Since 1998, the Open Directory Project has been the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web.
It is constructed and maintained by a passionate, global community of volunteer editors.
In today's post we're bringing you the story of how one editor, imrankhan, took the leap from long-time DMOZ user to editor.
Emily
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My association with DMOZ started off back in 1999. I had just started using the internet and even the speed of my 56k modem internet connection was enough to bowl me over. Back then, my online activities were limited to sending/receiving emails and occasional repartee in chat rooms. It took me some months to realize that the internet is way beyond chitchatting or keeping in touch with your far away friends and family members. It turned out to be a whole new world of knowledge and information. I can't really recall what made me realize this, but one way or another I became aware of the revolutionary significance of the internet. As soon as it hit my consciousness, I gave up all other pastimes and restricted myself to internet surfing. In other words I got addicted to the world wide web.
At this time, I desperately felt the need of some resource like DMOZ. Even though I knew of some search engines, my first attempts at searching brought such irrelevant results that I dumped search engines for the time being, thanks to some clever manipulations done by webmasters to deceive search engine robots. Resources at web directories were either insufficient or subject to the personal interest of directory owners. Resources at search engines were spammed to the core and the human-factor was badly missing. It was then that I discovered the Open Directory Project, which provided that non-commercial, unbiased human-factor. Needless to say, DMOZ became my first bookmark and also, my first "cyber crush".
Why did I become a DMOZ editor?
"Help build the largest human-edited directory of the web. Become an Editor."
For some reason, I had always overlooked the above mentioned message that appears at the homepage. Perhaps because I didn't consider myself capable enough to edit, select or reject resources, or maybe because I was too overwhelmed by the largeness of this project. Hence, for many years, I continued to browse and avail myself of the great resources published at DMOZ, without taking into account the possibility of me serving as an editor for this gigantic directory. It was only after I started my professional life - that requires some serious research work - when I thought about making up for all the information and resources that DMOZ has made available for nothing. It was time to be a part of the cause.
My Experience so far:
Of course, fulfilling.
After so many years of surfing as a user, it feels good to be working "backstage." Apart from the guidelines laid down for the editors, one thing that has helped me a lot is my past experiences as a user. I see webmasters everywhere, at online forums, blogs, communities... complaining about the partiality or favoritism of editors, just because their website hasn't made it into the directory.
The problem I've seen until now, with sites being suggested to my categories for review, is that they don't provide anything of substance for the user. One thing we can't compromise on as an editor is the content of the website. The content has got to be unique, and by uniqueness we don't mean rephrasing or restructuring same piece of information in a hundred ways. There's no point in stuffing DMOZ with hundreds and thousands of websites, where the content is almost identical, hence of little or no use to the general public.
In the coming days, I am looking forward to make a significant contribution towards the growth of a directory that has introduced me to a number of truly useful resources. As a user, my association with DMOZ has always been good, and as an editor, it's even better!
Back in January, we kicked off the new year by introducing everyone to our team. Today, we're excited to introduce our newest team member, Andy. Please join us in welcoming him to the community!
Emily Andy McMahon, Product Manager (dciandy) "I first went online in 1989 with a Commodore 64 and a 300 baud modem. I remember when IM's were called OLM's (online messages) and when you had to pay $40 to get the Netscape browser. Yes, I guess I'm the equivalent of an online old timer! It's been 10 years since I came to AOL, where I've worked as a product manager in the Local space. I'm excited to be part of the DMOZ team because I've always considered the ODP to be the best of the web – I come here because I trust the sites I'll see are high quality in one form or another. I look forward to being a part of this project and working with this great community."
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:
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.
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.
Several weeks ago, we asked webmasters and general users to submit their questions about DMOZ. While we aren't able to answer every question, we've chosen a representative sample to address here on the blog.
Thank you to everyone who participated! We appreciate your thoughts and insights, and your dedication to the ODP community.
Emily
- - - - - - - - - - -
"I just started my first website and someone told me about DMOZ. What is it, and how does a site like mine benefit if it's included in the directory?" Welcome! We're glad you asked.
First, we'll tell you what it is: DMOZ (or the Open Directory Project) is the world's largest and most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web. It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global community of volunteer editors.
Each editor helps maintain a category (or, in the case of some more experienced editors, several categories) of interest to them by performing tasks such as adding new sites, removing broken links, and re-categorizing sites whose purposes have changed since they were originally added. Some editors also perform tasks that enhance the directory and the ODP community. Examples of side projects editors undertake include building tools to help make the editing process more efficient, mentoring new editors and contributing to newsletters and blogs. You can read more about one editor's typical day here. Now, what DMOZ is not: First and foremost, it is not a paid listing service. It is a violation of our social contract and terms of use to either offer money to have a link included in the directory or for an editor to accept money to add a link to the directory. The real value of the directory is in its editorial neutrality, and these practices harm the integrity of the contents and cast shadows over the overwhelming number of site owners and editors who follow the rules. If you suspect abuse, you can report it using our abuse reporting tool.
DMOZ is also not a search engine, in and of itself; however, it is one of a number of tools used by some algorithmic search engines to classify or rank sites.
There are several benefits to sites that are included in the directory. Because some search engines do use it as part of their ranking system, a listing in DMOZ can sometimes help grow traffic to a site. Another benefit is that many organizations take advantage of free access to the directory's content to help populate their own sites, so your site can get additional exposure in communities that share interests and values with your site. "I feel like DMOZ's site selection process isn't transparent enough. Can we get additional details on how sites are selected for inclusion in the directory?" This is a comment we hear time and time again, and most of the time, this is in relation to the site suggestion process. We recognize that our imperfect site suggestion system has a lot to do with that. When you suggest URLs, please keep a couple of things in mind about how the process works:
Our suggestion system unfortunately doesn't have built-in email functionality to notify users that their suggestion has been received or reviewed. While we know that this can be frustrating, once you've entered the CAPTCHA text in the box and received the confirmation page, your suggestion has gone through.
Many people think that there is a queue of suggested sites, but this metaphor is inaccurate. There are a number of reasons why sites are not always reviewed in the order they are received; for example, a site may have been suggested to the wrong category, it may have an unclear title or description, or the suggested site may be undergoing maintenance at the time an editor attempts to review it. Instead, a better metaphor is that suggestions made to each category go into a pool from which editors may select sites to review. A comprehensive overview of what happens to suggested sites is available here.
Editors have many sources from which to select sites. For some categories, there may be an overwhelming number of spam suggestions that make it impractical to use the suggestion pool as a primary selection tool. This doesn't mean that our editors won't ever review the sites in the suggestion pool, or even that they won't find your site by other means. It just means that there isn't a set timeframe for review, and that times may vary based on the size, type and editor techniques of a given category.
The best thing that users can do to help the editors review suggested sites efficiently is to prepare their suggestions as well as they possibly can before submitting them. We've posted some tips on how to do that here and here, and provided information about a number of helpful resources here.
"My company makes several different products. Can I suggest my site in multiple sub-categories? Would I be better off suggesting it to a higher-level category?" In general, sites will fit in one category, and it's best to find one appropriate category to which you will make your site suggestion. In some cases, when sites offer content in diverse product or subject areas, it may be appropriate for editors to list sub-categories separately, but this is definitely the exception rather than the rule.
Remember that the goal of a directory is a little different than the goal of a search engine. The directory provides a structure into which sites are categorized based on their similarity to each other rather than an index of all content related to a particular query term. It is more advantageous to users to have a site listed in the best category than in many somewhat related categories.
"My site is already listed, but it needs to be updated. Is there a way to tell the category editor?" Yes! This is similar to the site suggestion process, and has been covered here in the past. Use the "Update listing" link at the top of the category your site is in.
Ever wonder what editors do behind the scenes? What tasks they complete, how edits are made, etc? Editor mollybdenum has provided a great overview of a day in the editing life to help shed some light on the inner workings of DMOZ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have been an editor for about four years.
I started out with one small category, and I was approved for more categories, as time went on, and my experience grew.
There is much more to being an editor than approving sites that have been submitted, and I would like to share a typical day in the life of this editor with readers.
This morning I logged in and went to the editor forums first. I greeted some new editors, and then made a comment in a discussion about the re-naming of a category. A rename is occasionally decided upon, for better organization of the directory, and for easier browsing by our site visitors.
After that, I looked over the categories where I edit.
There were some "reds" - these are former listings that have been removed from the directory by our link-checker Robozilla because they have been inaccessible for a few weeks.
I checked the first, and found that it returned a '404 - not found' error message. I used a search engine to learn if the site had perhaps moved to a new domain. There were no results. I left the link in the 'unreviewed' area. I will search for it again in a few weeks. Perhaps by then, it will again be available. If not, it will be deleted or sent into 'Test' for further investigation later.
The next site was also '404 - not found'. There were no results in the search engines. I visited the archive.org website, and saw that this site had not changed since 2006. Suspecting that it may no longer be available at anytime, I left it in 'unreviewed' for a check again later. If it is still unavailable in a few weeks, it too will either be deleted or sent to 'Test'.
The next red site I checked was working again. I was able to return the listing back into the category.
There were a couple of 'purple' sites. The color purple indicates that a request has been made for an 'update' to the listed site.
In the first case, I went to the site, and found that the company named had changed, which the submitter had posted. I was able to change the title and update the listing in the directory.
The second purple site was a request for a change to the description. The submitter for the 'Widget Inc." site wished to have the description read, "Widget Inc. based in Widgetville, State, Country, at 555-555-5555, sells Wonderful, Exceptional Amazing Widgets in the Widgetville, State, Country area". I had a look at the site, and decided that the current description, "Provides widgets and components. Features company history, newsletter and FAQ." was more appropriate, and left the description without any changes.
Next, I went to one of the smaller categories, and noticed a typo in the description. I fixed that, and then noticed that another site had capital letters in the description. I changed that as well.
I wondered if this category could be improved. Perhaps I could find a few more sites to add. I remembered seeing an ad in yesterday's newspaper for a site that would fit there. I got the paper, and typed in the url. I spent some time looking over the site, and then wrote a description of what the business does, and what can be found on the site. I added this new listing to the directory.
I then went off to the search engines, hunting for more sites to add. I was able to find three, out of about 5 that I visited, that were unique and useful.
By then it was lunchtime. My daughter-in-law and granddaughter were coming to visit for the afternoon. I logged off, glad to have made a contribution to the directory.
