Is ODP turning into Wayback Machine ?

First of all I want to say that I appriciate Dmoz.org and the work that volunteers are putting into it.

But lately I have been wondering about it's role and usability, I read on the forum that webmasters have been submitting their sites to ODP for over two years and still haven't been listed.
How useful and trustworthy is ODP if it takes that long time to get sites listed in it?

New sites are popping up everyday and of course they could never been listed that fast but webmasters that take the time to submit their site information to ODP must believe that their site has the quality needed to get listed.

I want to keep up to date on information that relate to my industry, what they are doing and if there is anything new happening. If ODP takes two years listing those sites I believe I'm missing out on a lot of info that I could have used.

This means that other directories are taking over ODP service as I prefer to browse directories that have give me information from websites that popped up this decade.

The fact that ODP does not even give webmaster any indications on if their sites are being considered, have been rejected or even why they where rejected is not a good way to go.

When webmasters submit to google the same happends, they are told nothing but the difference is that they can at least see if google bothered to visit their sites as googlebot shows up.

If a webmaster can submit site to google in 3-4 days, get few links to it and bring his content to the surfers that way, what is ODP then for and why should anyone use them?

ODP has not ranked lower since 2002 http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&compare_sites=&y=t&q=&url=www.dmoz.org

To tell the truth than ODP isn't what first comes to my mind when I think about quality, as taking years to list sites just isn't any quality.

Hi there,

Nice to see you,

But lately I have been wondering about it's role and usability, I read on the forum that webmasters have been submitting their sites to ODP for over two years and still haven't been listed.
How useful and trustworthy is ODP if it takes that long time to get sites listed in it?

Click to expand...

Don't believe ALL that you read. It certainly can take that length of time but it doesn't necessarily. An editor can be working on that part of the directory and it could be listed a lot quicker. In fact sites that haven't even submitted get listed !!!!!!!!!!

I want to keep up to date on information that relate to my industry, what they are doing and if there is anything new happening. If ODP takes two years listing those sites I believe I'm missing out on a lot of info that I could have used.

Click to expand...

I can assure you that the categories I work on are completely up to date. I have just recently checked all of my sites to confirm their status.

If a webmaster can submit site to google in 3-4 days, get few links to it and bring his content to the surfers that way, what is ODP then for and why should anyone use them?

Click to expand...

Google, as you have stated has Googlebot. This directory is human edited. That's that major difference. Do you consider that Google's index is perfect? I didn't think so. I am not saying ODP is perfect but because of the human factor it definitely better and can make sure that the sites quality is higher.

ODP has not ranked lower since 2002 http://www.alexa.com/data/details/tr...www.dmo z.org

Click to expand...

Alexa's results are from people that use Alexa toolbar. This just shows me that less people are using Alexa that use ODP.

Of course this is all just my opinion and of course yours counts too.

First of all, remember that ODP/DMOZ does not exist to serve webmasters or site owners.

If you want to keep up to date on anything, Google/Yahoo!/etc it. If it's truly up to date, the people responsible for putting it online will have the correct keywords in use and you'll get good returns.

ODP/DMOZ is a directory, not a search engine.

As for the Googlebot ... if you have some sort of stat counter in use, and if the editor follows the link to your site from his/her "suggested" que, you should be seeing that. However, I find the majority of sites in my category on my own, not from someone suggesting them, so you would not know where that hit came from. But are you not really getting at one of the same old complaints? That DMOZ does not offer "confrimation"?

Some things that you may not realise:

* Several thousand sites are listed each week.
* Many sites are added without the webmaster or site owner ever having suggested the site for review. In large areas of the directory, 90% or more of the new listings are sites that were not suggested for review.
* Webmasters who complain often (not always) have sites in spammy areas where there are already a lot of sites listed (which means that the users already get access to a lot of sites), and where few editors are interested in editing.
* Finally and first and always: Webmasters, in their role as webmasters, have never been the ODP's customers or clients. We never claimed to provide any service for them. Reviewing suggested sites is one of the many editorial activities, but most editors would not consider it the most important one.

None of this means that we can sit back and stop working to improve the directory. But you see that our point of view is rather different from yours.

[added: I shouldn't have left the computer to brew tea before posting - other people got in before me ]

Thank you all for your replies, they are appriciated.

The Old Sarge said:

First of all, remember that ODP/DMOZ does not exist to serve webmasters or site owners.

Click to expand...

First of all, I'm not here as a webmaster but as a user of ODP.

But all this about 'ODP does not exist for webmasters or they have never been ODP's customers or clients' sounds arrogant to me as ODP exists because of, and relies on, those same webmasters/site owners to provide content.

I think that webmasters should be treated with more respect now when ODP has grown big because of their work, don't bite the hand that feeds you.

ODP/DMOZ is a directory, not a search engine.

Click to expand...

That is why I use it.

But are you not really getting at one of the same old complaints? That DMOZ does not offer "confrimation"?

Click to expand...

Yes and no, complaints... it is up to you to decide if it is a complaint or a friendly suggestions from... obviously a lot of people.

but as mentioned in ODP's "Our Social Contract with the Web Community"
http://www.dmoz.org/socialcontract.html

"We will do our best to list web sites in a fair and impartial manner, and consider all user requests and suggestions for improvement."

Does not mention any 'complaints' there...

In large areas of the directory, 90% or more of the new listings are sites that were not suggested for review.

Click to expand...

Well that explains it!, if 90% of the time ODP is not reviewing submitted sites than it is no wonder that they pile up.

but as mentioned in ODP's "Our Social Contract with the Web Community"
http://www.dmoz.org/socialcontract.html

"We will make every effort to evaluate all sites submitted to the directory."

but it seems that 90% of the effort is spent on sites that where NOT submitted

Regards,
Baufi

p.s No I'm not saying that Google index is perfect, not at all

Let me draw an analogy, if I may.

You have a butterfly collection. You want to collect as many butterflies as you can, but you want them all to be unique as possible. You don't want 100's of the same butterfly, you want just a few to represent the species. This is your passion and you are willing to spend hours and hours to make this the best collection in the entire world. You are never going to make a dime from your collection, but you love butterflies so much, you are willing to spend time away from your family and friends to work on your collection.

You finally have enough butterflies, and you put your collection on display at the local museum for everyone to enjoy - at no charge, of course. You invite anyone interested to visit your collection and use the information you collected as they wish. You put up a sign, "Wanted - Butterflies for my collection. One thing - they must be unique (if I have it already, I don't need it)". People start sending in butterflies as well as fleas, moths, etc. to add to your collection You are inundated with unique butterflies as well as junk that you would never add to your collection (like moths, fleas, etc.).

People start posting in forums like this and complain that the butterfly/flea/moth they sent in has not been added to your collection quickly enough to make them happy. They feel that by having thier butterfly in you collection, they will make tons and tons of money. They yell, scream, and call names saying that it is their right to have their butterfly/flea/moth in your collection. You are keeping them from making money (even though they can send their butterfly to others with butterfly collections to display).

You try to tell them that it is your collection and that not every butterfly sent to you is going to be added. You spend more time weeding out the junk that is being sent, as well as replying to forum posts, to really keep your collection in tip-top shape. Some of the butterflies on display start to loose their wings and aren't in any shape to display. You try to find time for the preventative maintenance, but it is a never ending cycle. On top of it, you have a family, friends, work, and a social life to contend with (commonly referred to as "real life"). You start to feel burnt out, the wonderful collection you have as a "work-in-progress" begins to become a burden. The insults/whining/crying from the "suggesters" starts to wear on you.

Imagine you are you (should be easy because you ARE you), and the butterfly collection is the ODP. You work hard to make something that you can be proud of. The problem began when you opened your collection (submissions) to others to send suggestions to. They (the submitters) expect that since they sent you a butterfly (submission) that you will display (add) it to your collection (ODP).

The ODP is a collection hobby, much like a butterfly (stamp/baseball card/belly-button lint) collection. Editors are simply hobbyists. They do not do it for pay, they do not do it for a power trip (at least most don't). The editors, interested in sections (categories), look for listings to add to make their part of the directory a bit more interesting and informative for the users of the data.

Now for the hard part. Webmasters and SEOs - you DO NOT have a right to be listed in the directory. You DO NOT have a right to whine, complain and threaten when you don't get your site listed. The editors DO NOT have to tell you when/if your site will ever be listed in their directory. This is because the directory belongs to the editors who spend their time working to make their collection what they want it to be. They don't come into your house and tell you what to do with your belly-lint collection SO, don't come into their house and tell them what to do with their collection.

Whew - got that off my chest. Now I can expect to get flamed for my comments. Such as life

[added]

I think that webmasters should be treated with more respect now when ODP has grown big because of their work, don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Click to expand...

Webmasters are not the hand that "feeds" the directory. The editors are the hands that "feed" the directory. Webmasters are the reason many editors have quit the project. If you are a true "user" of the directory (and I doubt you are, you sure sound like a whining webmaster/SEO) then join as an editor and help to make the categories you are interested more comprehensive. I spent years and listed/reworked 1000's of listings because I loved what I did.

I resigned because of the crap posted in forums and the lack of "respect" for the editors that spend so much time working. I started to believe the stuff I was reading in the outside forums, but now find that it is fueled by webmasters/SEOs that think that the ODP is a cash cow. Stupid me. Maybe someday they will reinstate me, but I may have burnt that bridge with my stupidity. [/added]

Excellent reply (and kudos on the unique analogy ).

a bit strange comparison and I might have missed something here.

I know all this, they don't do it for money, nobody has right to do this or do that, everybody screaming at the editors and so on and on.

But if it is all about the free hours spent on it than ODP should just start to charge webmasters money for the listing as they NEED to get listed to get into Google directory.

Why do you think webmasters are paying for getting listed in Yahoo? just because they want to spend $300 or because they NEED to get listed?

Of course there are other methods available to get traffic and money and all that but I believe webmasters are trying to list their sites in ODP because Google, MSN and others use it not because ODP is so great on it's own.

But that is just my opinion, I guess there are enough webmasters out there that could comment on that

I might be completely wrong on all this

Thanks motsa! I means more than you will ever know.

Baufi said:

But if it is all about the free hours spent on it than ODP should just start to charge webmasters money for the listing as they NEED to get listed to get into Google directory.

Click to expand...

The key word is "free" hours. The editors do not do it for money, they do it as a hobby. If the directory started charging for listings, then they (the directory owners) would expect an editor to be a "listing machine - making as much money as possible for them". I can guarantee that many would quit if they were told where/when/how to do their hobby.

Of course there are other methods available to get traffic and money and all that but I believe webmasters are trying to list their sites in ODP because Google, MSN and others use it not because ODP is so great on it's own.

Click to expand...

This is understandable, but like you stated, there are other places that will list your site. The uniqueness of the ODP is that every submission, every listing, is done by hand by a dedicated volunteer. There is no preferential treatment for webmasters/SEOs with deep pockets. This is as it should be.[/quote]

But that is just my opinion, I guess there are enough webmasters out there that could comment on that

I might be completely wrong on all this

Click to expand...

You aren't all wrong. You just don't quite understand why the ODP was created, and what the driving force of it is now.

Webmasters are not the hand that "feeds" the directory. The editors are the hands that "feed" the directory. Webmasters are the reason many editors have quit the project. If you are a true "user" of the directory (and I doubt you are, you sure sound like a whining webmaster/SEO) then join as an editor and help to make the categories you are interested more comprehensive. I spent years and listed/reworked 1000's of listings because I loved what I did.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear that you decided to quit.

Well of course you can have your doubts, you are entitled to that
I am a true user and I have applied to become an editor but not received any reply to that yet.

It is interesting to see how editors/ex-editors react to comments, you can call it whining if you wish but basically I don't need to be a webmaster or have any direct financial interest to see and even agree with what webmasters are saying.

I do a lot of 'Free' work myself but I never thought I was free of critisims because of that.

So to be clear:
1. I'm not a webmaster complaining about ODP not listing my site
2. I'm not saying that ODP should be a cash cow

But I'm saying:

ODP has a great power in the webmaster world and with that comes a great responsibility as webmasters are in need for ODB to get seen on Google Directory, MSN directory and elsewhere. That is clear to everyone I believe so when webmasters are complaining or 'whining' it is because it is their business that is at stake!

I have applied to become an editor but not received any reply to that yet.

Click to expand...

If you applied more than two weeks ago, and haven't found it yet, you might like to take a look in the "Becoming an Editor" forum here...

ODP has a great power in the webmaster world and with that comes a great responsibility as webmasters are in need for ODB to get seen on Google Directory, MSN directory and elsewhere. That is clear to everyone I believe so when webmasters are complaining or 'whining' it is because it is their business that is at stake!

Click to expand...

There's an interesting question here about whether the ODP has any responsibility to webmasters (as opposed to those using the data), apart from ensuring competitors sites aren't given preferential treatment. Even if it does, the rate at which we are able to add sites is limited by the number of people who volunteer to edit in good faith and the amount of time they're prepared to donate to the project. In that case, perhaps the responsibility should be transferred back to the webmaster community for not providing enough good volunteers to help edit the directory...!

In any case, I'm not sure we do have any responsibility to webmasters. I think the people we should be responsible to are those using the data -- they're our customers, so to speak. In other words we should aim to have a good selection of sites listed for the topics that people are interested in looking for. If we don't manage to list good new sites in particular topics quickly enough, or leave poor / old / broken sites listed, then we're failing our users.

Thanks for the advice re. the editor issue, It still hasn't been 14 days since I applied so I'm patient

I don't know how to put it in english so excuse me if I sound weird now:

I think that ODP has responsibility to webmasters, not that kind where they are held liable for business going under or similar but it is rather an ethical responsibility, as it could make such a huge difference for webmasters to get listed they should not be treated like a 'whining' or 'only complaining' bothering people.

As said, ODP has no preferential treatment for webmasters/SEOs with deep pockets and that is good, but webmasters/SEO's with deep pockets can buy their way into Google (buying links, ads etc...) and therefor would not necceserely need to get listed in ODP but the others that actually do not have deep pockets they rely on ODP to list their sites (if they are of quality of course) so they can get exposure on the biggest sites on the web.

I don't think those guys are whining just to bother editors, it is because they don't have any other method (at least not as good as ODP) to get their sites seen, often those webmasters actually have more quality sites than those webmasters that have deep pockets.

I would enjoy more reviewing sites that where submitted than something else, mainly because I believe those that are submitting their sites really need it listed and therefor they put the effort into making it of acceptable quality.

Reviewing only 10% of submitted sites means in my mind that a lot of effort from the site owner is not given any attention, they took the effort to submit their site to ODP but 90% of the ones that are being listed did not even bother to do that, and that is what get's them upset.

p.s I don't dislike editors, new or old and I don't dislike ODP. This is nothing personal, it is a discussion where I'm expressing my concernes.

Where can I see who is editor and for which section or if there isn't anyone editing that part at all?

Not legal responsibility but I would say ethical at least.

You won't be dragged to court for not taking the time to review and list a perfectly good site that was submitted to ODP, but you are most surely making a desision that affects the possibility for the webmaster to get his site seen in the directories on Google and MSN. Might be a webmaster that created a product he wants to sell in competition to some webmaster/SEO that has deep pockets and can kind of buy this way to the top and would therefor not need to submit to ODP.

The webmaster that could not spend the money on it has no possibility for his business and go for sites like ODP, and for him knowing the likelyhood of that his site would maybe be reviewed (10 chances) and the one doing it has the attitude: ODP is not made for you, ODP does not serve you, You are not on our wishlist for sites to list.

The 90% other sites that are getting listed without ever submitting to ODP:
1.Why is majority of what you list something else than is actually submitted to you?
2. Where do you find those 'other' sites you are spending 90% of your time listing?
3. Is it a possibility that those sites that in the end up listed in ODP are the sites that the webmasters with the deep pockets got popular, popular enough for you to find them and list them?
4. Is it really not they main interest to ODP to list sites from webmasters that actually showed the interest in ODP in the first place and took the time to actually fill out the application and tried to make sure their sites meet the criteria you have in the quide lines?

Those guys are also putting in a lot of work but you would rather spend 90% of your work listing someone that did not put in any work at all to fill in a submission form to ODP! and you are surprised webmasters that submit sites to ODP get's upset and does not give enough respect?

In that case, perhaps the responsibility should be transferred back to the webmaster community for not providing enough good volunteers to help edit the directory...!

Click to expand...

If you worked with the webmasters that submit to ODP I'm sure you would see more interested from them in helping out, but keep in mind that 90% of the sites your are listing now is from webmaster that never shown ODP any interest in the first place, they just got listed because... because... I don't know! there wasn't anyone else to list?

It all sounds a bit weird to me, you look for webmasters to submit sites(content) to ODP, you ask them to become and Editor to help out (Become an Editor Link on the front page for example) but you are than 90% of the time listing websites from webmasters that never took the time to even consider submitting it to ODP for a review!

Just not how I would to it, I would put more effort into those that actually still give ODP that time of their lives to bother submitting to it, (unknowingly that editors are all busy listing sites that did NOT submit to ODP)

Sorry, somehow or another you tripped a wire and your comments went into moderation.

I would enjoy more reviewing sites that where submitted than something else, mainly because I believe those that are submitting their sites really need it listed and therefor they put the effort into making it of acceptable quality.

Click to expand...

Oh, that is (understandably) naive. *Because* it is free, many people don't really care how acceptable their sites are. After all, what do you have to lose if all you have to do is fill in a form? And the fact that someone has heard about the ODP and has submitted their site doesn't make their site any more worth listing than someone who hasn't heard of us.

As for ethical responsibilities, we could argue about whether or not the ODP itself as an entity has a responsiblity but individual editors, including you yourself if you ever become one, will never be ethically responsible to the owner of a submitted site.

1.Why is majority of what you list something else than is actually submitted to you?

Click to expand...

Because, if you're trying to build up a category on a particular topic, it's frequently easier and more efficient to go find sites on your own than to wade through the submitted sites (many of which are either mis-submitted or unlistable) to pick out the handful of gems.

2. Where do you find those 'other' sites you are spending 90% of your time listing?

Click to expand...

Where do you see URLs? In newspapers and magazines, on related sites, in search engines, in a business's window or the side of their delivery truck, on TV...anywhere and everywhere.

3. Is it a possibility that those sites that in the end up listed in ODP are the sites that the webmasters with the deep pockets got popular, popular enough for you to find them and list them?

Click to expand...

It's possible in some cases. But I've been surprised to see a number of very large, very popular sites weren't listed in our directory. So I added them. Most sites that get hand-added, though, aren't big, powerful entities. They are local businesses, niche informational sites, small organizations, and the like.

4. Is it really not they main interest to ODP to list sites from webmasters that actually showed the interest in ODP in the first place and took the time to actually fill out the application and tried to make sure their sites meet the criteria you have in the quide lines?

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. We allow people to suggest their sites as a courtesy. That doesn't obligate us in way to show preference for people that use the form. If you think about it, you will see that that is the only way we can be truly fair, by not giving precedence to any one method of finding sites.

Those guys are also putting in a lot of work but you would rather spend 90% of your work listing someone that did not put in any work at all to fill in a submission form to ODP! and you are surprised webmasters that submit sites to ODP get's upset and does not give enough respect?

Click to expand...

It takes barely a minute or two to fill in the form to submit your site to the ODP. That's hardly "a lot of work".

It all sounds a bit weird to me, you look for webmasters to submit sites(content) to ODP, you ask them to become and Editor to help out (Become an Editor Link on the front page for example) but you are than 90% of the time listing websites from webmasters that never took the time to even consider submitting it to ODP for a review!

Click to expand...

Again, we don't "look for webmasters to submit sites" -- we allow them to do it. We could probably do as good a job building the directory without any submissions whatsoever.

3. Is it a possibility that those sites that in the end up listed in ODP are the sites that the webmasters with the deep pockets got popular, popular enough for you to find them and list them?

Click to expand...

Do a search and see how many geocities and tripod hosted sites we list.

I try to list sites that are going to be of use to the person who comes to the directory looking for something. Not for the webmaster who submits a site, and not for the benefit of the person who has created a site that I find. The purpose most editors are working towards, I think, is to create a useful and comprehensive directory of sites.
Most of us do not edit to help out webmasters, but to help searchers.

Excellent post, gboisseau, one of the best I've ever seen, . I can't think of anything that could be added to it.

I resigned because of the crap posted in forums and the lack of "respect" for the editors that spend so much time working. I started to believe the stuff I was reading in the outside forums, but now find that it is fueled by webmasters/SEOs that think that the ODP is a cash cow. Stupid me. Maybe someday they will reinstate me, but I may have burnt that bridge with my stupidity.

Click to expand...

You have my vote, bro, once an editor always an editor, good luck with the reinstatement request, .

Baufi said:

But if it is all about the free hours spent on it than ODP should just start to charge webmasters money for the listing as they NEED to get listed to get into Google directory.

Click to expand...

Two big problems here (other than the money-for-ODP-inclusion one).

First, someone may want to pay not for inclusion in the Google Directory but for inclusion into a tailored subset of other downstream DMOZ RDF licensees. How could pricing be tailored to that?

Second, the ODP has no sway over when Google updates, or what RDF entries they choose to take. So any money charged would have to be with no guarantee of any result.

A better choice perhaps for your time is to lobby Google for them to charge for direct entry into the Google Directory.

If you can produce a good business case to show Google that a merge of the ODP and their own paid-for inclusions will raise the quality of their Directory and make them money, they'd be crazy not to do it.

If you can produce a good business case to show Google that a merge of the ODP and their own paid-for inclusions will raise the quality of their Directory and make them money, they'd be crazy not to do it.

Click to expand...

It is NOT about the money.

Editors do not edit for the money.

This directory was not founded for the money.

To poorly paraphrase a poorly written movie script:

Money??? We don't need no steenkin' money!

You may have misread who the they refers to in my last sentence.

As with the theirs in the sentence, it refers to Google, not the OPD community.

The original poster asks that the ODP accept money to expedite entry to Google's republication of the ODP data. I suggested that is a question for Google, not the ODP editor community.

I think we are in agreement