My issue with DMOZ

The company I webmaster for actually owns another company, but they keep a totally separate corporate identity and web site. So I webmaster for 2 web sites. Company A makes software for a specific need (data entry), company B makes a variety of software products, one of which is a data entry package.

Company A has no problem in receiving a top ranking in your directory when I do a search for "data entry software". Company B does not fair nearly as well when I implement the same search. Why? Because I had to list company B's website in a much more generic category that accomodated all of their software products. I think this is unfair. I think it is reasonable to list company B's site in 1 category per product. That way I could ensure optimal and competetive placement for each product, and the user would receive more complete search results. As it stands now the generic listing means company B suffers and company A thrives. I guess company B could divide up into several smaller companies, each developing only one software package and each having one web site, thereby being allowed a category submission more specific to each product. That would satisfy your requirements, but beyond that, it doesn't make much sense.

Thank you for your time.

If you're talking about the DMOZ search engine then you have nothing to worry about. The only people that use it are editors - DMOZ search was never designed to be used by the general public, or to be used for keyword searches.

No, I am talking specifically about the directory.

Bottom line. I want to be able to list my site in multiple categories. Each category we choose to list in would be appropriate for each software product we develop. That would give users better results in my opinion.

The problem is, if we list every page of your site in every applicable category - then every other site will want the same. We are already struggling with the number of unreviewed sites as it is, but that will just make our jobs 1000x times harder and wouldn't "add" anything to the directory. You need a "search engine" rather than a directory.

Out of interest, if we charged (liked Yahoo! does) $300 or so per submission - how many categories would you then think would be suitable for your site?

The ODP is NOT making a directory for webmasters but for users, the people who search for sites by mining through a directory.

Thats the thought the editors had when they developed the guidelines.
The goal of a webmaster is that his site is plcaed best of all and the user normally wants to be presented with a range of sites (thats why he uses a directory) - those two ways are not compatible

Sorry to say, but you won't talk us into changing our policy in this point.

You said -
The problem is, if we list every page of your site in every applicable category - then every other site will want the same. We are already struggling with the number of unreviewed sites as it is, but that will just make our jobs 1000x times harder and wouldn't "add" anything to the directory. You need a "search engine" rather than a directory.

Perhaps you should have thought of that before you started the Open Directory.
I disagree on your second point. Allowing a submitter to be more specific in their category placement would be of value to a user in that they now know company B makes data entry software too. Whereas before they may not have.

You said -
Out of interest, if we charged (liked Yahoo! does) $300 or so per submission - how many categories would you then think would be suitable for your site?

I don't know what you are implying here, but I am mildly insulted. My issue is on principal and fairness, not money. I am saying the deck is stacked against the company that develops or manufactures a diverse range of products. The company that makes one product does not have to choose a generic, all encompasing category in which to list their site. That gives them and advantage. Its not because they make a better product, it is only because they make just one product.

I would like to know exactly how that serves the best interest of the consumer/user?

The Open Directory Project was designed to be a directory and not a search engine. That's it. Full stop. Try to imagine it as a "card index" of a library - yes, it'll point you in the rough correct direction: but if you are looking for exactly which books contain references to item X- then you'd be best looking elsewhere.

The reference to Yahoo! was meant to reflect the fact that many submitters feel that they should have multiple listings in the ODP because "its free" - whereas if we were to operate a "pay for submission" policy then submitters would then think carefully about where they are going to submit and not attempt to try and get multiple listings in several categories.

>Company A has no problem in receiving a top ranking in your directory when I do a search for "data entry software". Company B does not fair nearly as well when I implement the same search.

The reason for this is simple. ODP search has no concept whatever of rank. The order in which sites are returned has nothing whatever to do with which categories they are in, or how many times each keyword is repeated in the title or description or even the URL, or any other characteristic over which the site owner or the ODP editor has any control whatsoever.

Think of it as random, or if you are more technically inclined, "deterministic but indeterminate".

There's no rank. There's no criteria for ordering. There are only sites found and sites not found. All else is illusion.

You said -
The ODP is NOT making a directory for webmasters but for users, the people who search for sites by mining through a directory.

Okay, I will put on my "user hat". As a user, if I am browsing a directory looking for a specific item (widgets), I will immediately drill down to the most specific, appropriate category (manufactureres/widgets). In the case of DMOZ, companies that may need a more generic listing because they are more diverse will not appear in the specific category listing (they had to list in manufacturers in order to represent all of their products). As the user, I am not going to broaden my search to a larger, more generic category. Why should I? I trust that the DMOZ category is complete.

But it is not. That is my point!

FYI, if you charged a reasonable fee, we would pay. I just want DMOZ users to get complete information. Don't you?

Thanks. That helps me understand, but it doesn't make me feel any better. As I stated in one of my previous posts, as a user, I want to drill down to the most specific, appropriate category possible. Sometimes I drill down via search, sometimes by using your links, often times by a combination of both. I don't stop at the most generic categories because they are too large. I go to the smaller, more specific categories. Since I do that, I may miss out on products offered by other companies that are more diverse, who must be listed in a more generic category in order to represent all they produce. Does that make sense?

Thanks.

I understand your feelings. But we just can't build a directory that way -- just imagine how many listings walmart.com would need (in Shopping and Regional both!), and so users need to learn how to use this kind of directory we CAN build.

Not everyone can -- and so some people stick to search engines. That's fine: we build for them that can come.

>The only people that use it are editors - DMOZ search was never designed to be used by the general public, or to be used for keyword searches.

Obviously incorrect, as if so it would appear only on the editors side of the software. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> However, it was designed more for finding the proper category, and not specific sites.

With all due respect rfgdxm, take some time to read what I wrote before jumping to conclusions. I would also add that posting such pithy pearls of wisdom as "Obviously incorrect" when you yourself are in no position to know what's "correct" or not isn't helpful to our users.

With that out of the way, I wrote that ODP search was never designed to be used by the public - which is true. The original DMOZ engineers took an off the shelf, GNU-licensed search application and simply hacked it to make it more compliant with ODP architecture. It was designed to identify the best category to fit a certain keyword. As for users, Netscape can't make any revenue off of DMOZ users - it far prefers to steer people to money-making portals such as Netscape Search and AOL.

&gt;With all due respect rfgdxm, take some time to read what I wrote before jumping to conclusions. I would also add that posting such pithy pearls of wisdom as "Obviously incorrect" when you yourself are in no position to know what's "correct" or not isn't helpful to our users.


Then why make this feature accessible both on the editor and public side? Those who designed it could easily have limited it to access by password.


&gt;With that out of the way, I wrote that ODP search was never designed to be used by the public - which is true. The original DMOZ engineers took an off the shelf, GNU-licensed search application and simply hacked it to make it more compliant with ODP architecture. It was designed to identify the best category to fit a certain keyword. As for users, Netscape can't make any revenue off of DMOZ users - it far prefers to steer people to money-making portals such as Netscape Search and AOL.

And, why would not a public user want to find the best category fit a certain keyword? I just ran the first search I thought of, and it proved the usefulness of this search for the public. I entered the name of the drug "dextromethorphan", and that immediatetly found Recreation: Drugs: Dissociatives: DXM. The average user wouldn't know that "DXM", as that originated from scientfific researchers years ago, and commonly today by a subset of recreational users. They would only know what is printed on the box they bought to search for, and that is "dextromethorphan". And, a quick search on "ketamine" (another well known and frequently (ab)used dissociative) finds it is curiously listed over in Health: Pharmacy: Drugs and Medications: K: Ketamine, rather than under Recreation: Drugs: Dissociatives: where I would have put it. Looks to me that this search function can be quite useful to the public to try and figure out the sometimes quirky ODP ontology.

A crowbar can be used to drive nails, but that does not make it a member of the hammer family.

The Open Directory tries to make as much as possible visible to the public, and there's no reason to _hide_ the editors' search function. Remember that dmoz.org itself is not "designed" or intended for a public portal or directory: it's an editors' workspace, and the Open Directory concept visualized the general public using hosted copies at licensees (like AOL, Netscape, Google.) If the server load from the public got too heavy, it is possible that staff would add more restrictions (or try to foist people off on official mirrors.)

Then why make this feature accessible both on the editor and public side?

Like Hutcheson said, why would you pay people to go through the trouble of hiding the search feature from the public? It was far easier to leave it publically accessable.

If you leave it so the public can access the search feature then I would expect to answer questions about it as you have in this thread.

Craig