mabrams
Member
There is a chronic complaint that the DMOZ is not responsive – both with those who volunteer to help resolve the problem by volunteering as editors and those who wish only to submit a site to the appropriate category.
DMOZ is a great project but suffers from the classic archetype “Tragedy of the Commons” : to much success becomes its own downfall.
Unless DMOZ can get its communications better organized and become a responsive organization, it will be its own worst enemy. Many people submit site inclusion requests for legitimate sites that are never included in the DMOZ, nor are the submitters ever notified there is a problem.
As a Web professional for the Chamber of Commerce, I have submitted member Web sites for DMOZ inclusion over the years, from 2002 to present, and have never received inclusion nor response. Prior to 2002, I had been sucessful in submitting within the same categories.
DMOZ appears to have fallen into a stage of stagnation based on my personal experiences and the many comments I have read in the DMOZ forums and on Google. It’s easy to say a site is mis-categorized or the description doesn’t meet standards. I think the reality is that many editors are absent from their volunteer positions for whatever reason. Volunteerism is not an excuse for incompetence or abandonment.
I think the DMOZ needs to reexamine its mission. The DMOZ actively solicits volunteerism from the community but then does not respond to those who offer their services. As a volunteer, director, and past president of several not for profit organizations, I know the most precious assets of any organization are those few people who volunteer to do the work. The DMOZ alienates new volunteers for editors with a non responsiveness and it alienates those who spend their precious time and energy attempting to update the directory only to have their efforts nullified through the indifference of non responsive behavior.
I believe it’s a matter of time before a capitalist operation builds a competing project offering superior service to the community. Google has been compiling its own directory for some time. It’s called Google Local. At present it is a minor feature in the search engine and is displayed during a geographic query for business related searches. One day we will see Google Directory, a superior tool that is free and responsive to the community. DMOZ will then become a memory and then the Google Directory, like Yahoo will become fee based or used in a way most supporters of DMOZ would not be happy with. When that happens, some may look at the DMOZ and wonder what happened.
If the DMOZ wants an open directory, then stop blocking access and work with your volunteers and community. If an editor won’t or can’t respond after a reasonable time, then assign new editors. The DMOZ should not be about turf control. Change the problem, before Google does your job for you. Get your volunteers online and be responsive to the DMOZ community.
DMOZ is a great project but suffers from the classic archetype “Tragedy of the Commons” : to much success becomes its own downfall.
Unless DMOZ can get its communications better organized and become a responsive organization, it will be its own worst enemy. Many people submit site inclusion requests for legitimate sites that are never included in the DMOZ, nor are the submitters ever notified there is a problem.
As a Web professional for the Chamber of Commerce, I have submitted member Web sites for DMOZ inclusion over the years, from 2002 to present, and have never received inclusion nor response. Prior to 2002, I had been sucessful in submitting within the same categories.
DMOZ appears to have fallen into a stage of stagnation based on my personal experiences and the many comments I have read in the DMOZ forums and on Google. It’s easy to say a site is mis-categorized or the description doesn’t meet standards. I think the reality is that many editors are absent from their volunteer positions for whatever reason. Volunteerism is not an excuse for incompetence or abandonment.
I think the DMOZ needs to reexamine its mission. The DMOZ actively solicits volunteerism from the community but then does not respond to those who offer their services. As a volunteer, director, and past president of several not for profit organizations, I know the most precious assets of any organization are those few people who volunteer to do the work. The DMOZ alienates new volunteers for editors with a non responsiveness and it alienates those who spend their precious time and energy attempting to update the directory only to have their efforts nullified through the indifference of non responsive behavior.
I believe it’s a matter of time before a capitalist operation builds a competing project offering superior service to the community. Google has been compiling its own directory for some time. It’s called Google Local. At present it is a minor feature in the search engine and is displayed during a geographic query for business related searches. One day we will see Google Directory, a superior tool that is free and responsive to the community. DMOZ will then become a memory and then the Google Directory, like Yahoo will become fee based or used in a way most supporters of DMOZ would not be happy with. When that happens, some may look at the DMOZ and wonder what happened.
If the DMOZ wants an open directory, then stop blocking access and work with your volunteers and community. If an editor won’t or can’t respond after a reasonable time, then assign new editors. The DMOZ should not be about turf control. Change the problem, before Google does your job for you. Get your volunteers online and be responsive to the DMOZ community.
