The time is coming for a sanctioning body to intervene

That depends entirely on which page it winds up on. First, many DMOZ pages are NOT high PR to begin with. Second, many DMOZ pages may have as many as 20-40 links or more on the page.

How much PR can you expect from that DMOZ listing?

Look at the PR of the page. Multiply that by 0.85. This is X.

Now count the total number of outgoing links including navigation links on that page. Divide X (see above) by this number. That is the expected PR that could be passed to your page.

To be conservative let's assume you have a link on a PR4 page with only 20 other links. The value of PR that can be passed to your page is 0.17. With 40 links, that falls to 0.085.

If you start with a PR3 page, a 20-listing page will get you 0.1275; a 40 listing page 0.06375.

Not really that big a deal, is it?

 

Yeah, I didn't mean that the sourcecode is available, in that case you're right of course.

It's open source in the sense that everyone can contribute, and it's a project mostly run by volunteers. So, strictly it isn't open source, but it has a lot of similarities with open source projects.


Minstrel: You do have a good point there, and of course not all links in dmoz are equally high PR. However, you are making a mistake in your calculation as a toolbar/directory PR of 4 means a real PR value probably way higher. This real PR value should be used your calculation.

This actually does matter as toolbar PR and real PR have a logarithmic connection.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

That's correct. But I think you'll find that a directory as old as DMOZ doesn't show much fluctuation in PR over time. What does change is that new pages are added (well, maybe 2 or 3 a year anyway) so the amount of PR distributed to outgoing links on that page would tend to drop over time if anything.

 

Minstrel, you are correct of course. However, it could be possible that, one day, and editor of a category with a lot of links decides to categorize his category by alphabet. This would effectively reduce the number of links per page.

This is not very likely to happen often I'm afraid though, and there are a lot of factors to consider I think.


Ontopic: Spendlessly, you are suggesting a sanctioning body. How would you like to see this? Who should be in this sanctioning body and why should they have power over dmoz?

 

I am getting the feeling that some day Minstrel will be able to deal the final blow and dmoz will be no longer and Minstrel will finally rest... LOL

I am beggining to think you (minstrel) know more about dmoz than anyone else, except how to get in. Maybe thats how? you will get in!

 

I have said many times that I am NOT a disgruntled webmaster who can't get in. My comments are aimed at primarily at the policy, structure, and process, and the issue of negative public impressions of DMOZ.

FYI, I am "in" DMOZ. That isn't the point.

 

I assume you are referring to to the plan suggested in the title?

Most realize dmoz has some benefits and some flaws. But we have no more right to expect control over it than any other site.

As a libertarian I dislike the thought of sanctioning bodies interfering. I believe the principals of free markets and free minds will best serve the internet.

If the internet goes down that oversight path there will be corruption that makes the UN "oil for food" moneygrab look small time.

 

Minstrel, that actually wasn't meant to come accross negatively but more as a joke. I am in dmoz also, but for the most part I feel it is useless, dmoz no longer caries the weight it use to and most people don't go to dmoz to search for thing, they go to a search engine.

I also respect those who put in time to edit and add sites to dmoz, (except the few who are corrupt, of course.)

 

Ok. Thanks for clarifying, debunked. I wasn't offended though - just making the point again because I've been accused of being "just another disgruntled webmaster" before and it really is not the point at all.

 

I agree with the points mentioned.

DMOZ is not responsible for GOOGLE using it for its directory.

Perhaps Google as a publicly traded company should be more concerned with the goings on of its affiliates. DMOZ in association with Google = Too much power in the hands of DMOZ editors. That's all I'm saying. I disagree with my original statement about a "sanctioning body" - but I think that Google should be ashamed of allowing their affiliation with DMOZ to continue with all of the bad PR surrounding them.

 

I think you have quite a point there Spendlessly. However, if google was not to use dmoz data for it's directory, how would you like to see the google dir populated?

Imho it would be a lot worse than it is now if google itself would control the content of it's directory. With dmoz, you have the possibility to contribute yourself, you don't know what google will do...

Maybe anyone else has some ideas?

 

Google were that ashamed they bought 5% of AOL and with it DMOZ. Now whether they will use that stake to influence/force changes will be very interesting. Only a personal view but provided the basic concepts remained unchanged I believe that would be a positive move. On the other hand they might want to take DMOZ in an entirely new direction or leave it alone entirely. Time will tell but whatever happens webmasters can be guaranteed to be unhappy. Google do not have a record of being publicly accountable to webmasters.

 

I dont agree, if Google was to start their own directory and drop DMOZ, we all would see our sites included if they met guidelines, unlike in DMOZ.

If you take a look HERE Matt Cutts was asking webmasters what they would most like to see changed. An overwhelming majority said DUMP DMOZ.

Does this mean it will happen no but it seems to me personally that Matt is trying to bridge the gap between webmasters and Google. When you have that many people saying Google should dump DMOZ, I am sure it will open somemore lines of communication with Google on this subject.

Solution: If Google was to start a paid directory like Yahoo I am sure most webmasters and site owner would gladly paid to be included and not have to wait 4 years for some DMOZ editor to get off the A$$ and review a site. PLus not to mention that their would not be the problem of any type of corruption since Google has good systems already in place to prevent this now. The cost of the submission would help Google cover the extra cost of running a directory and the extra staff needed to do this.

There is one other great benefit to Google starting the directory on their own. It would give Google a tool to monitor spam. First thing they could do with a submission if run it through one of their nice little tools to detect spam. This would cut down on the useless spam sites now that are listed in DMOZ to benefit some editor or friend of the editor.

Moral of the story is, get rid of DMOZ, you get rid of the corruption and Google gets a nice clean directory.

 

If Google actually acted on those suggestions, it would be like winning the lottery

 

I cant say they will act on those suggestions but it does seem apparent that Google has been trying to open the door to the webmaster community more over the last several months. I believe this is one of many steps that will enable Google to bridge that gap.

 

That may be true, but I believe for the user the dmoz directory (if not looking for purely commercial services) is far better than yahoo. There are a lot of webmasters who have very relevant content but aren't able to pay like $ 299 for inclusion in some directory.

If google was to start it's own directory, it should be free for all, without the possibility to pay for more services. Thats the only way to keep your directory service objective imo.

 

I ask though where is the objectivity in DMOZ? Sure DMOZ is free but god forbid you have a site that competes with an editors site or a friend of an editor, good luck getting it into DMOZ.

 

I'm a firm supporter of the 'google dump dmoz' motion. of course, they have little reason to, but it would sure as hell give editors a bit of a break from the constant harassment of webmasters thinking we're some sort of free submission service! But I have to take issue with the above statement. Under a paid submission system, that would certainly not be true.

And in a free submission system, the fact that google cannot keep spam from its SERPS suggests unless it uses a human (though machine-assisted, like in the ODP) review system, it will not be able to build a useful spam-free directory.

Then of course there will be all the issues of neutrality we currently see applied to DMOZ, but worse; by law google has to use any money it spends to profit its shareholders, not serve Internet users (ever since Ford Motor company v. Dodge, 1919). Of course, that argument applies to DMOZ' owners, AOL, also a corporation; but the link between AOL and DMOZ is far more indirect than Google and its own Directory, and history has shown little AOL interference in DMOZ results (other than the disastrous attempt to index CNN pages).

In my opinion, google should just drop its directory entirely.

 

I also speak from experience of being a DMOZ editor.

Things said in first post are true.

TMan, some things you said here, that I am quoting, are not really true. "Apply today to help" is not true, I have given help but was dismissed due to reasons that prove all that is said in the first post of this thread is true. As an editor I edited categories on which I have no interest other than helping the project and helping some local website whom I am not affiliated in any way (and that I have never contacted about me inserting their listing). I provided pure clean help and my efforts, and was removed without justification. I know why though. Because I had friends who, long time ago, tried to prove that some editors were corrupted. My friends were removed and my account was removed too. I did not even know of what my friends were doing and never had a role in all that. I wasn't even active at the time.

I have never added a site I was affiliated it. I have made submissions to other editors (whom I do not know) for them, well knowing how to spell and what to write to describe. Some sites that were about non-commercial websites were added. Some about competitive commercial websites were never added to the directory. And by commercial, I mean a site about a local producer of candies! Many years have passes. I made a new submission after two years from my first. Another after 4 years, yet that site was never added.

So it is not 'delays' we are talking about. And the delay is not because of poorly spelled submissions, nor because of wrong categories. It doesn't take much at all for an editor to view submissions and to move them to the right category. Also, our job as an editor is to check the description is well spelled and correct it if needed. No delays, just that is the job.

Just this is the truth. Deal with it.

And if you are a dmoz editor please avoid from coming here and saying the same bullshits over and over again. The same excuses you already wrote all over your forums. You deleted even the section of the forum where people would ask why wasn't their submission added which was the only way people could get their legitimate submission eventually checked by somebody and finally added.

DMOZ is ridiculous. A shame for the internet of these days.
Their editor hierarchy is similar to that of the mafia

 

I see......you want to have your say but then you dont wish to give us the right to reply.

LOL.....ok......