The ODP seems based on a sound principle - an Open Directory, hand crafted by human beings who have a certain amount of expertise on the topic/directory classification they are viewing. A directory which transcends algorithmic methods of determining site relevance and therefore opening the way for a listing that is of genuine usefulness to those (human beings, not computer bots) searching it.
Over the past few years, several of the major search engines, including Google, Lycos, and Hotbot, plus many others, have sourced ODP listings for their directories, likely mainly for reasons of sheer laziness, and cost cutting. As well as this, ODP allows sites an easy to access directory of sites for their own site listings.
This has led to several problems:
Systematic Problems With ODP
(1) The ODP has become of major importance for sites in gaining search engine rankings. In so much as the ODP is now sourced by some of the biggest names on the Internet, ODP now affectively has a virtual monopoly on one of the major sources of search engine traffic. A listing on ODP leads to a number of quality, inbound links from other sites which improve PR and therefore SERPs listings. The ODP editors know this, as they likely have also issued their own sites to ODP before becoming editors. Indeed, the application process itself questions your involvement in web design and publishing. It can also lead to increased traffic through directory listings in the major search enginges.
(2) The fact that ODP editors have 'expertise' in their area likely means that, for commercial catagories, they have a commercial interest in the catagory they are 'editing'. Now human beings are human beings, and ODP editors are not gods, and it is almost certain that a level of rejection goes on for commercial interest of editors, rather than for reasons of poor site content. There is no requirement for editors to give reasonable detail on the reasons for site rejections.. Also - There is no limit on the amount of time an editor can take to review and accept/reject a site.
(3) The internet was, in my opinion, meant to be one of the most democratic platforms available to any person in the world, with a computer and internet connection. In this sense, it provides a platform for creative people, without having to spend an awful lot of money, to share their ideas, values and to setup an enterprise. However:-
(4) The ODP carries strict guidelines on web site content, governed by only a few administrative members of the ODP. Since the ODP, due to its outsourcing of its material to a number of major internet search platforms, which many use to find material relevant to their search queries on the internet, the virtual monopoly on this route to PR leads to the fact that a few administrative members of ODP dictate the rules governing almost all highly ranked websites. This absolutely centralises web site publishing and gives an absolute level of power to only a few, unelected, administrative members of ODP. Because of this, only a few essentially can dictate the rules governing internet websites (at least those who wish to build PR). This, in my opinion, is potentially dangerous and highly conflicts with (3), the very reason for the internet being such a level playing field in the first place.
Possible Solutions To The Problems With ODP
(i) The application process for becoming an editor should be given to another editor in a completely unrelated catagory. At the moment, if I am correct in my assumption that an application for a catagory is given to an editor of the same catagory (I stand corrected if not), it leaves it open to the corruption explained in (2). This is nothing to do with specific editors of ODP, it is to do with the system.
(ii) Given the powers bestowed to ODP editors, just as ODP requires web site publishers to be accountable for their sites according to strict guidelines, editors should be more accountable for the reasons that they reject both editor candidates and, most importantly, the websites they review. Given the power of ODP, it is simply unacceptable for editors to be able to explain their decisions after review with a single sentence. Editors should be more accountable for their decisions. This helps prevent corruption and encourages fair and objective behaviour. This is nothing to do with specific editors of ODP, it is to do with the system.
(iii) The lack of rules regarding submission review times is unacceptable. Just like website developers must not submit their sites again within a given period, editors must be more accountable for their power and complete reviews of sites within a certain period of time, for instance, a month. If an editor is not able to do so, they should be given penalty points automatically. This is the equivalent of a bank charging interest on a loan in order to encourage the loan to be paid back to the bank. If the editor builds up a certain number of penalty points, they should be automatically dropped from the ODP editor members, and only able to reapply after a certain given amount of time, for example, a year. This is the equivalent of the driving license system.
(iv) If the editor is so busy with other activities that they are not able to carry out (iii), they should not apply to become an ODP editor. It is no excuse for editors to neglect website reviews for many, many months, even years, simply because they are 'busy doing other things'. This is necessary because ODP yields so much power on search engine listings.
(v) Just as applicants to ODP listings must be respectful of editors, ODP editors must be respectful to applicants on these forums. I have seen too many examples of editors utterly disregarding the concerns of applicants, and even at times being disrespectful and rude. Many applicants feel they have no choice but to accept this behaviour - and the editors involved know this - because applicants suspect that it might influence their ability to achieve a listing.
Conclusion
ODP has a very powerful monopoly on listings on many search engine directories, and for the ability for sites to achieve decent PR. This has a great influence on the websites given for certain keywords by the major search engines. ODP currently threatens the democracy of the internet.
For this reason, the editors, despite being volunteers, must be more accountable to the applicants. If they cannot be accountable and dedicate the required time to ODP reviews, they should not apply to become ODP editors. The system I've described would ensure editors, whom require applicants to adhere to strict guidelines, also are accountable and adhere to guidelines that respect the community they serve. This is the only way to maintain the concept of (3) to a maximum level. As for point (4), a voting system could be developed on this forum regarding any changes made to the website guidelines, for example via forum debate->vote->changes by administrators system.
If you feel I have not balanced the needs/wishes of the editors with the needs/wishes of the applicants, feel free to make comment on anything I've put forward. I'd like to hear from a number of editors on how they feel about my comments. Also any frustrated applicants put your views forward!
Mark
Over the past few years, several of the major search engines, including Google, Lycos, and Hotbot, plus many others, have sourced ODP listings for their directories, likely mainly for reasons of sheer laziness, and cost cutting. As well as this, ODP allows sites an easy to access directory of sites for their own site listings.
This has led to several problems:
Systematic Problems With ODP
(1) The ODP has become of major importance for sites in gaining search engine rankings. In so much as the ODP is now sourced by some of the biggest names on the Internet, ODP now affectively has a virtual monopoly on one of the major sources of search engine traffic. A listing on ODP leads to a number of quality, inbound links from other sites which improve PR and therefore SERPs listings. The ODP editors know this, as they likely have also issued their own sites to ODP before becoming editors. Indeed, the application process itself questions your involvement in web design and publishing. It can also lead to increased traffic through directory listings in the major search enginges.
(2) The fact that ODP editors have 'expertise' in their area likely means that, for commercial catagories, they have a commercial interest in the catagory they are 'editing'. Now human beings are human beings, and ODP editors are not gods, and it is almost certain that a level of rejection goes on for commercial interest of editors, rather than for reasons of poor site content. There is no requirement for editors to give reasonable detail on the reasons for site rejections.. Also - There is no limit on the amount of time an editor can take to review and accept/reject a site.
(3) The internet was, in my opinion, meant to be one of the most democratic platforms available to any person in the world, with a computer and internet connection. In this sense, it provides a platform for creative people, without having to spend an awful lot of money, to share their ideas, values and to setup an enterprise. However:-
(4) The ODP carries strict guidelines on web site content, governed by only a few administrative members of the ODP. Since the ODP, due to its outsourcing of its material to a number of major internet search platforms, which many use to find material relevant to their search queries on the internet, the virtual monopoly on this route to PR leads to the fact that a few administrative members of ODP dictate the rules governing almost all highly ranked websites. This absolutely centralises web site publishing and gives an absolute level of power to only a few, unelected, administrative members of ODP. Because of this, only a few essentially can dictate the rules governing internet websites (at least those who wish to build PR). This, in my opinion, is potentially dangerous and highly conflicts with (3), the very reason for the internet being such a level playing field in the first place.
Possible Solutions To The Problems With ODP
(i) The application process for becoming an editor should be given to another editor in a completely unrelated catagory. At the moment, if I am correct in my assumption that an application for a catagory is given to an editor of the same catagory (I stand corrected if not), it leaves it open to the corruption explained in (2). This is nothing to do with specific editors of ODP, it is to do with the system.
(ii) Given the powers bestowed to ODP editors, just as ODP requires web site publishers to be accountable for their sites according to strict guidelines, editors should be more accountable for the reasons that they reject both editor candidates and, most importantly, the websites they review. Given the power of ODP, it is simply unacceptable for editors to be able to explain their decisions after review with a single sentence. Editors should be more accountable for their decisions. This helps prevent corruption and encourages fair and objective behaviour. This is nothing to do with specific editors of ODP, it is to do with the system.
(iii) The lack of rules regarding submission review times is unacceptable. Just like website developers must not submit their sites again within a given period, editors must be more accountable for their power and complete reviews of sites within a certain period of time, for instance, a month. If an editor is not able to do so, they should be given penalty points automatically. This is the equivalent of a bank charging interest on a loan in order to encourage the loan to be paid back to the bank. If the editor builds up a certain number of penalty points, they should be automatically dropped from the ODP editor members, and only able to reapply after a certain given amount of time, for example, a year. This is the equivalent of the driving license system.
(iv) If the editor is so busy with other activities that they are not able to carry out (iii), they should not apply to become an ODP editor. It is no excuse for editors to neglect website reviews for many, many months, even years, simply because they are 'busy doing other things'. This is necessary because ODP yields so much power on search engine listings.
(v) Just as applicants to ODP listings must be respectful of editors, ODP editors must be respectful to applicants on these forums. I have seen too many examples of editors utterly disregarding the concerns of applicants, and even at times being disrespectful and rude. Many applicants feel they have no choice but to accept this behaviour - and the editors involved know this - because applicants suspect that it might influence their ability to achieve a listing.
Conclusion
ODP has a very powerful monopoly on listings on many search engine directories, and for the ability for sites to achieve decent PR. This has a great influence on the websites given for certain keywords by the major search engines. ODP currently threatens the democracy of the internet.
For this reason, the editors, despite being volunteers, must be more accountable to the applicants. If they cannot be accountable and dedicate the required time to ODP reviews, they should not apply to become ODP editors. The system I've described would ensure editors, whom require applicants to adhere to strict guidelines, also are accountable and adhere to guidelines that respect the community they serve. This is the only way to maintain the concept of (3) to a maximum level. As for point (4), a voting system could be developed on this forum regarding any changes made to the website guidelines, for example via forum debate->vote->changes by administrators system.
If you feel I have not balanced the needs/wishes of the editors with the needs/wishes of the applicants, feel free to make comment on anything I've put forward. I'd like to hear from a number of editors on how they feel about my comments. Also any frustrated applicants put your views forward!
Mark
