Is DMOZ dead?

[Guest]

First, I will say it like this ... I was a SEO, WAS. I made the money and got out. During my tenure I became an editor of over a half a dozen positions, I even worked my way up the system. I was caught in two cases, and lost editorial status; however, I still hold several positions I do not use (more than necessary to keep them).

 

THE PROBLEM: every Search Engine, every Directory, every Portal has a submission fee or a PPC service these days, and why, because it makes money. Yahoo - Money, LookSmart - Money, Overture (GoTo) - Money ... the list does not end there, it just begins.

 

SEO's are forced (FORCED) to be editors, trust me it’s not out of desire to "help, or be apart of anything". Try to submit to DMOZ, and wait, then wait, then wait more, and finally learn that some Nazi editor rejected it because he/she is getting their pocket lined from a competitor's web site placement or feel that opinions / bias is OK, how? Hmmm... stuffing keywords, Cool links, allowing mirror content. IT HAPPENS! -- daily, and by the established editors as well as the new!

 

So the ODP process to me is an obvious failure, they didn't stop me, and they didn’t stop about a dozen other current SEO's I still know actively edit in the ODP for the last 3 years. NOT 2 WEEKS, 3 YEARS!

 

Google alone is enough reason to become an editor, its just too expensive to use AdWord, or AdWord Select, when you can get it all for free at DMOZ.

 

DMOZ is a truly dead entity without Google; the ODP doesn't even power its own mother companies any longer. Ever wonder why? So in closing will Google kill the results of DMOZ? If you noticed in the last two years, Google has changed their formula to work less off of the DMOZ system, and more off of the Google system, with sprinkles of the ODP, not purely the ODP.

 

To all of those meta, edit all's, I say -- you know exactly what it is I’m talking about, and the loudest editors to protest, are the exact examples of the current SEO's hiding in DMOZ.

 

THE SOLUTION: If it’s commercial content, it should be reviewed by a paid professional, not a volunteer (no matter their length of time in the ODP). If it’s non-commercial then allow it to be edited by volunteers and weed out the obvious SEO’s.

 

Good Luck!

[windharp]

Some comments:

 

0) I dont think DMOZ failed. It has a lot less spam than other comparable directories, built by so called "professionals" /images/icons/smile.gif Since its more flexible in reacting (simply by lots of manpower) it can react quicker to spam than all the rest.

And of course if there where only 500 editors working in DMOZ on 1h each day, you would need at least 50 employees to replace them. Expensive task, huh? /images/icons/wink.gif

 

1) Decision what is usefull in a non-comercial-directory may include commercial sites as well (What is usefull for someone seaking information about MS-Office? In my oppinion this should include a link to M$ ) . Even if the rule was that no commercial sites are added, who should hold so called SEOs (its not optimization what they are doing, its spamming.) from getting in there and spam it? Thats a risk every directory with volunteers shares.

 

2) If a directory would employ paid fulltime editors it would have to make money. See Yahoo. I for myself would not do any tiny bit of volunteer work for such a directory, I think thats the feeling of lots of the editors. And without the big amount of workinghours DMOZ would never have grown to what it is today.

[hutcheson]

Google closing?

 

All vocal metas and editalls are professional SERP perps?

 

Whereas the guidelines absolutely forbid SEOers to be editors, so they have to sneak in?

 

Welcome to planet earth, and please tell us more about your home.

[Guest kujanomiko]

My sentiments exactly, hutcheson. /images/icons/smile.gif

[Guest]

Hold on ... I didn't say Google was closing, (If I did that was a typo) it’s the #1 SE, rated by Alexa #5, which is essentially saying it is the biggest and better than the failing Yahoo!.

 

I SAID WITHOUT GOOGLE, DMOZ IS DEAD!!!! - Look today for instance the results on AOL, owner of DMOZ, now use Google versus the straight ODP dump, now take a wild guess why Hutch you have been an editor since I received my first admission to the DMOZ dashboard 3 years back, and if anyone should know why it would be --- then you should, look at the obvious abuse, look at the endless amount of cates not filled, submit a site to DMOZ any cate, and wait.

 

Now a test! YES A TEST! Attempt it from the position of the average Webmaster versus that of the all mighty editor. See if you ever get included, don’t use your power, try it for real, and see for yourself WHY IT IS DMOZ is failing. I’m merely saying what you guys are running from.

 

>> All vocal metas and editalls are professional SERP perps?

 

- You seem pretty loud, and what has physc. taught us about those types of people?

 

>> Whereas the guidelines absolutely forbid SEOers to be editors, so they have to sneak in?

 

- OK I’m going to pretend for a minute you are educated, did you read my above spill (1st Post)? Does anyone care about guidelines? The Internet is an extension of the already corporate world you insolent fool. It's about money.

 

>>Welcome to planet earth, and please tell us more about your home.

 

- I proposed a solution; I did not just voice a complaint. I made an open ended QUESTION. IS DMOZ DEAD? NO ANSWER! I‘m in reality, not the 5th dimension here. Einstein we are all in cyber space on this one!

 

As far as I’m concerned they (DMOZ) are close to failure, I personally hope it never happens, I use the dump for my own private engine. I merely wish to propose an adjustment. Which shouldn't be that big of a deal unless you are doing exactly what I quoted in the opening Post! (???)

 

Don't merely think of it as pessimistic, read between the lines here. AND -- YES I did forward my 1st post to the heads of Netscape and AOL.

[Guest just_browsing]

"and finally learn that some Nazi editor rejected it because .."

 

Interesting discussion this, it actually starts with the first post invoking Godwins Law.

 

Godwin's Law - As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. http://www.godwinslaw.com/ gives the various alternatives.

 

However Pastedits does raise a valid point about the number of editors who are "corrupting" the system. Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to what percentage of editors that might be?

[old_crone]

Actually, I have submitted two sites to dmoz. Both were accepted in less than two weeks. I do not edit for dmoz, nor am I a SEO. However, I know how to write a title and description without the hype and what category to submit too. Both sites were unique in content and neither were riddled with affiliate links or referral links. Both are business sites - meaning they are selling something, one a service, the other a product, their own product, not someone else's.

 

But maybe I was lucky, don't know for sure. All I really know is that all the optimization/placement/ranking/spamming techniques are temporary successes at best. Without content the site will fail eventually. The end user isn't as stupid as many would like to think.

 

Just my 2 cents on this one issue.

[old_crone]

"However Pastedits does raise a valid point about the number of editors who are "corrupting" the system. Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to what percentage of editors that might be?"

 

Do you have an educated quess?

[Guest]

Thank You, i can appreciate that! I however am an editor, and have not had the same luck, yet according to the powers that be (the big edit deities who approve new editors) i know my stuff, and i to know how to properly form a title and description, and choose sites with valid content, yet my sites some (MOST) have never been accepted??? Hummm! I likewise no many webmasters, as we all do, and they feel as i do.

 

What i love the most is the obvious, i posted this just a few hours back, and look at the number of views, responses WOW I guess im not the only one calling for an improved DMOZ. Or maybe im really good at creating titles (LOL)

 

>>But maybe I was lucky, don't know for sure. All I really know is that all the optimization/placement/ranking/spamming techniques are temporary successes at best. Without content the site will fail eventually. The end user isn't as stupid as many would like to think.

 

- VERY VERY TRUE!

[Guest]

Like i said on post 1 , i know about a dozen editors and all of them are or have been SEO's? That's 100% for me --- but I’m "hazarding here" so I will be very conservative and say 50%, but I will promise 99.9% of them will never admit it!

[Guest]

It's also interesting to notice how many people are used to talk about SEO ("I'm an SEO", "I was an SEO", "SEOs do this", "SEOs do that", "SEOs are *forced* to", "the *only* possibility for an SEO to get good rankings", etc. etc.) clearly showing that they don't have a clue about what being a professional SEO means...

[Guest]

Whatever, I made CNN live last year for what i did as a profession. And as far at it goes you calling yourself a SEO... what does that mean in now a day words, you help companies pick which overture keywords they will use? Stop playing!

 

AND As said by Hutcheson ---> Whereas the guidelines absolutely forbid SEOers to be editors, so they have to sneak in? <---

 

You "ettore" represent one of the .01% with enough fortitude to admit it, congrats! But now you have officially broke the ODP rules ... OOPS!

[apeuro]

If you read hutcheson's post correctly, you would understand he was being sarcastic. SEO's are welcome in the ODP as long as they follow the Editor Guidelines.

 

Now I strongly suggest you re-read our Forum Guidelines. We welcome polite and civil discussion, but if you keep up your hostile tone you'll find you can be kicked out of more places than just the ODP.

[old_crone]

Ummm, I don't think ettore admitted to being an SEO, he was just referring to what other's have used in talking about SEO's. At least, that's my take on his message.

[Guest]

>> what does that mean in now a day words, you help companies pick which overture keywords they will use?

 

Ever heard about the "content is king" 'ol statement ? A well positioned site is a site which can be found by people who are looking exactly for the content of that site, and find it useful/interesting. That is, helping companies to serve users exactly with the information users are looking for.

 

Notice, it's not THAT different from what any ODP editor should be here for: the only difference being that ODP editors (or SEOS with an ODP editor hat on) shouldn't care about the *companies'* needs but about the *final users'* needs only. But the two positions aren't in conflict if you intend SEO the way I do.

 

>> You "ettore" represent one of the .01% with enough fortitude to admit it, congrats!

 

Thanks. But i don't think that in "admitting" it (which is something I do since some 3 years -- and it is perfectly known both in the SEO arena and in ODP) I showed anything different than the normal behaviour of anybody who has nothing to hide.

 

>> But now you have officially broke the ODP rules

 

Which rules are you talking about? Can you please point me to the bullet in the Guidelines (which are public, as you know) where is written that SEOs cannot be editors ? As I said, I never tried to hide my profession, everybody knows about it (it's even mentioned in my ODP profile), and nonetheless I have been granted meta privileges. I'm probably the best example that SEOs don't have to hide anything to "work up their path" (sorry, horrible expression) in ODP, they just have to learn how to comply with the Guidelines (and again, it's not difficult at all if you intend professional SEO the way I do).

[old_crone]

well, gee, guess I was wrong about ettore not admitting to being an SEO. Maybe the SEO's who hide, have something to hide.

[Guest]

I can't say I'm happy to see a loser self-proclaimed ex-SEO who says he still has some logins after being "caught" twice (for what, I wonder) actually get this much attention. If you're an ex-SEO (and obviously don't need the logins) I dare you to reveal all of your current editor accounts to prove that you are someone worth listening to.

 

I've seen such rants at other forums, but that's really not what resource-zone is about. I look forward to some of these posts being edited or removed.

[Guest]

I made a valid point, what i have recieved is alot of editors looking the other way at very real issue!

 

I am not hostile what-so-ever, i just think that if the editors, meta's, editall's, etc care about their editorial status (including yourself) they would work to improve DMOZ, but its very obvious my thoughts are getting shut out by some editors, i kinda thought this might happen, when i made the first post! That's why i forwarded it to the AOL and Netscape heads. For the most part if "you" read correctly you will see that the responses to a truth (proven by the lack of important engines using the dump today versus 2 years ago) have been little more than a gang attack against me, and i have the right to defend myself. Defense is not hostile.

 

Honestly I am trying here but no matter how many times i read the post by Hutcheson, i see nothing written sarcastic, and i think I'am good judge of satire. Not to mention if i remember correctly (on an application its not recommended that you say your a SEO, esp. if have a real desire to obtain the editoral position).

 

I welcome you to kick me off, i can always re-sign up (thats the neat thing about understanding TCP/IP) again, but the truth will still be here. Less and Less engines are using the dump, and why would AOL/Netscape pay the money to run the servers for ODP if no one uses it? Thus you lose your position, and honestly take this anyway you see fit ... "I don't want to see that happen"

 

People will have to learn that it is impossible to silence others ... just because they are against what others are saying. In the US its the 1st ammendment. I want to see the ODP survive ... which is why i proposed what i proposed in the 1st post. In the land of failing .com's -- DMOZ can win, we got the right people!

[Guest]

See what i mean, a person can call another person a loser, and not even know them, and im not supposed to defend myself? Why is everyone against

 

MY SOLUTION: If it’s commercial content, it should be reviewed by a paid professional, not a volunteer (no matter their length of time in the ODP). If it’s non-commercial then allow it to be edited by volunteers and weed out the obvious SEO’s.

 

Why? Its logical! And to answer your question no i will not be giving up my two removed names or my current names, but to validate myself better i will say they where all in the HEALTH cate, and the heads should know who this is. That seems like enough validation to me. I do not think you are a loser! Yet i do think you should actually read what it is that i have been writing, vs. skipping on to the juicy stuff. Good Day!

[apeuro]

People will have to learn that it is impossible to silence others ... just because they are against what others are saying.

 

It's not what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. Remember the old adage about catching flies with honey, not vinegar?

 

If it’s commercial content, it should be reviewed by a paid professional, not a volunteer.

 

The whole underpinnings of the ODP rest on all sites being reviewed by volunteer editors. Yahoo has paid editors - and look at the quality of their product.

[Guest]

Uhmm.. i think I did provide a few answers to your questions, didn't "attack" you, and was quite clear and straightforward. But you slipped out (or back) to your original question/suggestion without providing an answer to my points. In any case, I am willing to provide an answer to your first (and last) ones.

 

>> If it’s commercial content, it should be reviewed by a paid professional, not a volunteer (no matter their length of time in the ODP).

 

No, since it's simply against the very purpose of the ODP, that is being a volunteer-based community of editors. This would be the same as suggesting that Google should start ranking sites by alphabetical order and not using anymore PR as part of his algo, or Overture should become free (why not? I am sure a lot of people would like it).

ODP was founded and grew to its present size as a volunteer-based directory, like it or not, and it won't change its purpose and main structure. Also, having paid professionals reviewing sites wouldn't be a solution to the problems you outlined: what makes a paid professional less biased than a non-paid editor, if bias is the issue? What is the difference between a professional SEO who is also editor and edits for free and the same editor hired by Netscape and paid to review sites? Does he become more "professional" when he knows that he's paid? Does this eliminate abuse/bias, which looks like being one of your main concerns?

 

>> If it’s non-commercial then allow it to be edited by volunteers and weed out the obvious SEO’s.

 

Why weeding out the "obvious SEOs" ? If an editor reviews sites and his editing complies with the Guidelines he can be a webmaster, an SEO, a Web designer, or my uncle Ben, he's welcome. OTOH, no matter which is the profession of an editor and which sites are to be reviewed, weeding out the obvious *abusers* is what metas do every day. I don't want to be harsh more than needed, but the very fact that you have been removed means that you have been caught abusing, not that you have been caught as being an "obvious SEO". And you know better.

 

And yes, you can try to sneak in with different heads, until you are caught again (abusing, or just being a retread of an abuser), and then sneak in again, and continue this game. Uhmmm... may I ask for what reason? Is this what you call being an SEO ? Notice that your behaviour not only harmed you (in the possibility of doing a good job listing sites and contributing to the growth of the directory), but might harm your clients listing as well: sites belonging to abusive editors who tried to list doorways, mirrors, inappropriate deeplinks etc. may be removed from the directory as per our Guidelines. And this -- you should know -- is against the ethics of professional SEO.

[Guest]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be offensive!

 

>> If it’s commercial content ...

 

--- both you and ettore have valid points behind the free "open" aspects of DMOZ. Thus, not paying for commercial reviewers. I see your point more clearly now.

 

My point is that it is sad that so many quality submissions remain unreviewed / or get denied because many editors are bias in their reviews, be they SEO's or whatever you wish to label them.

 

It is also very sad that DMOZ is falling in popularity, steady for the last 6 mths (excluding Google).

 

To be honest the two cates i lost where not so much becuase of my "spamming,doorway pages, mirrors, cloaking,etc" (- ettore i have not used any of this in over two years, but i will admit to using all of it prior) rather than the other editors in like cates, the entire area(s) where cleared, all editors removed. I'm sure i was not a big help, i complained as much as i could. None-the-less, again i left being a SEO (as i finished up my 1st steps of college), and otherwise I'am rather bored with where the Internet is headed in the first place. I kind of see it (the Internet) like a new frontier a place where anyone can succeed with hard work - but that just isn't the case anymore, take Excite for instance, at one time it used DMOZ, now its all PPC, kind of sad.

 

I very much agree Yahoo is a poor directory, filled with poor results, but it shows you what non internet related advertising can accomplish.

 

If not paid editors for commercial content, how about more strict rules for edits, like each editor is required to login a min. of once a month, to help avoid placid cates.

 

Does anyone understand where i am coming from? Again, my biggest hope is that the big guys see this, and do something, or honestly DMOZ is a sitting victim for the next failed .ORG (rather than .Com). To me (and personal gain) it matters very little (in fact Nil), but i like the principles of DMOZ, LINUX and every other like company. I can not be alone in my belief -- not in this forum.

 

To make most of you happy Im going to cease now because, what this has become is a great way for others to attack me as a person.

 

I hope im wrong about the future of DMOZ, but if im not all the editors who read this now (and the numbers are getting very high) will remember they could have tried to make DMOZ last!

[Guest]

It's not my experience (pushing 3 years as an editor) that others are deleting sites out of bias (though a few do). It's unfair to make such a broad accusation, and it's wrong, too.

[Guest]

Fair enough - I hope Im wrong!

[Khym_Chanur]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>I made a valid point, what i have recieved is alot of editors looking the other way at very real issue!<p><hr></blockquote>You (from my point of view) come in and say "You ODP editors are corrupt and incompetent". What, exactly, would not "looking the other way" be? Slapping our foreheads and saying "Gosh, you're right! We never realized it until you pointed it out to us! We'll right now start reforming!"?