What do the DMOZ editors think about this

I've just cut the following snippet from a well respected newsletter.

"..I don't worry about DMOZ too much any more. I believe they are on their way out. The site is down most of the time when I try to visit it, and it seems that perhaps AOL has given up on them completely."

How do you guys feel about this? ..., Even though its extremely difficult to get listed in DMOZ, thousands of people still persist in trying to get a listing. I too have noticed that most of the time dmoz is either down, or very hard to access.

You have a great directory with DMOZ, however, if action is not taken sooner rather than later, i too believe DMOZ will suffer and become a has been directory <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

DONT LET IT HAPPEN, YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING GREAT... MAKE FORWARD MOVES AND SAVE YOURSELVES!

See http://www.resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=submissions&amp;Number=29160 ... <img src="/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Whoever wrote that has obviously not done their research. We're installing new servers right now to combat all of our usability problems.

In fact, I think I'm correct in saying that this is the first time that AOL/Netscape have shown any real interest in the directory since it was first purchased. I may be wrong, but I don't recall the project ever being given any new harware before. In a couple of months time we'll have enough processing power to handle all of the current demand, with some left over. We're going to be using that left over capacity to find new ways to improve the directory and make the job of editing easier.

From where I'm standing, it's all looking rosy right now. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Great news. I'm glad you guys are on top of things. It would be a shame to see DMOZ go.

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Well-respected? By whom?

This appears to be the source of the quote: http://www.searchengineguide.com/whalen/2003/0519_jw1.html

The author is entitled to her opinion.

And the number of submissions which we continue to receive and the growth of the directory, together with the investment of new hardware, gives me quite the opposite opinion.

Interesting that she omitted to mention this forum in that post....

Ever since I have been an editor, I've been hearing about how the ODP is "doomed", and "going downhill". Meanwhile, we just keep on keeping on....

Indeed, we've been 'doomed' since 2000, and we're still here. In fact, our directory is now even larger than what Yahoo offers, and is growing at a faster rate: yesterday, Yahoo added a mere 31 sites, whereas we grew by over 1000.

[FYI: I subscribe to Jill Whalen's High Rankings Advisor newsletter. I (usually) like what she says, and she's seemed to me to be ODP-neutral or even pro-ODP. I _really_ liked http://www.searchengineguide.com/whalen/2003/0417_jw1.html , and I hope all stupid webmasters will read it and stop the SEO stuff that Google (and ODP, to a point) hates.

I _think_ I've seen that quote elsewhere, posted by someone else at one of the ODP-bashing forums... Jill, is that really something you wrote yourself?]

I say ignore doom and gloom predictions by lamer SEO bimbos. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> That she finds dmoz.org not working often is a minor issue. People can access ODP data through many other sources, like the Google directory. And, the mirror at http://ch.dmoz.org typcically works fine.

yep, that's where i read it.

I thought it was of relevance because 1000's of people sit up and take notice of Miss. Whealen.

I agree and say ignore what she says because dmoz is still a great resource, like i say, my concern for you guys is that these words are being uttered to 1000's of willing ears.

I know that you have solutions to the problem in the pipeline, lets just hope they are taken car of sooner rather than later.

I think that most editors don't pay much heed to articles like this for one simple reason: we're not here to build a directory for SEOs. Most of us do it because we want the best darned directory of the internet that is out there. A lot of the decisions, while they might upset SEOs, are based around that premise.

The editor selection criteria are (relatively speaking) fairly exacting - be able to prove to the metas in your application that you can write English (or the language of the category to which you apply) and can edit impartially. Also, leave the metas with the feeling that you really *want* to contribute, rather than just to get your own site listed... many people don't give up in disgust after one or two applications, posting to message boards about how difficult it is to get in, but learn from it and reapply, often being quite successful.

I always like to think of the ODP as the little engine that could. We don't cater to those that shout the loudest - we try to review each site based on its own merits. The idea of offering this incredible amount of data for *free* to downstream directories and search engines is one of those utopian goals that was the spirit of the internet, before the corporations got hold of it.

It's very easy to listen to the horror stories - the Rogue editor that edits improperly, the editor that got thrown out for one thing or another and goes ranting around the bulletin boards about how corrupt the ODP is, or (in this case) people writing articles about how the ODP is on a down-turn. When you start looking at the statistics (number of sites listed, number of active editors) and looking at the other sites out on the internet that use the ODP data because it's perceived to be the best out there - then you can start getting a different picture.

I'm also not going to pretend that it's all hunky-dory, either - server problems (which appear to be being mostly fixed, now, from what I can see, thanks to the work the staff put in on the upgrade), and the organizational politics which are endemic to a large group of people working together - all these exist. But on balance, it's one hell of a project and I'd challenge anyone to find anything quite the same elsewhere on the internet.

Like Keith, I have a lot of respect for Jill Whalen. She's one of the most respected professionals in her field. I also believe she was addressing the demise of DMOZ from an SEO perspective.

That being said, I believe she's dead wrong.

It's all about POV.

SERP Perps need instant response for their latest doorways, because they expect to have to abandon them as soon as the Search Engines catch on. The long review lag time at the ODP means these sites might get added just as they have to be abandoned.

For such people, the ODP is not valuable. For the ODP, the help of such people is less than worthless.

The sooner they recognize that and go off to kite their fly-by-night scams (and, for that matter, their legitimate businesses that require predictable commercial visibility) the better off we all are.

It's the difference between a library (that contains books and videos that might remain interesting over a long period of time) and an airport newsstand or TV ad agency (that focuses on flogging and/or fulfilling ephemeral content.

The lady is telling the newsstand operators not to wait until the library buys a copy of a book, before selling it. And not to depend on the library increasing consumer demand for the current retail product. That's all. And that's good advice.

The reason the ODP is irrelevant, though, is not that _it_ is dying ... it is that it _isn't_ dying: and the SERP'ed stuff IS dying too quickly for the ODP to help it. The SERP reaction is to spawn yet more ephemera; all directories, including the ODP, favor _stable_ sites.

That's because Yahoo insists on listing paid for sites. In fact, searching via Yahoo is pretty much like turning on the radio. They only play what they want you to hear. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

-----------
Dmoz Rocks!
-----------