May 4th 2009 6:29PM
R-E-S-P-E-C-T for DMOZ
For our latest post, editor glippitt has provided an excellent example of a place where DMOZ's resources shine. Enjoy!
Emily
- - - - - - - - - -
Everybody loves Google, everybody loves Wikipedia - so why doesn't everybody love DMOZ? Ask people how they search the web, and most will tell you what Google does well, what Wikipedia does well - and what DMOZ doesn't do well. When you think about it, that's quite an odd way to look at search vehicles, isn't it? My car doesn't do backflips, but that doesn't mean I stop driving. I also can't take a plane to my local shopping area, ride a bicycle across the ocean, or take a train where there aren't train tracks.
Let's look at what DMOZ does do well, and the when and how of using various search vehicles to help users find what they're looking for.
Perhaps you heard something on the news about the Somali pirates and want to learn more. You'd likely search Google News for the most recent coverage, perhaps sorting by date. Background information? You might read Piracy in Somalia in Wikipedia and search for Somali pirates with Google web search. Now what about Somalia in general? How did it get to this point? What's the history of the country, and what's going on with their government? How do you find answers to these questions without wasting a lot of time? This is where DMOZ shines.
Google for Somalia or history of Somalia or government of Somalia and you'll get a mixed bag. Google combines relevance with popularity, which means the more specific your query, the better the results. For broader sorts of queries, some excellent sources may be ranked low and you may miss them. Some links from special interest groups may be popular enough to be ranked high, but that doesn't mean they're providing a balanced view. Some less-than-current sources may be ranked high simply because they've been around a long time and lots of other sites have linked to them in the past. Sometimes they use 'relevant' keywords and page titles to game the system and achieve a higher ranking than they really deserve. Look at this result from that last Google search:
Looks current, right? Wrong. Click on it and you may realize it's the site of warlord Abdinur Darman who declared himself President in 2007 - but Google's automated process has no way of knowing that, and if you don't look closely you may be misled into thinking it's from the current government. (The true official site was unavailable for much of April because it had run out of bandwidth.) To avoid confusion, DMOZ has now listed the link with this description: Site of presidential claimant Abdinur Ahmed Darman, the leader of Somalia's Hawiya clan who declared himself head of state in July 2003. Google (and others) may later pick up that description and use it in their search results instead of the current snippet. We all want users to have the correct information.
Other Google options? You can find authoritative sources by searching Google Scholar for Somalia, but that isn't necessarily the level of information you want.
What about Somalia (and its sub-articles) in Wikipedia? Articles 'in the news' often draw 'strong-minded partisans' as editors, so while the information may be interesting one would want to chase down all the footnotes to determine if they reference reliable sources accurately summarized - and if the reliable sources are truly representative, or if they were 'cherry-picked' to shade the view - which means you're back to Google to find what might be missing. All this for just the most current version on Wikipedia. Click on the history and discussion tabs and see how often the article has been changed and if there are 'edit wars' going on. Wikipedia is useful, but it doesn't fill every need and it certainly isn't the only source one should rely on, particularly on controversial topics.
Or, you can go to DMOZ's Somalia category. Start with Guides and Directories to find background information. Perhaps you're interested in Government sites. If you're curious about local and foreign efforts to help the country, you can view Aid and Development and Economic Development. Perhaps you want to check out the local News or look at some Maps and Views. Some Travel Guides have useful information about a country. You can also move your search up to West Africa and Africa, or down to the regions within Somalia such as Somaliland.
You'll notice some Somalia categories from the DMOZ Topical directory, such as Colleges and Universities and Soccer, are 'linked in' to Regional. 'Sharing' these categories helps people searching for the same information, but starting from a different point or point of view. There are also links to the associated categories in the World directories (such as French) and the Kids and Teens directory.
There's all sorts of relevant information to be found on the web, and the broader the topic the more useful DMOZ is. Use it as one of your search vehicles and you may be surprised how much more efficient and productive your searches become. Just don't expect it to be the perfect combination Mars rover-car-plane-scooter-train-bicycle. There's no such thing as a silver bullet in search - not even Google.
Emily
- - - - - - - - - -
Everybody loves Google, everybody loves Wikipedia - so why doesn't everybody love DMOZ? Ask people how they search the web, and most will tell you what Google does well, what Wikipedia does well - and what DMOZ doesn't do well. When you think about it, that's quite an odd way to look at search vehicles, isn't it? My car doesn't do backflips, but that doesn't mean I stop driving. I also can't take a plane to my local shopping area, ride a bicycle across the ocean, or take a train where there aren't train tracks.
Let's look at what DMOZ does do well, and the when and how of using various search vehicles to help users find what they're looking for.
Perhaps you heard something on the news about the Somali pirates and want to learn more. You'd likely search Google News for the most recent coverage, perhaps sorting by date. Background information? You might read Piracy in Somalia in Wikipedia and search for Somali pirates with Google web search. Now what about Somalia in general? How did it get to this point? What's the history of the country, and what's going on with their government? How do you find answers to these questions without wasting a lot of time? This is where DMOZ shines.
Google for Somalia or history of Somalia or government of Somalia and you'll get a mixed bag. Google combines relevance with popularity, which means the more specific your query, the better the results. For broader sorts of queries, some excellent sources may be ranked low and you may miss them. Some links from special interest groups may be popular enough to be ranked high, but that doesn't mean they're providing a balanced view. Some less-than-current sources may be ranked high simply because they've been around a long time and lots of other sites have linked to them in the past. Sometimes they use 'relevant' keywords and page titles to game the system and achieve a higher ranking than they really deserve. Look at this result from that last Google search:
| Quote: |
| "somalia: the official news from the government of somalia - 9:11am Somalia: Somali Pirates holding over 200 hostages. www.somaligovernment.org/ - 29k" |
Looks current, right? Wrong. Click on it and you may realize it's the site of warlord Abdinur Darman who declared himself President in 2007 - but Google's automated process has no way of knowing that, and if you don't look closely you may be misled into thinking it's from the current government. (The true official site was unavailable for much of April because it had run out of bandwidth.) To avoid confusion, DMOZ has now listed the link with this description: Site of presidential claimant Abdinur Ahmed Darman, the leader of Somalia's Hawiya clan who declared himself head of state in July 2003. Google (and others) may later pick up that description and use it in their search results instead of the current snippet. We all want users to have the correct information.
Other Google options? You can find authoritative sources by searching Google Scholar for Somalia, but that isn't necessarily the level of information you want.
What about Somalia (and its sub-articles) in Wikipedia? Articles 'in the news' often draw 'strong-minded partisans' as editors, so while the information may be interesting one would want to chase down all the footnotes to determine if they reference reliable sources accurately summarized - and if the reliable sources are truly representative, or if they were 'cherry-picked' to shade the view - which means you're back to Google to find what might be missing. All this for just the most current version on Wikipedia. Click on the history and discussion tabs and see how often the article has been changed and if there are 'edit wars' going on. Wikipedia is useful, but it doesn't fill every need and it certainly isn't the only source one should rely on, particularly on controversial topics.
Or, you can go to DMOZ's Somalia category. Start with Guides and Directories to find background information. Perhaps you're interested in Government sites. If you're curious about local and foreign efforts to help the country, you can view Aid and Development and Economic Development. Perhaps you want to check out the local News or look at some Maps and Views. Some Travel Guides have useful information about a country. You can also move your search up to West Africa and Africa, or down to the regions within Somalia such as Somaliland.
You'll notice some Somalia categories from the DMOZ Topical directory, such as Colleges and Universities and Soccer, are 'linked in' to Regional. 'Sharing' these categories helps people searching for the same information, but starting from a different point or point of view. There are also links to the associated categories in the World directories (such as French) and the Kids and Teens directory.
There's all sorts of relevant information to be found on the web, and the broader the topic the more useful DMOZ is. Use it as one of your search vehicles and you may be surprised how much more efficient and productive your searches become. Just don't expect it to be the perfect combination Mars rover-car-plane-scooter-train-bicycle. There's no such thing as a silver bullet in search - not even Google.
21. Google trends tracks the relevance of websites and the traffic they get. DMOZ is on the fast track to ZERO
Daily Unique visitors has fallen over 60% since 2007
At this rate by the end of 2010 the only traffic provided to this website will be editors and dummies still submitting their sites.
Rest in Peace DMOZ
Posted at 10:23AM on May 8th 2009 by Rob
22. There is no point trying to tell DMOZ editors anything. DMOZ exists as a means to amuse themselves.
If users really want to get change, then campaign to AOL. Inform AOL management that the behavior of DMOZ editors is giving you a negative impression of their brand.
The only way DMOZ is ever going to change is if the editors controlling the site are fired and replaced with people focused on the user experience.
Posted at 5:11PM on May 8th 2009 by Gavin
23. the answer is simple dmoz no respect the user , if you give love have love , if you ignore the users , users ignore you
Posted at 9:30PM on May 9th 2009 by Estevan
24. IF you decide to do so at all. Do us all a favor, turn off the submission links and stop with the farce.
Posted at 1:29AM on May 11th 2009 by Zandra
25. @Ian: Have you noticed that most of the comments to this post don't actually relate to the topic of the post? The post was about how the ODP can be useful for people searching for information, not how quickly or otherwise suggested sites get added.
So many of the commentors have wilfully ignored the "Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry" instruction on the comment form. I hope those same people took more care in reading and following the instructions at http://www.dmoz.org/add.html when they suggested their websites...
As explained in a previous post at http://blog.dmoz.org/2009/01/21/odp-help-resources/ if you want questions answered, a more appropriate place to ask them would be at http://www.resource-zone.com/
Posted at 5:24AM on May 11th 2009 by chaos127
26. For sure, the ODP can be useful for finding sites on certain topics, but not for all - that's just the way it is and the way it'll always be.
Personally, I'm not interested in my car doing backflips, only what it's suppose to do. Unfortunately, because of how broad the Project is, there will always be sections that have sites that are no longer active, or are well out of date.
Most of the frustration shown here seems to be borne from people suggesting a site they think is worthwhile for inclusion - most likely their own, or the site of the company they work for or own, something they're affiliated with in some way - and not seeing it listed, with no communication. Regardless of a site being suitable for the ODP or not, whoever suggests it doesn't know whether it's been seen to or already rejected - hence the "black hole" reference.
Maybe DMOZ needs to make things more clearer for those that don't get it... "The Open Directory Project: Suggest and site, and forget about it. Being listed in the ODP isn't necessarily going to help in your rankings or bring more traffic".
I am only just beginning to understand the way this thing works and do have respect for the work the volunteer Editors put in. It's just a shame that there are so many sites and such a backlog (I assume) for Editors to review that some sections will never be as up to date as people want them to be (in other words, to have their own sites included in them!).
Posted at 11:59AM on May 12th 2009 by Steve
27. Since sharing my experiences with others, we have come to the conclusion that when trying to contact an editor to find out why a site has suddenly been removed from DMOZ: there is no helpful answer...the response from DMOZ is just a scolding remark, "There is never a reason to contact an editor...". Please consider removing the email option link which suggests that one can actually contact an editor with any questions.
Posted at 1:47AM on May 14th 2009 by Mick
28. It's not only the submitters who don't get much respect from DMOZ, it's even their own editors, the people who are voluntarily spending their time to keep DMOZ going. I have been an editor for many years. Recently I kind of forgot about DMOZ for a while, due to a work overload. Normally not a big deal since my categories are small and don't have much activity anyway. When I tried to log in again DMOZ had blocked my access. All efforts to be re-instated as editor were in vain; I didn't even get a reply, and my last email sent to staff@dmoz.org bounced because their mailbox was full. Given the constant lack of editors at DMOZ this is simply ridiculous. As long as incompetent peope are running the show DMOZ will further go down and never ever become a valuable search tool again.
Posted at 1:22PM on May 14th 2009 by Peter Blumtritt
29. We get no replies to our request for listing, ever schmever never. Given that two of our sites do 200,000 daily pageviews, are Google News providers, and are linked by mainstream media publications all over the world like Time, Newsweek, New York Times, etc, I have to conclude your directory is lacking in relevance based on personal experience.
I just learned this morning that your editors are in fact competitors of ours, so you have built a vetting system that contains a gigantic conflict of interest. When you stop our competitors from making decisions about who to include, make them reply to people, have their names and email addresses known, and include an appeals process, you will have a better directory and more respect.
Posted at 1:44PM on May 14th 2009 by McCain
30. Problem is exactly editors. Many of them are people that run business relevant to the category they edit.. and they put their websites or the websites they are interested in.. at the top of the search results or at the top of everything. Their competitors are usually ignored.
ODP is just a business tool managed by a little group of interested people... the editors.
Any editor that try to make a good job is later o sooner kicked.. and this is why the continuous lack of editors
Posted at 2:09PM on May 14th 2009 by Luca
31. We have tried several times to get listed with demoz and months even years later get no listing, no response.
Given up trying now. Waste of time and effort. Dmoz doesn't even seem to care. And do people use the directories?
I don't know. A bit of quality link love would be nice though.
Erotic Lingerie
Posted at 2:53PM on May 14th 2009 by John
32. DMOZ is without a doubt a HUGE black hole. I have submitted at least 4 times over the past 2 years and not a single submission has ever been added nor ANY communication as to why it would not be added.
Posted at 3:17PM on May 14th 2009 by Russell Ridge
33. I'm from Europe and have a very bad experience with DMOZ.
I submitted my site in January 2008. The site has relevant content, is built on valid code, its PageRank is 4. No spamming, no redirections, or any server side tricks. It meets your criteria in every possible aspect--still no inclusion, no response whatsoever. At the same time, there are some sites with much less relevant content included in the same category.
And you're asking for respect? Is it a joke? Shouldn't you guys actually do something to earn that respect? Shouldn't it start with your respect towards the people who take their time and effort to submit their links? Shouldn't you guys pay attention and check the local versions' editors' reliability and credibility?
I totally agre on some folks' opinion here: DMOZ is a black hole.
Posted at 3:32PM on May 14th 2009 by PG
34. Despite what this post says, the only reason anyone still pays attention to DMOZ is because of its high page rank. I have never heard of someone using DMOZ to find anything; DMOZ gets mentioned exclusively in the SEO circle because everyone wants that high PR backlink. Don't kid yourself, the only thing DMOZ is good for is passing Google juice.
Posted at 3:31PM on May 14th 2009 by Jim
35. People respond to the bigger issue. The frustration comes from people that cannot get their sides added. The top level editors that 'guard' DMOZ have destroyed it for what it was by playing god. Noone checks their listings to see if they are ignoring valid sites. In addition they do not let new enthusiastic editors to take more responsibility.
Time to get to the root of the problem and the root of the problem are the top level editors.
Posted at 3:46PM on May 14th 2009 by Kostas
36. Bottom line:
Dmoz can't keep up and it has failed.
Dmoz is a brand gulping it's last few slurps of air while Company leadership is in denial that the site has been irrelevant for quite some time.
Meanwhile, legitimate users and brand owners know the have tried for years to articulate these problems to Dmoz. These problems include listing gaming, unresponsiveness, disrespectful treatment by editors, cliques, outdated directories and so on.
Right now it's a brand that's doing more harm than good and is a nightmare for legitimate brand owners. Most just give up. I certainly have.
Dmoz - you're doing more harm than good.
Please get out of the game.
Posted at 4:06PM on May 14th 2009 by Darrell
37. HI,
Well the ODP is a good directory but they Ar lousing respect ,i think if dmoz open the gaits people will be proud to star over!! I have tried to become an ODP Editor but i have Ben rejected in I think that dmoz have auto response emails to decline people no wan don't check your application , ODP for me is an insignificant directory, dmoz will not be like a time and I'm sore for that
Posted at 5:34PM on May 14th 2009 by ilie
38. It's ironic that DMOZ states it only lists QUALITY sites, but if you look through the directory it is mainly spam, and OLD spam at that.
To those of you upset that your site was never included...thank your lucky stars because a listing at DMOZ probably HURTS your rankings or image more than any good it may be perceived to do.
I've had an authority site in my niche, absolutely no spam and gaining popularity through the years with no help from DMOZ. Thanks, but no thanks.
Posted at 6:07PM on May 14th 2009 by DMOZ IS A DIVE
39. @Peter Blumtritt: If you want to check on the status of a reinstatement request you can ask in the "Becoming an Editor" forum at http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/ .
Posted at 6:30AM on May 15th 2009 by chaos127
40. Running websites since 3 ys, 've learnt a lot about valid coding and web development. Meanwhile I love to be a part of the community, I support projects as Honeypot, WOT and Wikipedia and do my very best to deliver quality to the public, the web visitors. DownerOfMyZeal: your "reputed to be important" largest BlahBlah Directory is making me sick. Pretending to be part of the Good and Free web world providing quality, the ODP behaviour is egocentric and unfair. Reminds me of a greedy dictator suggesting to be a democratic regent to his subjects. Correctly submitted 100% W3C/CSS compliant PR3 Wikipedia-referenced pages are ignored, while junk pages are accepted. I hope your significance will be radically adjusted, you dissapear from the scene or turn around to become a project that deserves peoples respect.
Thanks for stomach ache and wasted hours °!°
Posted at 2:17AM on May 16th 2009 by jazzvox