made them increasingly irrelevant

... all this just because you did not get a listing? ODP adds 3000-4000 new sites a day - it is achieveing what it set out to do.... I just assume you think it should be doing something else.

-- compared to Google & Fast's one-click fullsite submission and their 2+ billion URL databases

You are very confused ... Google is a search engine - ODP is a Directory - very different entites trying to achieve different things.

the absence of ODP on Google's main page is an improvement and a wise decision

Yes it is. Now many people will now actually think ODP is not so important and there won't be so many spammy submissions for editors to waste time on and people won't come up with such inane understandings of what ODP is about.

BTW, given that the Google version of ODP is now underpinning Google' personalized search, being in ODP is probably more important now than it has ever been.

CBP

[mmltonge]

The one thing i have an issue with is editors that are webmasters of a site in their category as they will always favour their site. The category i have been listed in is :Music:Concerts and Events:Festivals:Reading Festival... Now the editor runs 3 of the sites in this category and all of them are top of the list with his main site being highly ranked in ODP (the gold star thing next to it) which helps him alot in google and hits + profit wise. His site should only be top if it contains the most up to date, relevant and best site in the category. Now my site IS better than his for new content and quality of content but it is not the best in the category, the top one should be the official site or one other which is best unofficial one (efestivals) ...

this type of 'cheating' by webmasters will happen too often in a human edited directory, i feel that editors should not be allowed to own sites in their directory which is why i do not like the way ODP works... but hey its a good idea just needs smoothing out in my opinion

[cbp]

The one thing i have an issue with is editors that are webmasters of a site in their category as they will always favour their site. The category i have been listed in is :Music:Concerts and Events:Festivals:Reading Festival... Now the editor runs 3 of the sites in this category and all of them are top of the list with his main site being highly ranked in ODP (the gold star thing next to it)

That is against ODP guidelines for an editor to "the gold star thing next to it" their own site.

Report the abuse here:
http://report-abuse.dmoz.org

If what you say is correct, ot will get dealt with. ODP takes this sort of thing seriously.

CBP

[mmltonge]

ahhh i never knew you could report that sort of thing. Although i feel a bit petty about it, my only gripe is it helps him make a profit where as the sort of sites we run are supposed to be for music love not for profit :/ which is why i think its bad of him. I'll report it anyway although feel bad about it

[cbp]

I'll report it anyway although feel bad about it

Don't feel bad - I am sure ODP will appreciate it...

Some people come to forums and bag the ODP for the corruption, but when pushed they can't cite one real example .... just don't figure !!!

The purpose of the abuse forum to to allow this alleged corruption to be dealt with - its there for a purpose!!!! - ie to be used.

CBP

[Dave Hawley]

I agree! DOMZ shot themselves in the foot....BIG TIME!

but when pushed they can't cite one real example

I can!
http://resource-zone.com/forum/ The forum is FULL of complaints and problems.

They took over 2 years to change the URL of my site and move it to another category.

I sent over 20 email over that 2 year period to DMOZ and to the editor of the category. Not one single reply!

I once spent 2 hours going through a category and posted on Resource-Zone all the dead links, doorway pages, redirects, mirror sites and duplicate listings. That was 6 months ago, not one single change.

The simple fact is the volunteer system doesn't work. They cannot keep up with the growth of the internet. The majority of the DMOZ directory is stale and not showing sites until years, in some cases, after they are launched. volunteer only do what they feel like (because they are volunteers) and some do next to nothing. I fear they will not move away from a volunteer system, which will shoot their other foot soon.

Check you logs, see just how much traffic comes from DMOZ and all directories using it. Mine is less than 1%


Good Move Google.

[cbp]

I can!
http://resource-zone.com/forum/ The forum is FULL of complaints and problems.

Really - I do not see many (? any) to do with corruption. I see lots of whines from webmasters who think DMOZ is a free listing service and demanding that they be listed.

Perhaps this thread might put things in perspective:
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12651

They took over 2 years to change the URL of my site and move it to another category.

Most changes and submissions added/deleted happen anywhere between 2 minutes and 2 years. Editors can edit whenever and where they like - they can process submissions; they can update sites listed; they can find and add new sites that have not been submitted (my preference); they can delete spam in the submission list without even adding any sites; etc.

I sent over 20 email over that 2 year period to DMOZ and to the editor of the category. Not one single reply!

I am not surprised. According to the guidelines emailing DMOZ or the editor is NOT the way to update a listing. Editors are encourgaed not to reply to emails.

I once spent 2 hours going through a category and posted on Resource-Zone all the dead links, doorway pages, redirects, mirror sites and duplicate listings. That was 6 months ago, not one single change.

I can't answer that one - but maybe it is a category that no editor has an interest in - maybe the editor is busy behind the scenes deleting all the spam ...can you point me/us to the thread at resource-zone so someone can check it.

The simple fact is the volunteer system doesn't work. They cannot keep up with the growth of the internet.

It is growing at 3000-4000 sites a day.... thats impressive by any standard and is achieving what DMOZ set out to do. It might not be achieveing what you think they should be setting out to do.

The majority of the DMOZ directory is stale

Not its not. If its that bad why are there 100's of downstream users (eg Google, AOL, Excite, ScienceDaily etc being the most prominent) so willing to use DMOZ as their directory.

and not showing sites until years, in some cases, after they are launched.

Why should they? DMOZ is not a free listing for every site on the WWW - it is a listing of selected sites.

volunteer only do what they feel like (because they are volunteers) and some do next to nothing

.... yeah - adding 3000-4000 sites a day is not doing next to nothing.

Check you logs, see just how much traffic comes from DMOZ and all directories using it. Mine is less than 1%

I would assume that is the case for most sites - but thats not what DMOZ is there for.

CBP

[Dave Hawley]

Most changes and submissions added/deleted happen anywhere between 2 minutes and 2 years. Editors can edit whenever and where they like - they can process submissions; they can update sites listed; they can find and add new sites that have not been submitted (my preference); they can delete spam in the submission list without even adding any sites; etc.

Between 2 min and 2 year! How does that help the users when half of what they see is outdated.

I would assume that is the case for most sites - but thats not what DMOZ is there for.

If it's not being used it's not worth much.

I am not surprised. According to the guidelines email DMOZ or the editor is NOT the way to update a listing. Editors are ensourgaed not to reply to emails.

Yet they have their email forms where you can "contact the editor". Any Web site that refuses to answer emails is doomed to fail.

I can't answer that one - but maybe the it is a category that no editor has an interest in - maybe the editor is busy behind the scenes deleting all the spam

Exactly my point! Many are just NOT interested. This is the problem with the whole volunteer system.

It is growing at 3000-4000 sites a day.... thats impressive by any standard and is achieving what DMOZ set out to do. It might not be achieveing what you think they should be setting out to do.

If it's set out to fail then I agree. The simple fact is, they are not keeping up.

Not its not. If its that bad why are there 100's of downstream users (eg Google, AOL, Excite, ScienceDaily etc being the most prominent)

Because there is nothing out there any better and isn't it free? Directories are becoming a thing of the past.

Why should they? DMOZ is not a free listing for every site on the WWW - it is a listing of selected sites.

Hey, they dont have to do anything But it's hardly suprising they are been shunted out the back door. They cannot even keep up with selected sites let alone all sites.

.... yeah - adding 3000-4000 sites a day is not doing next to nothing.

How many editors are there?

You can attempt to defend DMOZ but the truth is it's not anywhere near as needed or useful as a few years ago. Google, over the last 2 years, has updated about 4 times. Prior to that it was more frequent. Now they drop DMOZ off the homepage. You must be blind to not see the writing on the wall.

[cbp]

You can attempt to defend DMOZ but the truth is it's not anywhere near as needed or useful as a few years ago.

In your opinion

Google, over the last 2 years, has updated about 4 times.

9 times

You must be blind to not see the writing on the wall.

In your opinion

I guess we will have to agree to disagree....

CBP