Ineffective DMOZ
Ineffective
DMOZ?
The 1 proven online system that
can make you $
As featured on CNNmoney and
Forbes.com
Ineffective
DMOZ
Webmasters who have tried getting
sites listed in the free directory
DMOZ have found it be a hit and
miss attempt. Attempts to expedite
the process make it worse,
attempts to obtain acceptance
status may make it worse, and in
an industry only a few years old,
many years can elapse before any
inclusion is experienced, if at
all. If DMOZ is the directory it
believes itself to be, it should
behave like that directory. As
virtually any webmaster would
concur ? the chances of getting
into DMOZ even with the best site
in the genre, with original
content, with a site that visitors
love, with strong and constant
traffic, excellent page rank and
much more ? are patchy, chancy and
can even deteriorate a site's rank
if ever included if the editor
wants it that way. Good search
engine optimisation companies such
as ourselves (see author bio)
attain good rankings for their
clients with or without the open
directory. However a listing in
the ODP makes this process easier
by far, but the arcane and
arbitrary behaviour by the open
directory makes a submission far
from open and unnecessarily
frustrating. Here's why DMOZ has
become a liability to good search
results on the web.
Submission:
To submit to DMOZ ? the webmaster
will go to DMOZ.org, find the most
appropriate category ? fill out
the fields required and submit.
Sometimes there is an automated
indication of the success of the
submission (not of acceptance,
just the submission), and
sometimes there isn't. Did the
submission occur? If you attempt
to submit again when the
submission was accepted ? just not
indicated ? you will harm the
chance of being included in the
directory. If you submit several
times because you're not getting
any indication that the submission
was successful ? you'll be seen as
a spammer. Sites that may be
already accepted in the past may
now be in jeopardy ? and the one
you are now attempting is
particularly at risk. Forum
postings from DMOZ editors suggest
this is completely wrong ? that
the process works perfectly and
submission success is always
emailed. We know this to be
disingenuous.
Attitude of
Editors:
DMOZ editors think they are
important. It's true to say that
webmasters do need them to perform
a responsibility they've been
entrusted with. Some editors live
up to this responsibility with
integrity ? but most don't. DMOZ
editors will do things in their
own way, in their own time, and
sadly ? most importantly ? on
their own terms. If you don't
submit a site in exactly in the
right way, which is their right
way ? your site won't be listed
and you'll never know whether it's
still in the queue, moved to
another editor, or just rejected.
As of mid 2005 ? there is no
status coming out of DMOZ.
Prima Donnas:
Similar to above ? Most DMOZ
editors think they are a cut above
the rest of us. They believe they
hold the key to life or death ?
that for obviously meritocratic
reasons they have been selected to
wield power over webmasters who
need to come crawling to them to
plead their case. The problem
starts at the top ? the senior
editors are geeks who’ve been
operating in the upper hierarchy
of DMOZ since the time that only
computer geeks were really
interested in the role. Like many
geeks, they're very intelligent
but kinda out of touch with
aspects of the real world. Aspects
of great importance to an
individual webmaster are not
regarded with due diligence by
senior editors and those they
loosely oversee further down in
the pecking order. Prima Donna's?
Attempt to contact them to find
out any information meets with the
response similar to some high
official you have approached
inappropriately. The Prima Donna's
of DMOZ are the only interface
between the webmaster and the
directory ? and if the webmaster
treats them wrongly they react
with the attitude of some offended
film star, and they're off to
their trailer in a huff. How can
something so important be so
ridiculously managed? It's only a
matter of time until Google, the
search engine that uses the
repository more than other search
engines concludes the same (the
others, sensibly, have their
own).
Enquiries:
Once submitting a site to DMOZ ?
you can just check progress along
the way ? right? Wrong. Enquire at
your peril. Prior to early 2005
DMOZ had a forum where progress
could be checked ? though the
forum was subject to the replies
of editors with all the
characteristics cited in this
article. It was a difficult and
arcane way of getting information,
and marginally better than
nothing. Now there is nothing. But
there are editors for each section
? could you not just contact them
and ask for status? No. As
previously warned ? enquire at
your peril. It will almost
definitely result in a negative
effect for your site's listing
potential. The temptation to plead
with one of the DMOZ Prima Donnas
is strong. It may be all you have
? but we can't say the result is
good ? so think carefully about
the wording and attitude. It may
be difficult to find their email
address ? if so this is an
indication that they don't want to
be contacted. It's a closed
organisation and it's just so
surprising that the heavy-weight
search engine Google has such a
high regard for a badly operated
structure like DMOZ.
Since the backlog for editors seems to be so great ? the obvious attitude of webmasters is to offer to become an editor. One would imagine that such an organisation would welcome such free assistance. However, if you have submitted a site and declare your situation (if you don't they'll do a search), they will block it in the vast majority of cases. The intention any well be to assist and add quality sites to the index ? but they'll assume you just want to get your own site in. Could you blame an ethical webmaster ? there's little other choice as long as Google rewards the directory with such kudos? Sites need to be listed with the directory ? and the fact that it's such a hit and miss pursuit is frustrating and pointless. There are not enough editors, the editors don't approach their responsibility with due diligence and they don't easily accept new editors into the organisation. How can it work? It can’t. Google should see the obvious truth in this.
DMOZ
Corruption:
One hesitates to accuse ? but the
forum postings of so many
webmasters complaining of
corruption and apparent postings
of editors who themselves say they
are corrupt cannot but lead one to
the conclusion that there is
corruption at the MOZ. There are
editors that just will not accept
sites into a category where the
site competes with existing sites
they have a financial interest in.
There are editors that will do
worse than not list a site. They
will change the description of the
site that appears by default in
Google search listings such that
surfers will not see the site as
appropriate to their search (as of
mid 2006 Google have permitted a
‘NOODP’ tag to be used to overcome
this ? but the knowledge of this
mechanism isn’t widespread). There
are supposed editors that have
posted in forums that themselves
say they invite payments to be
made to have a site listed ?
payments to be made to the email
address that sometimes appear
along with the editor details, and
others that can be found through
web searches for that editor name.
There are editors that will
deliberately seek out other
editors that have a very high
queue of sites to consider and who
aren’t doing much about reducing
the workload and pass the site
over to them ?which delays the
site consideration for perhaps 2
or 3 years! When it is eventually
turned back to the correct editor,
the editor may do the same with
another over laden editor. One
forum posting by a supposed editor
said that he combined the above
two techniques by finally adding
the site in his category after
giving it the run-around for some
period of years, then changing the
description of the site to repel
visitors. This is dysfunctional to
the point that most objective
observers would conclude the
existence of corruption. Sites
which exist as a small business
with one or two hard working
employees have this kind of
behaviour to grapple with ? the
webmasters are close to powerless
? Google should recognise this and
reduce the value they attribute to
a DMOZ listing.
So What to
Do?
If DMOZ is to continue to be the
directory of choice for Google,
the solution is obvious. A
volunteer group assigned to do
something so important is a bad
business model. The editors need
to be paid employees and the
system needs to be fair, instead
of arcane and very probably
corrupt. We struggle to see how
Google don’t appear to already
recognise this ? it’s blindingly
obvious.
Another solution would be a win win for the two parties concerned. The two parties are webmasters and Google linked with DMOZ. Google could either junk DMOZ or buy it. If they junk it ? build another directory. Then, with the new directory or with the purchased DMOZ charge webmasters for commercial site consideration just like Yahoo do. Yahoo is far too expensive especially for small businesses, but webmasters of sites representing small businesses would be happy to pay a substantial sum like $100 for listing consideration is such a heavy weight directory. Webmasters would pay with a smile ? content that the previous farce of DMOZ is now gone.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that DMOZ is an
important directory. But its
arcane way of operation makes it a
liability as far as appropriate
listings are concerned. The
submission process doesn’t work
properly. Editors have a regal
attitude towards their conferred
responsibility and act like Prima
Donnas in their work. There is no
way of getting any status of
sites, Sites may have been
rejected or may still be in the
queue, and any attempt to find out
in order to put things right puts
the listing at peril if it’s still
in the queue. You can’t be an
editor if you are attempting to
list a site, and reports of
corruption are so common that it
has to be at the very least
probable. When inclusion in the
open directory has such an
influence on making or breaking a
small company, DMOZ is a travesty
of justice and an inappropriate
influence on ranking of sites by
the search behemoth Google. We
believe it is only a matter of
time before Google recognises
this.
