At its most simplistic level DMOZ is simply a directory of websites, and the biggest in terms of listings and categories. But that is only the end product. What I am trying to work out is what the project is about. I thought I knew, I was an editor for over 3 years, most of that time as an editall. But when I tried to think of a way of summarising the Open Directory Project, I found it wasn’t that easy. You hear a lot about what it isn’t. It isn’t a webmaster submission service It isn’t a webmaster marketing tool It doesn’t guarantee any site will be reviewed let alone listed It isn’t accountable to anyone You hear a lot about what editors are not They are not there to process submissions They don’t provide any service to webmasters They are not obliged to review any site They certainly are not employees That tells you what it isn’t but it doesn’t tell you what it is. There are several possibilities. It is a straightforward academic project to catalogue websites with no particular purpose other than to catalogue. The public directory and RDF dump are by-products. I know lots of editors think of it, or would like to think of it, in this way. Google losing interest is fantastic because eventually webmasters will lose all interest, the spam blocking up loads of categories is great because it is a good reason to ignore it, and it is a easy answer to every criticism ever made. It is also a very good reason not to react to current negative trends in directory performance indicators. The editors being lost are clearly not interested in a pure academic exercise so their loss doesn’t matter. They are also a pain in the butt wanting to change things. It is a public service of some kind. It provides a human filter on websites so on any one of those 690,000 categories the results will all be unique and good quality. I think this is what most of the really active editors thought they were doing. That is also what the DMOZ official blurb, which would actually make any web marketroid very proud with its spin, implies. Make a difference, make the web a better place, it says to prospective editors. But to be a public service it has to serve the public, whether it is staffed by volunteers or paid employees. The public has to see the service to use it. But with a link worth no more in PR value than any backlink, categories being excluded from search results, etc. it is having no impact at all on search. With so many categories now out of date and new sites not being added at anywhere near the rate required to keep things relevant, the value as a directory is also rapidly diminishing. If DMOZ is a public service then it needs radical change to restore its relevance because right now editors make no difference, and are not making the web a better place, unless you give credit for being one of the few public services to provide those into shit and tampon eating some useful links. If it were a public service though, surely there would be direction towards categories that most benefit the public, but there is no direction of any kind. It is actually a web promotion tool despite the claims to the contrary. I don’t mean the crap spouted about it being comprised almost entirely of editors’ own sites. Most sites are added by senior editors and they will have added 5,000 to 50,000 new sites. They would have to be superhuman to run so many sites and millionaires if they were taking cash for listings. But promotion in the sense of an editor picking a subject that takes their interest and raising its profile on the Internet by creating a category, searching for and adding sites. No so much a public service, adding sites the public would consider a priority, but a private personal service, adding sites the editor is interested in, in the hope that they can spread that interest to others. I think that whilst many if not most editors think they are involved in a public service, they actually edit in this more personal manner. And in fact this is what DMOZ actually is, more than anything else, a collection of websites on subjects of personal interest to editors. If that coincides with what others want to see, that is a bonus, if not nobody cares. Where this falls down as a concept is that the editor community is highly selective, so lots of interests are not catered for. Evidence for this is that some categories are extremely good, and many others are completely useless. And, per the issues if DMOZ is a public service, what is the point of trying to promote your personal interest topics if no-one is going to see the results. All these things at the same time, it depends on the editor. A couple of years ago I think this would have been feasible, and pure academic editing could quite easily co-exist with those who wanted to do something as a public service or to promote subjects they were interested in. But times have changed in the search engine world, and there is now a conflict. Those who are content with the project being a pure academic exercise in site cataloguing will be very happy with the way things are going now and will not want change, those who want to provide a public service or increase the profile of the subjects that interest them need rapid change to make the project relevant once more. It seems fairly clear to me that the lack of action towards fixing the issues facing DMOZ at present, and the unlikelihood of any radical change, means that it is also unlikely that DMOZ will recover any public service or private subject promotion relevance. Is there an answer that will keep the project together as a single entity and satisfy all editors, or is it inevitable that at some point in the future the change seekers will have to leave for pastures new?
The answer is simple: A directory with a group of POWERLESS editors controlled by coalition of MORONS and CROOKS. The problem is not with the concept, editors or change in Internet, the problem is with a dead beat management that is stopping any positive change in order to milk DMOZ to the last drop before it's demise.
I disagree that this is *the* problem. Straight directories have had their day, most people agree on that. The greatest management can't buck that trend. Neither can they force change where change is not wanted. It is perfectly conceivable that there are sufficient editors within DMOZ to block the kind of radical change required to bring the project back to life. Not because the blockers want to kill the relevance of the project but because they were never interested in it being anything but an academic exercise in the first place. Others, outside their control, made it a commercially beneficial thing to be listed in and those same others have withdrawn the benefits. Where DMOZ is going may be, to some, a purist route and somewhere they actually want to go. Since the DMOZ culture acts against change, such people have the upper hand. The flaw in the plan is whether the sponsor wants to pay the bills for that end product. A change of management would potentially give a temporary lifeline to implement some changes but it is highly unlikely to be a medium or long term solution. As I said this is the end product sure, but it is far more than that.
What kind of dreamland do you live in? When did it matter what the editors want? Contrary to your belief that thinks the majority of editors are idiots, I think that the majority will choose the right path to develop and improve the directory if they had a chance to make a difference but that will never happen since there is no democratic process to implement a change. DMOZ is doomed as long as it is controlled by a gang of MORONS and CROOKS.
I pick: It is a straightforward academic project to catalogue websites with no particular purpose other than to catalogue. Ask any editor. They don't care whether their work helps search engines . Most editors would prefer the site suggestions to be turned off. They insist that they look forward to the day Google will finally sever all ties with them to rid them of the pleague of webmasters. Paradoxically, they don't want to implement an automatic "nofollow" attribute, but let's assume the editors really mean it when they insist that Google's association doesn't make them feel like what they're doing is important. The ODP is an academic exercize. Everyday that goes by, it becomes more academic, and more disconnected to reality. I suggest that instead of trying to ressucitate a long-dead dinosaur, people interested in categorizing websites join the Google Co-Op. There is greater potential for usefulness at the Google Co-Op. No snooty editor to poo-poo and reject your application. The doors are wide open.
If you believe you have developed mind-reading abilities that tell you what I believe and don't believe then I have to tell you that you need more practice. Stick to expressing your own views instead of putting unsaid words into the mouths of others. It is a favourite tactic of yours gworld but it insults the intelligence of people who actually read other people's posts. I don't think the majority of editors are idiots. Reluctant to speak out maybe but not idiots. The point I think I was making was that there appear to be two groups of editors whose objectives now conflict. The question is can that conflict be resolved to the satisfaction of both within the same project. I don't think so because that relies on external factors. I may be a supporter of radical change, as may many if not the majority of editors currently serving and retired, the lack of change may be the reason they retired, but I am not so sure that because that is what the majority may want it is right. It depends on what the true nature of DMOZ actually is - whether the academics represent that purity and the would-be reformers could be described as highjackers, or whether academics are the highjackers of what was intended to be a project that would move with the times and the would-be reformers hold the moral high ground. As things stand though, the culture supports the academics but the innovation of the likes of Rich Skrenta suggest that had the original founders still been in charge things would be very much more dynamic and imaginative. If it is the vision of the founders that is at the core of DMOZ objectives then would-be reformers are the purists. The practicalities of the matter and the evidence that is apparent from the continued failures indicated in the monthly reports strongly suggest those who want change are not going to succeed as the will and management ability to facilitate change does not exist. Which raises the question of what happens to those who advocate change and believe in the concepts of a public service and/or promotion of subjects of interest to individuals that actually means something - work that influences nothing and which no-one sees is a waste of time and effort for those people. Do they just drift off into the sunset? But even if reform could be introduced and radical change implemented to make the project far more responsive to the needs of Internet surfers today, it would still rely on Google re-examining its algorythms for search results to make the changes translate into relevance once more. Is that likely? I would say not. So perhaps what can be gleaned from the issues facing DMOZ and the solutions to those issues is not the possible salvation of the project but an equally academic exercise in lessons learned to benefit future volunteer projects. I honestly don't think that swapping one project with a big corporate behind it for another is going to satisfy those advocating change in DMOZ. Many of the issues within DMOZ stem from AOL policy overriding community wishes and the appointment of individuals who are unaccountable. Google Co-Op is a big corporate initiative to serve big corporate interests. The ideal future or replacement for DMOZ would be a fully accountable community led project with no big business interests.
What are you talking about? Are you talking for the sake of talking? There is no conflict among editors who have any interest in DMOZ project, the conflict is between those who are volunteers and interested in this project and those who are only interested in their own financial benefits or titles. This is not a discussion about the meaning of life or origin of universe that need to be discussed for ever and all times, although you like it to be. The goal of DMOZ project is to make a good directory which is not a revolutionary concept. Those who are interested in this task (volunteers) should be able to discuss, make decisions and implement it. Like any democratic organization, anything that can not be agreed on, should be voted on after period of discussions and implemented. If it was a wrong decision, the same volunteers will agree that was a wrong decision and change it. It is as simple as that. Moving forward, that is the way to future and not forever talking about, why nothing can be done.
I believe DMOZ is a combination of number 1 and 2 from brizzie's opening post. I know what DMOZ is to me. I'm an editor and I use the directory all the time. When a category doesn't give me what I want, I go through the submissions and work through the unrevieweds. If there aren't enough submissions follow up with a search, then I review and list any good sites I find. This way any category that starts out useless to me becomes relevant and up to date. I'm just an average person, not savvy in the ways of SEO or even technology in general. I have a website, but it's a hobby and I don't concern myself with seo for it. I only started it because it was almost impossible to find any information about my topic online, but that was way back in 1999. In 2001 I moved it from tripod to a regular domain because it was easier to work on that way. No other reason. I started editing for dmoz in 2001, but there was very little to list for my topic. Over the years, as more sites were built, I've added every site relevant to my topic that I could find. I still take pride in keeping up my original topic even though I edit all across the directory now. Believe it or not, some people prefer a directory model over a search engine. I'm one of those people. To use a search engine you have to know exactly what you want. I'm not wired like that. I like to see what's out there and learn about things related to whatever topic I think I want search. I want to get close, then look at what's offered, then pick and choose among the various sites in the category. The fact that the directory categories are linked to similar categories helps me wander about the topic and really learn about it. After the experience, I feel satisfied that I have the information I want. After using only a search engine, I'm left wondering what I'm missing. DMOZ seems to be different things to different people, but that's ok. I think the fact that it has many uses is a good thing, when/if it loses it's value for SEO, it will still have value for what I need and I don't think I'm alone in that.
Then why bother to post? That is what you say the goal is. I'm asking if that is the goal of DMOZ the project because there are signs this may not be the case. And I repeat, what is the point of producing anything, including a good directory, if the end product is not used or seen by anyone and has zero influence on the Internet. DMOZ has never been a democratic organisation and it is too late to introduce the franchise now. What you are talking about is what a volunteer project should be but what I am trying to establish is what it actually is now as I have a suspicion that sufficient editors are content with it being some form of academic research that no change may be a deliberate policy rather than a result of managerial ineptitude. This is important on two scores. First as an academic research project with no marketing relevance, who gives a shit what it does. Corruption is irrelevant because a listing is commercially worthless. Second, a large number of editors thought they were editing as a public service or to promote subjects of interest to them (not necessarily commercial ones), and what do they do in a project where they do not make any difference in making the web a better place. If they are still editing and new ones joining with that in mind then they need to think again. If that is not something you want to discuss because you aren't interested in it, then don't post, we won't miss you.
I think that is more or less the way I edited. And the directory model is a lot better IMO than a search engine, if it is well executed. I would be interested in changing my car and visit the car manufacturer section, tidy it up, add the missing sites, and that was an afternoon spent. The next week I might want to change to a green electricity supplier, research it and update and build the relevant category. Basically sharing my research with others. What I question now is whether I was actually sharing with anyone (other than maybe other editors), whether it was productive to share via the ODP. I think that once upon a time it was productive and relevant but times have changed and DMOZ hasn't.
In a nutshell, that is why DMOZ is failing, will continue to fail, and is unsalvageable. Perhaps the Google Co-Op is a commercial project backed by a commercial interest. But it does give your work a chance to be seen, and to have non-zero influence on the internet. Google Co-Op vs. ODP is like capitalism vs. communism. One is better in practice, the other on paper.
It is of no use for resources but only helps me to create many categories in my own directories.......... Other then that, it is just recognised as a crap directory!!!
I agree. Corruption is not relevant because the listings are worthless. Sizzlerchetarn agrees. The categorization of subjects is superb. Unfortunately, the listings within are like time travel - year 2003. But the ODP can never be fixed. It's finished.
I will have to plan to make my DMoz soon Taking all the categories from DMoz, no matter how long would it take to add categories!
I beg to differ. The directory will help you find websites. The search engine will help you find pages, images, videos, pdf's, paragraghs, updated news, and maps. No directory can beat that, no matter how well executed. People don't look for "websites" anymore. They look for specific information and pages. Another point for Google Co-Op - the integration of the "directory concept" with the "search algorithm." Ooo-weeee!
Search engines return too many spam and affiliate results. A directory can pick out only the original results and dump the crap. And as Annie points out, by linking categories you can easily branch off into related areas. But you need to find the directory in the first place, and since ODP categories are excluded from Google search results that is going to prove somewhat difficult.
The purpose of discussion or posting should be to achieve a result and agreement for action but your postings are always claiming that there is nothing that can be done and we should post and discuss for the sake of talking. It seems your postings are formed by your profession as consultant, talking and charging the customers is good, actually doing something not very good. Let's see what can be the goal of DMOZ. Is it to save the planet earth? NO. Is it to solve the food problem or end the poverty? NO. Is it to make an atomic bomb? NO. Surprisingly, the aim of DMOZ is to make a good directory. Editors can disagree of definition of good directory or the methods of achieving it but it doesn't change the goal. Why hasn't been a democratic organization and why is it too late? If I am talking about what a volunteer organization should be then why not try to achieve it? This is the difference between us, I am fighting to achieve a change while you are making excuses about why no change is possible and everyone should only discuss about why no change is possible. You are painting people who are interested in academic goals as inflexible idiots who will not agree with any improvements or changes. Academic project doesn't mean incompetence or being an idiot. I do not think that there is unsolvable conflicts among REAL editors, may be difference of opinions about different methods but so is in any organization that has more than 1 member. The real conflict is among the editors and those who stop any change toward a democratic organization in order to protect the corruption. If you were only interested to what DMOZ is at present time without any interest in changes or future, I have already answered your question in the second post, it is a directory with a group of POWERLESS editors controlled by coalition of MORONS and CROOKS.
ODP has never been a democratic organization. While there are principles of a democracy involved, there are clearly those that have more power than others. In the beginning, ODP was a dictatorship. Staff editors could do whatever they wanted. In a sense this is still true. Staff editors can not be wrong. There decisions are right, and there is nothing the volunteer editors can do about it. Fortunately, staff's presence has been steadily decreasing, and has pretty much dwindled to zero recently. The staff dictatorship has been replaced by an admin oligarchy. The "new" administrators have effectively taken the role of the staff position. There was no non-meta opinion of the administrator role, it was concieved by the metas, and appointed by staff. The admins have no responsibility to the editors. Their only responsibility is to make sure that AOL is happy. Which isn't hard because very few people inside AOL even know that ODP exists. And if they do know that it exists, they don't know that it's part of AOL.