Epinions...

How does the ODP contribute to those search results?

*** Here let me show you an example of a simple product which is being promoted by epinions.com

"Baby Mozart"

Here is the query using google:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=Baby+Mozart

Please click through to the page so you can see that epinions doesn't have unique information about the product. It does show a picture and a text blurb, but really wants users to click the sponsored links at the bottom of the page. If you click compare prices, you will again see the sponsored listings at the bottom of the page. They have exploited your link to promote generating money via paid advertisements.

To see exactly why they are listed number 2 for that query, you simply need to see who is linking to the page...
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=link:http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eepinions%2Ecom%2Fkifm%2DBaby%5FMotzart
In this case as with many others the DMOZ is proping up their "so called" product listings by linking to them. If the DMOZ did not link to that page epinions would not come up in those results. Google and other search engines look at the titles used when sites link to particular pages. In our case "Baby Mozart" is the title of the link, thus adding merit to the epinions "baby mozart" spam page. This is why they have patitioned to have so many descript links within the DMOZ. They are very smart corporate spammers.

Do you know how long those epinions pages have been listed here?

*** I'm not exactly sure but my guess would be that the majority of them have been added in the last 16 months.

You give the ODP far too much credit for its supposed influence of search engines. The ODP is not the deciding factor of search engine results.

*** I think I have show you above in my example how and why the DMOZ is important to most search engines. If you are still unclear or need other examples you may send me a private message or simply post your request.

Dmoz.org does have an effect on search engines. We just do the best we can. Many different editors read here and everyone has an opinion but in the end we are really trying to do what is best. Whatever that is.

If there is a problem the wheels are probably already turning - this is an ODP meta editors forum - the metas rule.

Any help you can give will have a profound affect on thousands of smaller sized businesses. Although I am the unchosen spokesman for them, I'm sure they greatly appreciate your efforts. If there is any information I can provide, or investigate for you I am willing and able; just let me know.

I'm sorry, but you are still looking at this as a Search Engine problem. Whilst I appreciate your concerns the fact is we are a Directory .

The primary focus was and is to add informational resources in a directory structure.

In the early days PCP's (Prefered Content Providers) were used as one way of increasing the amount of listings within the constraints at the time (The current guidelines have evolved from those constraints). To the best of my (albeit limited) knowledge there are no longer any active PCP's.

As you may have noticed 1000 or so of those listings have since been removed when they were found to no longer offer appropriate content, however no one is going to do a mass deletion. Each listing is (re)evaluated on content relevant to it's category when it is checked by an editor, however there is no time scale for such checking.

The particular example you cited was added in May 2000. Without checking I think most will have similar dates.

We do not, and are not permitted, to allow google or any other downstream user of the directory to dictate or affect the way we list sites. Similarly we do not allow webmasters to dictate the way we list or describe sites.

Being that you no longer have PCP's (Prefered Content Providers) shouldn't you limit all sites to one listing within your directory as stated by your submission guidelines?

"Identify the single best category for your site. The Open Directory has an enormous array of subjects to choose from. You should submit a site to the single most relevant category. Sites submitted to inappropriate or unrelated categories may be rejected or removed."

As I understand it, most of the epinions listings date back to 1999 and the organization structure we use in our Home: Consumer Information category is based on the epinions taxonomy (which they generously donated to the directory at that time.)

shouldn't you limit all sites to one listing within your directory as stated by your submission guidelines?

"Identify the single best category for your site. The Open Directory has an enormous array of subjects to choose from. You should submit a site to the single most relevant category. Sites submitted to inappropriate or unrelated categories may be rejected or removed."

Click to expand...

I totaly agree with you and if it were up to me most listing would be removed. But as I'm not an editor of this part of ODP the only thing I can do is ask fellow editors to take a look at this breach of our own rules.

The guidelines for submitters and guidelines for editors are not the same. Submitters are asked to find one category for their site. Editors are given leeway to deeplink or give multiple listings when content and guidelines warrant it.

Editors are just volunteers. They do whatever editing they fancy. Some like finding almost-empty categories and building them up. Others like to find subjects that the ODP has zero information on then, go out and find sites that cover that topic. Others like to cherry-pick useful sites from the queue of suggestions, while others trawl the same list deleting the spam and duplicate submissions, and moving wrongly placed suggestions to a more appropriate place.

For any editor, choosing whether to build categories, review suggestions, or hunt for spam is their choice, but maybe removing out-of-date-but-still-vaguely-useful listings hasn't been a top-priority of anyone who was in a position to do anything about it (as opposed to bait-and-switch, content hijacks, expired-domain content changes, and p0rn spamming being deleted immediately it comes to our attention). With 4 million sites listed, and nearly a million suggestions in the queue (and a further 3 billion sites out there that haven't yet been suggested) there is always a lot to be done, and far more than any person could tackle alone. Only a few editors can actually edit anywhere in the directory. Most editors only have access to a few categories, or parts of a few sub-branches, and many would not be aware of the wider picture.

I think your suggestion is a useful one, and maybe some of the older listings do need a re-review. The review must consider the question of whether the site adds value to the ODP category, not what effect listing it, or not listing it, may have elsewhere. However, I do know that the ODP will probably still rely on a select few "proven" sites to use as content-fillers when expanding new categories and subject areas.

>Any help you can give will have a profound affect on thousands of smaller sized businesses.

Totally irrelevant. We are focused simply and solely on helping surfers. Any effect, positive or negative, on businesses, small or great, is an unintended side effect and a matter of no concern whatsoever.

hutcheson,

I think you are taking your oath as an editor a little too seriously. I'm excited to see that you play by the rule book, but not understanding how your data is used throughout the web will eventually hurt your directory. To simply state that we are going to do what is best for us, and we have "no concern whatsoever" how it affects other persons or sites across the web is very short sighted and naive approach to this problem.

You mentioned "We are focused simply and solely on helping surfers." Well these surfers search for items and information that your directory help promote, whether you indended it that way or not. So, in your persuit to help surfers, you should take into consideration the profound affect your directory listings have "across the web" not just in the little world of the ODP.

These guidelines are not mine, they are defined by the founders and sponsors of the ODP. We are not allowed to do what you want us to do.

There are, in fact, many things the ODP does not do. It will never promote world hunger, end world peace, drive lawyers extinct, promote cholera, or cure immortality. It will never even be the only WWW navigation method. No matter how noble or valuable these other goals may seem (to you), in order to accomplish them you must use some other mechanism.

(The ODP isn't the only organization I volunteer for, and I suspect most editors are the same way. We may even have some pro-lawyer or anti-cholera editors.)

And if you're focusing on the ODP for website-promotion services, what you will get is a lot of wasted time and a massive case of frustration. Commercial sites need to be pursuing commercial website-promotion venues, not harassing ODP editors with spurious ideals and irrelevant reasons.

hutcheson,

<We are not allowed to do what you want us to do.>

*** I have not suggested what you should do about the problem, I merely brought it up. It will be those editors who address this issue that will come up with the solution.

<There are, in fact, many things the ODP does not do. It will never promote world hunger, end world peace, drive lawyers extinct, promote cholera, or cure immortality. It will never even be the only WWW navigation method. No matter how noble or valuable these other goals may seem (to you)>

*** Why would these issues be important "to me" when you brought them up? I'm really not sure what that statement has to do with anything pertaining to this topic.

<And if you're focusing on the ODP for website-promotion services, what you will get is a lot of wasted time and a massive case of frustration.>

*** The only website being promoted by the ODP from what I have seen is epinions.com... That is why we are reading this thread.

<Commercial sites need to be pursuing commercial website-promotion venues, not harassing ODP editors with spurious ideals and irrelevant reasons.>

*** Couldn't agree more, commercial sites should promote their sites as they see fit. As far as harassing ODP editors for irrelevant reasons... well I guess you will need to go to the top and start reading again until you get back to this part, then you can interject on something you have read, not read into whilst you skimmed this tread.

We are looking for contributions and solutions to this problem. We have already tried flaming the messenger and that was determined to be inappropriate, so when you post please bring something of worth to the thread... thanks.

I hope that we can move this thread back to a more constructive tone.

There seem to be three separate issues being discussed in this thread.

1) epinions.com enjoys special treatment from the ODP.

My Answer: True. For reasons buried in the past of DMOZ, the ODP community decided it was valuable to provide lots of deeplinks to epinions.com. This is something that we should take another look at IMO. I understand that there is an ongoing effort to re-evaluate deeplinks to large information sites, and it seems like this issue may be something to throw in that pot. (If it wasn't already in there to start with, which I suspect it was.)

2) ODP Editors are ruining the Internet for small business.
My Answer: Preposterous. The directory isn't perfect, but really, this is simple hyperbole. The way I see it, the Internet is a great leveling ground between the big guy and the small guy. The ODP is part of what makes that true.

3) ODP Editors have been rude and given LOWRY short shrift.

My Answer: Somewhat true. Sometimes when someone presents an objection and focuses their argument on the reasons for the objection rather than the objection itself, it is easy to loose site of the initial objection. The directory doesn't exist for site owners or promoters, and when a site owner comes in and accuses us of ruining his or her business, then we bristle. In this case we were probably too bristly.

Regards.

In my experience, when an area is targetted for cleanup, the epinions.com listings get reviewed and treated more consistently with current guidelines. For example, in one of the Home Consumer Information areas a lot of subcats that were only holding a deeplink to epinions.com were deleted, but the parent area of epinions.com was listed in the next higher level category. It was sad to discover that in many of these cases, epinions.com was the only source of readily found consumer information. The subcats formed a good initial structure, and in some cases other sites with equivalent content appeared to fill out the category, but the ones that couldn't be developed further got removed.

Although today we wouldn't necessarily deeplink epinions.com to the extent that currently exists, it doesn't mean that this is so bad from ODP's point of view that they have to be hunted down and all re-reviewed immediately. Given a choice between reviewing and listing 10 new sites or reviewing the categories holding 10 epinions.com listings to decided whether or not to delete the epinions.com listing, I prefer to add new sites.

I agree with lissa as far as maintaining the directory. Sure it's always more fun to explore new sites and help them get listed in your directory. But on the other hand if someone doesn't step up to remove the old irrelevant listings then the directory becomes cluttered and less useful. Kind of a catch 22... I think the DMOZ needs an editor like me. What category should I register under?

What category should I register under

Click to expand...

You should ask yourself: "to which categegory could I make a contribution?" Only pick a cat that you are interested in and at the same time a subject that you are familiar with. Don't suspect to be able to start in a big area. Start small, maybe your hometown. Prove you are worth a bigger cat and slowly (speed depending on your own whishes and depending on your performance) grow as an editor.

>I have not suggested what you should do about the problem, I merely brought it up. It will be those editors who address this issue that will come up with the solution.

How can I get the message across?

What we are precisely and explicitly NOT allowed to do is "address this issue"!

We do not do website promotion. Not for small retail companies (which you aren't in any case, since you don't sell anything except advertising, and that not to customers), not for big retail companies, not for advertising venues (which you are), not for noncommercial or personal or religious or charitable or educational or governmental or ethnic or any other kind of site.

This is a non-issue. It was never any more. It never existed. Its expiration date was before its genesis. It's stillborn, void of life from which to be bereft, restless and uneasy. If you hadn't nailed it to the forum it would be poisoning the daisies. Its metabolic processes are thermodynamically impossible. It has kicked the bit bucket, shuffled off the internet and joined the bleedin' choir infernal!

Look, ask us to promote cholera, or world hunger: someone may be willing to help! But don't ask us to promote your website. It is what the ODP is explicitly NOT for doing.

hutcheson,

I am not asking you to promote my commercial site, nor am I who you obviously think I am. I only asked why a site like epinions.com could run rampant through out your directory blatantly taking advantage of how the DMOZ is to be used. Am I the one who is taking advantage of a situation? No. Are you being an ass about not helping? Yes. If you have nothing contructive to add to this thread then please let your fingers and mind rest. I for one am tired of hearing your pipe off about how this is somehow my issue...

I only asked why a site like epinions.com could run rampant through out your directory blatantly taking advantage of how the DMOZ is to be used.

Click to expand...

We explained how epinions got so many listings. It was through the PCP (preferred content provider) program, which no longer exists. The fact that the program doesn't exist does not mean that all the links that were added through it are wrong for their category.

They are not taking advantage of how dmoz is to be used. It is a directory. You go to a category, looking for consumer information on Baby equipment- you find a collection of sites about consumer information on this category. Perhaps also some subcategories on specific kinds of baby equipment. If you review our guidelines you can see why this is acceptable.

...if someone doesn't step up to remove the old irrelevant listings...

Click to expand...

The problem is that they aren't irrelevant. They may not be the best links, and there may be additional sites related to a given category, but they still fit in the category. If we were making the decision on one of these links today, it might be different than in the past, in the days of the PCPs, when the directory was being built. But the link is not irrelevant. If all of the sudden, the epinion links went completely dead, or started having adult content, or stopped having any consumer information, then they'd be irrelevant and would be deleted quite quickly. But they still add content to the categories and as such, mass removal or re-review just isn't a priority.

Remember, we're a directory. You go look at a category, and see sites relating to that category. That's what we make. That's what we do.