Directory Attitude - An Open Letter to DMOZ!

>I don't believe in altruism - when you volunteer for something, there is always a level of gaining something for oneself.

Perhaps. I believe the measure of a man's wealth is not what he takes, or what he keeps, or what he keeps others from possessing -- but what he gives away. And I want to be rich.

I don't believe in altruism - when you volunteer for something, there is always a level of gaining something for oneself.

Click to expand...

Absolutely - I have gained so much by becomming an editor:

More friends to talk to.
More time on the computer looking up fun subjects and reading all about them.
A sense of accomplishment every time I make a category larger (or better) than it was when I first saw it.
More knowledge of the web.
A fun hobby.

I've only added a bit over 3000 sites to the directory so far - a lot of those I found myself by looking at bumpers (www.davesmithdecoys.com was the latest one - it's still written in the back of the book I was reading on Friday ), or reading trade magazines (like Northwest Horse Source or Paint Horse Journal), or by following links on interesting sites. Finding more sites should be something you want to do, not something you have to do.

My first thought when I saw the volunteer to become an editor link was - "Wow, how fun would that be." I quickly found two sites (in addition to mine) and sent in an application. I was accepted a couple weeks later - and then found out there were guidelines about how to write descriptions.

To be honoust, working through the proposals is sometimes less fun than finding the websites on own initiative.

Click to expand...

I think you hit it on the nail right there - the main reason why the business sections are not as updated as frequently as the more 'fun and interesting' topics. I can't blame anyone for not wanting to enter into these sections.

I'm basically an artist struggling to make a living doing what he loves/is interested in under a business heading (you have to make a living.) Since it falls under this 'business' heading, I don't think these 'business' categories move as fast - especially the more obscure fields. I think this is an inherent issue with the way the open directory functions.

Perhaps the best egalatarian solution is to remove 'business directory' listings altogether. Then Google and other search engines wouldn't favor the Open Directory as a source of information regarding businesses. It would also remove alot of self-motivated reasons for people to bother the ODP editors and filter editorial applications to a more reasonable level.

Top 100 measured how?

Click to expand...

This is an over-exaggeration on my part and I should try to remain accurate. It would probably be more correct to say that the majority of the top sites I pull up from 'Architectural Rendering' in Google happen to be listed in the ODP category I applied for. Ocassionally a few slip through rankings that have made it to a front page of a 'major website' - such as mine briefly did when I made it onto CGArchitect (which is listed in the ODP) headline news. I shot up to the top 50 for several different search terms. But as soon as it became older news, my site could not be found in a search of over 8 million results.

Again this brings up the 'chicken or the egg first' argument for some of you. But no one that who has looked deeply into this topic will say that ODP listing doesn't have some major effect on rankings.

The top link I pulled up was howardmodels.com which is listed in the ODP - one out of 168 links. By all means, this site is guilty of many of the keyword stuffing/spamming techniques that many search engines actually lower/punish rankings for (including Google.) So I've analyzed the code attempting to determine why this site persists in one of the top spots. My conclusion is that there are many factors which go beyond the ODP listing, but this ODP listing is perhaps one of the most important reasons for its persistance.

Other sites which don't even have meta keywords, meta description, an abundance of related text, properly balanced keyword ratios, an adequate number of backlinks, pagerank, proper alt attributes, page titles, website age, and heading attributes also pull up in these top spots. For all intents and purposes - they shouldn't be listed in the top 200. They should be at the bottom of the 8 million+ search engine result pile.

charlesleo said:

Google isn't open about their '100 points of criteria' as to what ranks a website... there is no direct evidence. Just Google telling you to get your site listed here... It never mentioned Yahoo Directory.

Click to expand...

In Google's webmaster guidelines, they say

Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites.

Click to expand...

The link you gave previously to Google Directory advice simply explains that Google's Directory is a clone of the ODP.

Those two facts:
1) Google's Directory = ODP
2) Google advises getting links and suggests the ODP as one possible source
are the foundation upon which a huge edifice of speculation has been built.

It is true enough that one link in the ODP eventually generates a lot more from ODP clones. However the effect of this may not be as great as you might imagine. Many of these clones have little or no PageRank. In fact Google seems to be declaring war on a lot of them and banning them altogether. Presumably this is part of the relentless drive against spam, in particular duplicate content.

charlesleo said:

I have several more research papers/links I won't bore you with.

Click to expand...

I would be most interested, but perhaps we could take this discussion to the new thread I started for it?
http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=43713

Perhaps the best egalatarian solution is to remove 'business directory' listings altogether. Then Google and other search engines wouldn't favor the Open Directory as a source of information regarding businesses.

Click to expand...

If what Google does (or seems to do) with any portion of the ODP's data is causing you trouble, Google is who you should be petitioning to change their processes. Suggesting that we make the ODP less useful in order that Google will stop using it is a bit backward.

After waiting three years and watching the category NOT move, I don't mind pitching in a hand and putting in some very good websites up there as well (namely other people/sites who have been waiting in queue just as long as I have or longer.) So it is a 'give and take' relationship I'd try to foster.

Click to expand...

You've already been told the category is too large. If you don't mind me saying so, in the amount of time you've spent posting here in this forum, you could have filled out a new application for a smaller category, been accepted, been happily editing and already worked your way up to the category you wanted in the first place. You might have even found that you enjoyed it.

I agree with petitioning Google for that change - but it is talking to a brick wall. And it's not just Google that is using this directory.

As for applying, I have and have been waiting for a response.

I drop by these forums every so often and see exactly the same discussion repeated ad naseum, although this is one of the more constructive and interesting ones.

The ODP is less important for commercial sites as many people make out. Having a listing wont make you a million, not-having a listing wont lose you a million.

To say that you have to have an ODP listing to get in the top X listings on Google is incorrect in the extreme.

Basically, if you are trying to get in the top 30 for a search term that is mega competitive, then the levels of SEO churned at the net by the companies that succeed is so unbeliveably huge, a link from the ODP will be nothing more than the preverbial drop in the ocean - regardless of how much preference - if any - google gives to an ODP listing on a page rank 5 page over and above any other relevant content page rank 5 page.

If the search term you are gunning for isnt that competitive, then it wont be too difficult to get good rankings without a link from the ODP anyways.

Submit and forget is definately the way to go. There isnt a chance in hell I'll be sitting on my laurels, waiting for SomeGuy to post me a link. I'll be too busy making sure my sites stay on the first page of Google - something that nobody at the ODP, be it editor, the uber-geek whos responsible for boring database programming, or AOL's Cheif Executive has any control over whatsoever.

If everyone read and followed your post the world would be a happier place. :icon_excl

I have to say one more time - I don't think any of us truly know's what impact it has (I personally think it has a lot mainly through backlinking.) We can all agree it has some. Without a well-thought out control group, none of us will truly know the impact of an ODP listing. You can't say it's negligible, nor can you say it'll guarantee you high rankings.

The clearest thing to say at this point is that no one, including the editors have any idea what impact it does or doesn't have. The only people that would know are the search engine statistics people themselves.

The clearest thing to say at this point is that no one, including the editors have any idea what impact it does or doesn't have. The only people that would know are the search engine statistics people themselves.

Click to expand...

And it is critical to add that, when editing, the average editor simply does not care and does not factor what a serach engine may or may not do into the editing and decision making process.

charlesleo said:

You can't say it's negligible, nor can you say it'll guarantee you high rankings.

Click to expand...

You miss the point.

By its very nature it is incredibly negligable and there is no in-between.


Want to get 1st place for 'dvd', 'news' or 'web design'..... An ODP link wont make the blind bit of difference.


Want to get 1st place for '[obscure] dvd', [small town local] news' or 'web design [small town]'.... 1st place will be easily achievable, without an ODP link.


CNN and BBC would still be 1st place for 'news' whether thay had 0 links in ODP, or 1000 links in ODP. And you or I will NEVER get 1st place for that term, even if we had a link on every page in the ODP.

Mostly Coudy - You have my deepest thanks. I keep trying to fight this myth that a listing in the ODP is a magic key to high rankings. It can only lead to disappointment.

Charlesleo - One more point.

My site is listed on the Yahoo directory. I pull up in the top 100 of their search results. I also pull up top 100 in MSN search. In Google, I am nowhere to be found.

Click to expand...

This is a common pattern at the moment. My own site is in exactly the same position on a swathe of searches, irrespective of links from the ODP. Google just has a more complex algorithm.

For example on a search for 'Bristol Bridge', my article on said edifice is currently placed 4th in MSN, 14th in Yahoo and nowhere in the top 100 on Google, despite a link to it from the ODP historic bridges category. (According to http://ranking.thumbshots.com/ ).

We are wandering here well out of the territory that this forum was set up for. You can find much discussion about the differences between the search engines on webmaster forums, such as Webmaster World. I just wanted to clear up that one point.

By its very nature it is incredibly negligable and there is no in-between.

Click to expand...

Again you're speculating.

For example on a search for 'Bristol Bridge', my article on said edifice is currently placed 4th in MSN, 14th in Yahoo and nowhere in the top 100 on Google, despite a link to it from the ODP historic bridges category.

Click to expand...

Without knowing your website you're refering to, I did a seach for "Bristol Bridge" in quotes. It pulled up over 33,600 links in Google. If you are anywhere in the top 500, I would say that's pretty good. If you're pulling up #4 or #14 in other engines out of that many results - that's pretty good. I don't know how this doesn't disprove an ODP link..



And yes 'we' are wandering out of ODP forum territory - but it is very related. Just be prepared to continue battling this theory and having more and more people apply (and hence complain) because they want to be listed or accepted and wonder what happened to their submissions. It will not stop and will only become more of a mess unless the rules/quantity for quartley edit quotas increases.

You all clearly recognize these problems and that this 'debate' consumes alot of time.

What would you say - submission for rankings is what a good 80% of the people write in about to the resource zone? A good 85% wants to become editors for this sole purpose. And that's perhaps the most frustrating thing about all these people applying to become editors is that it's a one time deal.

become more of a mess unless the rules/quantity for quartley edit quotas increases.

Click to expand...

It would seem that this 95 post thread, in which you initially complained of our discourtesy and we attempted to explain the inner workings of our hobby to you, has achieved precisely nothing.

Whatever gives you the right to tell us hobbyists what efforts we must put in and where we must deploy them? How would you react if we told you how you must groom your dog or take your photograph? Frankly, I see your quoted remark above as being a much bigger discourtesy than anything thats ever been said here by editors.

Whatever gives you the right to tell us hobbyists what efforts we must put in and where we must deploy them?

Click to expand...

I never told you or anyone else to do anything Jim. I merely made a suggestion how I think applications and positions could be better. I think you are overreacting.

Perhaps you think I'm attacking friends or forcing something on others? Then you are sorely mistaken. I am attacking no one. I just analyzed the way the system is setup (bits and chips) and trying to find solutions to a re-ocurring problem here. I am not against any of you. And I am not telling anyone to do anything. And I couldn't if I wanted to.

All I addressed was a recurring theme for applicants and pointed out that this is most likely a cause of most of the editorial application problems here. All I did was suggest a possible way to reduce the amount of editors (and I'm willing to be most of the recent applicants have one goal in mind - I think you are well aware of this) that are here to solely get listed.

The person that does 3 edits a year for 5 years (to fill a minimum) - something seems rather strange - incestuous perhaps nepotonistic. I'm sure that's not always the case - you could always let a trusted editor reapply like the rest has to do - there's a checkbox on the application which reads 'have you ever been an ODP editor before?' What's that used for?

"Oh - I gotta fill out that freakin' form again? That sucks... **sinks head, drags feet, becomes humbled**"

One submission every four months seems like an intent on 'search-engine submission' fodder on the submitters behalf (whether or not it helps ranking - totally different issue.) You have to admit - that is a little ridiculous - the bare minimum. There's a quota there of 1 every 4 months - you don't seem to have a problem with that.

there's a checkbox on the application which reads 'have you ever been an ODP editor before?' What's that used for?

Click to expand...

If you say "Yes" and try to submit the application, it will redirect you to the reinstatement form instead. We don't want editors having more than one account.

charlesleo said:

Again you're speculating.

Click to expand...

No I'm not. I'm speaking from experience and the examples given in the post are an accurate reflection of the inert-ness of the ODP.

Perhaps it is full of nepatism, who cares - as I said previously; none of these inbreds, as you seem to now refer to them, have any control over my rankings whatsoever, thankfully.

You clearly dont understand SEO.

charlesleo said:

incestuous perhaps nepotonistic.

Click to expand...

How do incest and nepotism enter into this? To become an editor (as you know), you have to fill in an application form which aims to assess your interest in editing and ability to do so. There is no back way in for the nephews and nieces of editors. Now since some people actually enjoy editing, they tend to recommend it to people they know, with the result that we have had a few cases of two or more members of the same family editing. But all went through the same application process.

charlesleo said:

You have to admit - that is a little ridiculous - the bare minimum. There's a quota there of 1 every 4 months - you don't seem to have a problem with that.

Click to expand...

Raising the minimum 'quota' would make little or no difference. We are a body of volunteers, who work as much as we like.

The great bulk of the work is done by a relatively small number of very keen and dedicated editors, who enjoy editing. I would guess that about 20% of the editors have probably constructed about 80% of the directory. (Search Google for "Pareto's Principle".) But if someone wants to just add a few listings a year in a small category, that is a help. If a lot of people do that, it adds up.

If the directory relied on people volunteering just to list their own sites, then the ODP would currently have only around 100,000 listings, not around 5 million. It relies instead on the kind of people who enjoy the search for knowledge and the cataloguing of it, people who like to be helpful, who want to make access to knowlege easier.

The case study

charlesleo said:

Without knowing your website you're refering to, I did a seach for "Bristol Bridge" in quotes. It pulled up over 33,600 links in Google. If you are anywhere in the top 500, I would say that's pretty good. If you're pulling up #4 or #14 in other engines out of that many results - that's pretty good. I don't know how this doesn't disprove an ODP link..

Click to expand...

OK - here are the details. (Moderators please forgive me.) My site: Researching Historic Buildings in the British Isles has about 500 inbound links not counting those from the ODP and ODP clones. (This includes links from about 50 academic sites.) We would therefore expect pages on it to do reasonably well in all search engines. In fact it does better in other engines than Google. But the important point here is that the listing of a page in the ODP confers no advantage in Google.

Specific pages:

Bristol Bridge: does fine on MSN and Yahoo!, but not Google, despite having a link from the ODP.

Dovecotes for some reason is liked by Google, despite not having a link from the ODP. In fact this is one of the few pages on my site that comes anywhere in the top hundred on Google (average 10th place.)

Google Sitemaps gives a handy list of the top 20 searches in Google that bring up pages on my site. Two out of the 20 have links from the ODP. But one of those has a lot of links from other sites as well. The other is for a rare topic.

My conclusion: Google does not give special love to pages listed in the ODP, though obviously linkage in general is important.