It's time for an ODP revival

I think DMOZ is dead. You can't submit, if you do it takes months to get listed. It's time for an ODP revival. There are still great reasons and great opportunities to keep dmoz alive and fresh.

Here are some ideas: (perhaps they're bad ideas)

1: Offer priority submissions. Guaranteed placement within 15 to 45 days if:

A: A site links to dmoz. Perhpas a random spider could remove/disable the url if the link is removed.

B: A site owner agrees to become an active editor adding at least 100 sites in a category other than the one they want to be listed in.

C: A site donates $25 or more into a development fund for dmoz.


2: Dmoz development fund could be used for:

A: automated link removal of dead links (if this doesn't already exist)

B: specialized tools to sort results by date added, user ratings, and potential integration of popularity such as Google PageRank and/or Alexa Ratings. This wouldn't force the service to be ranked by popularity, but would give people the option, and obviously spam sites and orphans would probably fall to the bottom, and could potentially be removed or disabled automaticaly in the case of orphan sites.

C: branding... dmoz, odp, open directory, open directory project, which is it? what is it? Unless a company is MSN, ATT, or AOL... acronyms are very hard to brand. Most successful search sites are single word urls. Of course Open Directory isn't that bad, but I hope you get my point.


I could go on all night.. but I won't.

I'm just sorry to see ODP in such a sad state, while there are so many who are wanting and trying to make it work.

And again the same proposal, forcing the same answer:

Since every site is reviewed by volunteers, we can't guarantee anything. In fact we don't want to do that either. For us editors, the best thing with the odp is that it is totally free (proved by editor voting some tme ago). Editors are not in need to review submissions. In fact a lot of us prefers surfing through the web and looking for nice sites to add to the ODP.

All of your proposals lack one thing: Editors would be forced to do something. That is not compatible with the ODP I'm afraid.

You obviously do not understand the ODP's agenda. It could care less about the monetary agendas of web designers and SEO's.

You can not force volunteer editors to edit.

Something similar to a 'dead link remover' does exist.

Ratings and PageRank have no meaning or bearing to the ODP. Those are proprietary tools for secondary users of our data. We are not into the SEO popularity game.

Branding is not needed. We get enough submissions as is, and personally, I add even more when I can. You say 'successful search sites'.... but we are not a search site. We are a directory that search sites feed from. We provide the data, the users do with it what they want.

I understand your point as one from a person that makes money from submissions. You get paid by clients to make submissions. Some people in your line of work make promises to clients they have no control over. The ODP has volunteer editors that review, add, or just browse whenever they have the time to do so. We are not driven my monetary gain, so therefore you will never agree with our agenda.

Obviously our directory is still somewhat important, or we wouldn't have as many webmasters/SEO's submitting sites to us. I can't think of a better directory. Can you?

I agree that more editors would help with the thousands of submissions we receive daily; So why not apply to edit?
http://dmoz.org/help/become.html

1: Offer priority submissions. Guaranteed placement within 15 to 45 days if:

Click to expand...

We'd never be able to do that as a volunteer organization. Sure, you pay someone and they'll slog through crappy, spam-ridden areas to review a specific site. Volunteers at the ODP aren't required to do that nor should they be. And think about it, if it takes several months or longer for sites to be reviewed now, what on earth makes you think that 15 to 45 days is reasonable?

A: A site links to dmoz. Perhpas a random spider could remove/disable the url if the link is removed.

Click to expand...

That presumes that we put a value on people linking to us. Unlike most webmasters, we're not trying to boost our PR. And, no offense, but you linking to dmoz.org isn't in any way going to make someone any more excited to review your site if they're not interested in that area of the directory.

B: A site owner agrees to become an active editor adding at least 100 sites in a category other than the one they want to be listed in.

Click to expand...

It could work this way now -- apply to be an editor, do a good job and work up to editing the category your site is waiting in.

C: A site donates $25 or more into a development fund for dmoz.

Click to expand...

That's still paying for a listing which isn't going to happen, no matter how often it is suggested.

2: Dmoz development fund could be used for:
A: automated link removal of dead links (if this doesn't already exist)

Click to expand...

Not practical. Sites become unavailable for temporary reasons every day. Do you really think those sites should be punished for temporary glitches by being removed completely?

B: specialized tools to sort results by date added, user ratings, and potential integration of popularity such as Google PageRank and/or Alexa Ratings. This wouldn't force the service to be ranked by popularity, but would give people the option, and obviously spam sites and orphans would probably fall to the bottom, and could potentially be removed or disabled automaticaly in the case of orphan sites.

Click to expand...

As has already been mentioned in a number of threads in a number of forums, the pool of suggested sites is only a very minor tool that editors can use to build up their categories. It's not the highest priority for the editors or the project itself. Regarding using popularity or ranking, that isn't what we do nor is it what we want to do. If someone wants to view sites by ranking, they can use the Google version of the directory -- why would we waste precious resources creating functionality that already exists elsewhere?.

C: branding... dmoz, odp, open directory, open directory project, which is it? what is it? Unless a company is MSN, ATT, or AOL... acronyms are very hard to brand.

Click to expand...

As already noted, we really don't care about branding. And as an entity, we are all of those things you noted and are still as recognizable as we'd want to be.

>A: automated link removal of dead links (if this doesn't already exist)

Welcome to 1999. I think you'll find the next four years to be very interesting.

The ODP does check for dead links, in two stages: an automated spider, followed by human review. The humans who do so many things better can often find the new location for a site, thus maintaining access to high-quality sites without the webmaster even having to know the ODP exists.

The ODP was the first (and for a couple of years the ONLY) major directory with such a feature. Yahoo was sitting at 10% or more link rot ratio in early 2000.

1: Offer priority submissions. Guaranteed placement within 15 to 45 days if:

A: A site links to dmoz. Perhpas a random spider could remove/disable the url if the link is removed.

Click to expand...

As an editor, I could care less who does or does not link to ODP. My interest is in helping to build a great directory unmotivated by external pressures.

B: A site owner agrees to become an active editor adding at least 100 sites in a category other than the one they want to be listed in.

Click to expand...

This presumes that the site owner would be a competant editor and that some poor volunteer is not going to have to waste his/her time going back and cleaning up the mess caused by someone who is editing for the wrong motives.

C: A site donates $25 or more into a development fund for dmoz.

Click to expand...

The instant money enters the equation, DMOZ loses this editor, and (I suspect) many others.

I could go on all night.. but I won't.

Click to expand...

Thank you. It is clear that you do not really understand what DMOZ is all about -- have you even read the social contract?

I'm just sorry to see ODP in such a sad state, while there are so many who are wanting and trying to make it work.

Click to expand...

I could not disagree more. What I do see is a lot of people who what to change DMOZ into something that it is not. I personally hope and pray that the DMOZ vision does not change, that it stays true to its original intent and focus, and does not bend to accommodate those with a commercial motivation.

B: specialized tools to sort results by date added, user ratings, and potential integration of popularity such as Google PageRank and/or Alexa Ratings. This wouldn't force the service to be ranked by popularity, but would give people the option, and obviously spam sites and orphans would probably fall to the bottom, and could potentially be removed or disabled automaticaly in the case of orphan sites.

Click to expand...

Now this is actually a pretty good idea, if you just change the focus. Why not become a licensee of the date (we'll give it to you for free if you'll just follow a few simple rules) then you can start your own directory with all of the tools that you suggest. Why, there might even be a germ of a business plan in there. Go for it.

Meanwhile, I have some smarmy submissions to work my way through before I go do some fun category development.

Spectregunner, thanks for being so welcoming. I appreciate not being talked down to, or welcomed to 1999.

As an editor, I could care less who does or does not link to ODP. My interest is in helping to build a great directory unmotivated by external pressures.

Click to expand...

It's great to see you perspective. I can't imagine this scenerio in my life, simply because I'm always motivated and it is often the external pressures that I thrive on. I do see how this could be contrary to volunteer editors.

This presumes that the site owner would be a competant editor and that some poor volunteer is not going to have to waste his/her time going back and cleaning up the mess caused by someone who is editing for the wrong motives.

Click to expand...

Ah... I have always assumed the best in people. You have a point.

C: A site donates $25 or more into a development fund for dmoz.

Click to expand...

I don't see what money has to do with anything. Money afterall is what would create improvements for faster and more precise technology. Then again, I've never really understood the motivation for open source.

Now this is actually a pretty good idea, if you just change the focus. Why not become a licensee of the date (we'll give it to you for free if you'll just follow a few simple rules) then you can start your own directory with all of the tools that you suggest. Why, there might even be a germ of a business plan in there. Go for it.

Click to expand...

Clearly I'm not compatible with the volunteer editors of ODP. I'm not saying that my way is better or worse, but simply different. It appears that my best bet it to just start my own.

So, I will.

I don't see what money has to do with anything.

Click to expand...

If you take money for processing a site, you are in need to really do it. Commercial sites would get a bonus, while people like me prefer to process those superb private sites - mnany times more interesting than commercial sites. And apart from that, it would not be compatible with the editor structure currently in place. There are two ways what you can distribute the incoming money:

a) Netscape would get it to support the directory. I for myself would quit editing ASAP. And I guess I won't be the only one. I guess that some metaeditors would join together and work highest priority on a new ODP with the old rules. That is exactly why Netscape published the Social Contract.

b) Money would be given to the editor who did the edit. In the current structure, some editors (like me) have access to the whole directory and can edit whereever they want. Expect a lot of us to quit like in the first case. Some of the remaining (and new editors coming in then) are guys who will realize that doing the paid edits will make a lot of money per day and that taking new editors in the boat will reduce revenue. So the spirit would change to "Lets make as many paid edits per day as possible and keep it all to ourselves".

I never suggested any of that.

There are ways for non-profit organizations to collect and utilize money. I never suggested that money be required for a listing.

But nevermind anyway. You guys are set in your ways, and I'm not one to try to change them.

>it is often the external pressures that I thrive on. I do see how this could be contrary to volunteer editors.

Yes, volunteers are driven from inside. They may even really get irritated when bystanders try to steer.

>>This presumes that the site owner would be a competant editor

"Best" is relative. I ain't _ever_ gonna be a competant artist or musician. You don't want me volunteering to help with your new mural, or your community orchestra. (I realize that: some aspiring artists or musicians don't...) But the applications are open: anyone can try their hand, and if it's "close, but not quite", we'll usually try to give some hints to push you over the line.