Future of Dmoz?

Whether it means anything or not, when Matt Cutts ask members of his blog to suggest what they would like to see changed this year, it was over whelming the response to get rid of DMOZ. Several of those posters also suggested Google start their own directory and charge for it.

If Google see's that suggestion as being a good financial decision they will drop DMOZ and start their own paid directory ( As MSN & Yahoo have already done ) which I would assume Google would bring AOL into this venture for possible backend support. Google is more focused on everything they are doing to turn a profit, if creating a directory indicates to them they can turn a profit, DMOZ is gone. If this happens AOL would most likely follow Google as AOL would no longer have a use for DMOZ and would shutdown this public relations nightmare.

 

A paid directory is only good for commercial sites.
But what about all those mom-and-pop business and information sites. Do you think shools, hospitals, scientists or artist will benefit from a paid directory. I don't. Only the commercial shit that is turned down by DMOZ is willing to pay a lot of money. As a visitor I have never found a payed directory that has any value for me (not even Yahoo's).

 

As a visitor, I have never found DMOZ to have any value for me, other than the feed it provides to Google.

I suspect you'll find that most people otherthan DMOZ editorsand their friends and family will say the same.

 

I think DMOZ is really a waste.

It is very un organized and it takes WAY too long to get included.

They should have alot more volunteers they accept to do the job of inclusions.

Thanks

 

So are you referring to those mom and pop sites that use adsense to generate income by being found in the Google serps because of the DMOZ listing.

As far as I can see most of the commercial sh-t is either an editors, friends, family or someone who has been willing to grease a palm or two. You have to ask yourself, why do you think AOL hasnt pursued civil action against A LOT of people for libeling DMOZ ( it has hurt their public image ). IMO it is because they know if this comes to light in the courts or public they lose, since all records would have to be released. If I was being libel as they have on several forums and blogs, I would pursue legal action against these individuals.

DMOZ has a few categories that I am sure are uncorrupted but these are few and far between for the directory as a whole. I am not in DMOZ nor do I ever expect to be but I can promise the day DMOZ is dumbed by Google I will be the first to say told you so. Hell you even have an editor on DP bragging about how fast he got his site listed, what does that say for your system.

We all reap what we sow and karma is a bit-h, it will catch up to those that have manipulated the system for their own benefit while blocking those who deserve a listing.

 

I don't see any adsense on these sites - and these are the "mom and pop" type that wouldn't be able to afford the $250 Yahoo (or other pay for inclusion directory) fee.

http://home.comcast.net/~dogercise/index.html - a dog exerciser
http://www.artyk.net/artyk/ - a dog breeder
http://www.armstrongexcavating.com/ - an excavating company
http://www.yelmworms.com/ - an earthworm company
http://www.hughescustommilling.com/ - a milling company
http://www.emeraldtowing.com/ - a towing company
http://users.techline.com/driftwood/ - a local theater

I'm just bouncing around the different communities in Washington - picking out a site here and a site there - where I don't have editing permission BTW. These are all commercial sites and I don't consider them to be sh_t. None of them are related to me, nor are they located in the town I live, nor are they friends of mine.

I would have to guess that probably 90% (or more) of the sites I've listed have no adsense. Most of those would be considered "mom and pop" also. Look how many horse breeders are in the Yahoo directory - compare that to the ODP (which still doesn't come close to the actual number out there - since I keep finding new ones all the time).

Why hasn't AOL gone after the individuals who post libelous comments on forums? IMHO - probably because it isn't worth it financially - the little gnats don't draw enough blood to matter.

 

Why hasn't AOL gone after the editors who post libelous snotty comments at the Resourceless Zone and on other forums like this one? IMHO - probably because it isn't worth it financially - the little gnats don't draw enough blood to matter and AOL really doesn't give a sh*t about DMOZ to begin with.

 

Well of course not, but lets get into the money making categories, real estate, web hosting, auto sales, pharmacy and a ton of others that it makes sense for an editor to place a site of a family member, their personal or anyone who is willing to grease a palm.

I have to disagree with you here. It is all speculation on my part and yours but knowing how the civil court process works, it would be a VERY BAD MISTAKE for AOL to pursue this. I think you must not completely understand that its not just DP, its not WMW, its not just Matts blog, I have found this type of disregard for DMOZ on every forum I visit that has a DMOZ thread. Hell, I invite them to file suit against me, I have plenty of money, that makes it worth it for them.

The reason I know tis wont happen is because they know by doing so would give me the right to ever memo, conversation log and all editor upload and review logs for ODP just to name a few.

People are sick and tired of the BS at ODP. We are not talking hundreds or thousands but hundreds of thousands of people / webmasters are sick of the DMOZ BS. Its these kinds of numbers that can bring down any entity.

So I will state again, DMOZ within 1 to 2 years is history, Google will be looking to cash in financially on their own directory, then at that time the editors that abuse the system can have that system all to themselves.

 

I beg to disagree, a subpoena duces tecum does not give you the right to go on a fishing expedition.

 

Its not a fishing expedition, you would file a motion with the courts stating this material is detrimental to your case to prove you were not being libelous.

Also please next time try to remember before looking up a legal term that you understand how it is used, courts dont use these latin terms much anymore, it depends on what part of the country and jurisdiction you are in. Why not just say a subpoena to produce evidence. ( this way I am sure others here will understand what you are saying ) I am not trying to be a %^&$ but take it from someone who has a Law Degree.

Also you are wrong about what you refer to as a fishing expedition. If this material is prudent to your case or defense you have the right to subpoena anything you wish, if the other party denies you access to this material and the courts rule in favor of your motion for this evidence, they jeopardize their case and may lose by default. This is the beauty of a civil trial, the courts can not compel or hold in contempt a party whom does not wish to produce evidence, instead they risk having the courts rule against them.

 

That is the relevant term in my part of the country - and was the "legal paper" I used last time I needed to get someone to produce documents needed in a court case I was involved in. I didn't need to look it up in order to remember the name - my Masters level law class also addressed the topic. No need to go throwing degrees around now is there?

Also if "material is detrimental to your case" why on earth would you want someone to produce it?

 

I dont know, why show up in court when summoned?

No there is no need, if there was I wouldnt be working as a Realtor. Besides to many broker attorneys in the world. There are more law students in the world than licensed attorneys. figure that one out.

 

Hé, exactly the same categories that produce the largest part of all spam we receive. Could there be a relation.
If it was for me DMOZ would drop these categories right at this moment. Problem is we know that these spammers will just start to suggest their BS in other categories as they do all over the internet.

 

And you wonder why you get negative rep from people.

1. If DMOZ were to announce a policy of no commercial sites at all - period - it might actually possibly help to clean things up a bit (although how anyone can justify ignoring those categories and giving multiple listings to porn sites is beyond logic). Since they clearly do not have such a policy, your statement is hardly an answer to the question or complaint about those categories, is it?

2. Whether that's what you intended or not, to imply that anyone who submits to the categories in question is a spammer, or to suggest that because there aere spammers in those categories the categories themselves should be deleted, is both insulting and, frankly, dumb.

 

They just need alot more editors. Maybe if they would have accepted my recent application I could have been part of the solution. Unfortunately, I am a brutally honest person. On the app where it asks "why do you want to be an editor" I wrote, "To make the big bucks." For some reason I got rejected.

 

LMAO!

 

If that were the numbers and those numbers were customers. But there is no evidence of thousands let along hundreds of thousands of people with a legitimate gripe against DMOZ. In this forum there are just a handful of people who discuss DMOZ, same goes for other forums. That would suggest widespread apathy rather than active discontent. Since webmasters are not part of the DMOZ customer base but suppliers of potential materials, their views are (for good or ill) mostly ignored.

That is pure baloney. 90% of sites are added by a few hundred editors, editalls and metas. Their editing statistics are in the public domain (not the details) and typically they have added between 5000 and 70000 sites each. They must have a very wide circle of aquaintances or there are hundreds of DMOZ listing businesses floating around - too many for there to be no absolute firm evidence. I added around 8000 - 9000 new sites as an editor and in all that time only one person offered me a bribe - declined and their site blighted for all time of course. Of those sites I added I had some kind of association with about half a dozen in total.

As I have retired as an editor I am not constrained by confidentiality and if I had evidence there was widespread and/or systematic corruption then I would say so. There isn't any such evidence. And there are hundreds of former editalls and metas also unconstrained by confidentiality, many leaving on non-corruption points of principle, and they would tell you the same thing. I worked with these people for 3.5 years - a less likely bunch of greedy self-servers you will not come across. That doesn't mean there are no bad eggs. There are and they are despised by editors when they are caught. It is also not impossible that there are one or two bad eggs at a senior level who have managed to evade detection - there were a couple of editall and meta level removals during my time.

 

I have seen a few SEO services claiming that they can get your site listed in DMOZ. I would imagine if a person in the SEO/Internet Marketing field became a meta editor, he could make a ton of money. Just a thought. I'm sure all those sites I've seen such a service are scams.

 

Is this the reason that they actively fight any suggestion that can stop the corruption in DMOZ?

 

Did I really deserve the negative reps for the above comment? You DMOZ nazis are a little touchy about your precious directory. Which one of you actually took the time write this comment:

"Happy to hear your application was denied. Corupt wannabe editors need dont apply."

Isn't proper spelling and grammar a requirement to be an editor?