If AOL wished to rid itself of the ODP, how would it go about it?

Seriously.

If AOL wanted to dump the ODP, would they just make an announcement, and lock everyting up at some appointed time?

Or would it neglect it and let it erode away before making such an announcement? For example, by having an increasing amount of "server problems?" They could also increase the editor attrition rate with several long interruptions in the functionality of editor areas. Such a strategy would allow editors to find something else to do with their lives, be it Google Co-Op or Wikipedia, without going cold-turkey and suffer withdrawal symptoms. A sort of "dmetampheminoz" for editors.

 

If that were to happen, it probably would be the same way Looksmart has done to zeal

As for editing, dmoz editors would just join other directories (Even though I would say a lot of editors already edit in multiple directories besides dmoz, so this is not new)

Personally as for Google coop I don't like it; Google Coop does not have the same feeling to it as editing. At least when someone edit in Dmoz and other directories it is free for all sites to use for multiple purposes, with Google Coop I’ll just be doing their work for them and helping their monopoly grow.

I have tried Wikipedia, but almost everyday some idiot feels the need to vandalize an article or link spam it so I've stopped editing at Wikipedia

 

No....I don't think what Looksmart did with Zeal was the smart thing to do. In fact, you can change their company name to LookDumb.

If AOL wanted to get rid of DMOZ, they would certainly have a very willing buyer in Google who is looking to have their own directory like Yahoo and MSN's business directory. I can't imagine AOL just closing up shop on DMOZ.

 

That would be my bet.

Given an already dangerous situation with editor numbers, productivity, and bad links not detected by tools (e.g. the situation with travel agencies), the impact of this current outage will greatly accellerate the decline and there are insufficient editors to recover from it. Intentional or otherwise the outage has caused an enormous amount of damage and the question to be answered is whether AOL see any point in fixing the problems. On a simple business case a commercial organisation might decide that now is the time to cut their losses or to use the opportunity to completely revamp the concept. We will see.

 

This my seem a stupid question, but wouldn't they just sell it off? It's a mess at the moment, but it's potentaially a fantastic resource if run correctly.

 

Or maybe now is the time for the CHEEZE. Can you save me a portion slice where i can join the fun?
I can do the Regional Cheeze or Travel Cheeze.

 

It would certainly be an interesting development if it eventually returns under new ownership. The domain name would certainly be worth money, but why not simply use it as a front for AOL Search, or more profitably for shopping.aol.com? Didn't someone say the outage was something to do with shopping?

 

This would be my bet. They'll fix for themselves, or to sell. Either way it can only be good.

 

ever the optimist Annie!!! Has someone taken a copy of the RDF dump just in case...

 

Personally I'd love to see one of the big guys take it over and run it in the spirit is was intended. Even if small review fees were introduced it would be a vast improvement on the situation at the moment.

$5 to review a site with no guaranteed inclusion would cut back on the spam and junk submissions.

 

If it applied only to commercial sites. But then who gets the $5? If it all went to charity then I think that would be OK.

 

Although I don't have a single site listed [I have a couple of quality sites honestly (ok maybe one )] I would be really sorry if it closed. However, even if that happens since there are available database dumbs volunteers would potentially be able to continue their work at an independent project.

 

How about new ODP hardware?

 

That would be fine, charity, new severs, improving the submission process, paid administrators, any of which I don't care, as long as the directory is run for the good of the directory and there's an improvement in the number and quality of the sites listed and the user experience.

 

They would need to take an entirely different approach - true open source, no secrecy and secret agendas, the volunteers in control of editorial policy etc. But you also have to take account of the fact that large tracts of the directory are fundamentally flawed - most of Adult branch, the online gambling sections, other areas that attract spam and corruption, plus the travel agency and travel services categories, and no doubt others. Just to maintain the current data you would need 1000 or so really committed volunteers from the outset. All these factors would tend to go against taking the RDF dump and continuing as before. Perhaps you need to go the other way and selectively salvage the good bits, discarding the rest. Focus on the core strengths and rebuild based on that. For example the cancer categories in Health are excellent and comprehensive - it needs to be saved. Who really needs to save the e-cards and ringtones? If you tried to just continue on the exact same lines then you would simply repeat all the same mistakes that have led to this point.

 

If given the chance How would you reorganize this project.

Should there be Metas to be retained and at what capacity ?

It should be. There are lot of useful sites and categories.



Ringtones, e-cards, adult, should all those be dumped ?

 

What would be my plan in a case like that is.

1. Trash anything non family friendly
2. Spend a few months with the volunteers that would like to contribute and do some heavy cleaning.
3. Call out to academics and librarians and spend a few more months cleaning updating, adding.
4. Open the directory to the world.

Of course those are just some initial thoughts and keep in mind that I don't really have the slightest clue how dmoz works.

 

Good question with no easy answers. Basically it would need a lot of thought and experimentation.

Any project needs team leaders but in a volunteer project their tenure should be at the community's pleasure. No secret conclaves, full accountability, subject to election and automatic expiry on non-activity. Wiki has a good model to build on. I would certainly remove the meta exclusivity to appoint and remove and move the focus to team leadership and mentoring. The only criteria for "promotion" should be objective and open assessment based on merit plus the confidence of the community. I would also have an editor in chief with the ability to take decisive action where necessary on their own initiative but accountable to the community through community election.

Yep, some good ideas but opening up needs some caution to keep out spammers and spam. The Wiki method of allowing literally anyone to edit would probably be a big mistake. But the exclusivity of DMOZ is too far the other way. It is not an easy balance and you have to somehow eliminate or greatly reduce the opportunity for corruption and spamming.

 

all two GBs of it, yes.

who's with me? www.zmoz.org oooooh yea! Lets do it to it...

 

I think that AOL has to further erode the remaining editor base, consisting of people that have invested a lot of time and effort over the years. These are people that are deeply attached to the directory, and must be let down slowly.

First, there must be signs that the "writing is on the wall" so that they see it coming, and aren't too, too shocked when it happens.

Second, there must be some momentum of people jumping ship - collective disaffectation.

Occasionally cutting off and disrupting the internal forum would erode some of the remaining social cohesion.

Occasionally cutting off and disrupting the editor area would allow editors to make adjustments in their daily habits from reviewing sites, to doing something else that might be newer and more interesting.

Mangling some of the programming so that bugs begin to frustrate editors would work well, too. For example, "losing" all edits done during any given day, or week, repeatedly, would cause mounting frustration.

As for selling DMOZ... I don't think a forward thinking company like Google would be interested in owning a fossil. Perhaps a company cozily settled in the rear guard of the web, like MSN or AOL (oh wait, they already own the ODP), is a more likely buyer. But then again, they are not very likely to implement reforms and changes. The rear guard is the rear guard.