DMOZ in 2005

[thejenn]

Full Text: http://www.searchengineguide.com/art.../0912_rc1.html

Some Snippets:

"Is there any value at all in the DMOZ directory? The idea of becoming "the definitive catalog of the Web" was a fine one, but it turned out to be an impossible dream."

[rorimandi]

What happens when the fickle search giant stops allowing the directories to stand on its shoulders - when they pull the directories out of the algorithm once and for all?

It will eventually happen, so what replaces directories?

[Robert]

Welcome to the forum, rorimandi!

[St0n3y]

I've been saying this for years: Google needs to STOP using DMOZ as its own directory. Google plays the card of them being unbiased because they don't take money. Sorry, that don't fly. Google takes money from adsense and adwords, does that mean we shouldn't trust their search results?

The fact is that a paying directory is FAR superior to DMOZ.

[jmjj215]

Stony, what do you mean by "paying" director? One for which I pay for inclusion?

[St0n3y]

I realized that my last sentence was kinda vague, but I was too lazy to go back and fix it. Well, its a new day!

What I mean to say is that the upper tier directories that charge such as Yahoo, Skaffe, JoeAnt, Gimpsy, etc are all far superior directories (IMO) than DMOZ. I don't think paying for inclusion somehow means lesser quality, in fact, just the opposite. Google loves DMOZ because its unbiased in inclusion by not charging, when really, just the opposite is true. What you have instead is a directory where it takes years to get listed (if at all) and actual competitors manning categories and manipulating descriptions to hurt others, knowing that Google puts so much weight on DMOZ. I'm not suggesting all DMOZ editors are this way, or that even a majority are, but the fact is, there is no satisfactory chain of command to deal with the problems.

[Julian]

Greetings!

I am a DMOZ editor and edit in a couple of smaller categories. I don't think I'm too bad at it and I do my best to follow guidelines. But, I applied on numerous occasions for additional (also smaller) categories but was always turned down for VERY minor reasons. It's true that there are too many dead links and not enough editors to keep up with site submissions, but that is understandable when voluntary dedicated editors like myself get rejected for minor reasons. To be honest I was pretty annoyed and obviously this would also have a negative effect on your enthusiasm. Once, I was even threatened to be "kicked out" because I "failed to mention" that I was "affiliated" with one of the sites I used for my application.

If DMOZ is dead, then I don't think they did a hell of a lot to keep it alive (not in the recruitment department anyway).

[Premtech]

Hi all

I can't see that DMOZ listings are valuable to any search engine...when its an editor (who is just like you and me) saying what sites are to be included or not....they all say its unbiased etc, but how can it be when in the forums even other editors say its at the editors discretion. Can they say for fact that an editor wont reject a site just because they didnt like the logo or layout of a particular site?

And how can the listings be relevent to current and decent sites on the net (right at the point of me doing a search) when it can take longer than 2 years "Before an editor gets around to it". How many current sites that I could have looked at are not available. Biggest waste of space on the web if you ask me.

The editors in the forum are rude and have no respect for anyone. I wouldnt waste my time even trying to do up a site suggestion with that mob.

In the category i WAS thinking of going for, one of the editors in a post said that unless your site is exceptional you'll never get listed cause there are too many in there now....what an attitude. after all its the website owners and webmasters that make their directory isn't it?

well thats my 2 cents worth...i've got no respect for DMOZ and there are other ways to improve ranking or be found on the net.

Cheers
Wazza

[Old Welsh Guy]

I edit on a few directories, and can honestly say that I am unbiased.

On my own directories, for sure I would reject a website if it was poorly designed (unless it was a site that had content that outweighed the bad design). Usabiity because of poor design is not acceptable., I guess the difference is though that I will email the person that submitted the site to tell them why it was rejected, and tell them what to change for it to be accepted. I look again after a month as agreed, and if it is the same, then it is bombed out.

I have rejected sites that are well designed, have plenty of content on them, and are **** good sites, my reason for rejection is that I know the company and they are not a good company to deal with. If I have had a negative experience with a company, then I will not allow them in, plain and simple as that. I know this is going to get the backs up of people, but understand this, I OWN THE DIRECTORY! Once you get your head around that it all makes sense. The directories I am talking about here are my own, I decide who goes in or not, as I am promoting them for free. I have no obligation to promote anyone for free, no do I have an obligation to tell them why I choose not to , (although I often do).

Directories where I edit but do not own area different matter though. Skaffe for example where I edit the UK section. I am bound by the guidelines of the directory owners, plain and simple. My personal views do not come into play, I follow the rules. If a site breaks those rules, they don't come in.

This is where it gets shady though. If you tell someone that your not allowing their site into the directry for a reason that is going to cost them money, then you are setting yourself up for bait and switch tactics. Bait and switch is where they bait the editor with a nice clean site, then once it is accepted, switch the content to money makers outside the guidelines.

You have to see it from both sides of the coin, and until you have a directory, or edit one, then it is unlikely you will appreciate how much crap comes your way!

[St0n3y]

OWG: Your "ownership" of the directory is the perfect proof that Google should NOT use the DMOZ directory or place so much weight on it. If that's the standard DMOZ wants, more power to them, but it seems to be a system of anarchy, if you ask me. There needs to be set guidelines that absolutely must be adhered to and personal preference should never be a factor.