Ineffective DMOZ by Baron Turner
Ineffective DMOZ
Webmasters who have tried getting sites listed in the free directory DMOZ have
found it be a hit and miss attempt. Attempts to expedite the process make it
worse, attempts to obtain acceptance status may make it worse, and in an
industry only a few years old, many years can elapse before any inclusion is
experienced, if at all. If DMOZ is the directory it believes itself to be, it
should behave like that directory. As virtually any webmaster would concur -
the chances of getting into DMOZ even with the best site in the genre, with
original content, with a site that visitors love, with strong and constant
traffic, excellent page rank and much more - are patchy, chancy and can even
deteriorate a site's rank if ever included if the editor wants it that way.
Good search engine optimisation companies such as ourselves (see author
bio) attain good rankings for their clients with or without the open directory.
However a listing in the ODP makes this process easier by far, but the arcane
and arbitrary behaviour by the open directory makes a submission far from open
and unnecessarily frustrating. Here's why DMOZ has become a liability to good
search results on the web.
Submission Process:
To submit to DMOZ - the webmaster will go to DMOZ.org, find the most
appropriate category - fill out the fields required and submit. Sometimes there
is an automated indication of the success of the submission (not of acceptance,
just the submission), and sometimes there isn't. Did the submission occur? If
you attempt to submit again when the submission was accepted - just not
indicated - you will harm the chance of being included in the directory. If you
submit several times because you're not getting any indication that the
submission was successful - you'll be seen as a spammer. Sites that may be
already accepted in the past may now be in jeopardy - and the one you are now
attempting is particularly at risk. Forum postings from DMOZ editors suggest
this is completely wrong - that the process works perfectly and submission
success is always emailed. We know this to be disingenuous.
Editor Attitude:
DMOZ editors think they are important. It's true to say that webmasters do need
them to perform a responsibility they've been entrusted with. Some editors live
up to this responsibility with integrity - but most don't. DMOZ editors will do
things in their own way, in their own time, and sadly - most importantly - on
their own terms. If you don't submit a site in exactly in the right way, which
is their right way - your site won't be listed and you'll never know whether
it's still in the queue, moved to another editor, or just rejected. As of mid
2005 - there is no status coming out of DMOZ.
DMOZ Prima Donna's:
Similar to above - Most DMOZ editors think they are a cut above the rest of us.
They believe they hold the key to life or death - that for obviously
meritocratic reasons they have been selected to wield power over webmasters who
need to come crawling to them to plead their case. The problem starts at the
top - the senior editors are geeks who've been operating in the upper hierarchy
of DMOZ since the time that only computer geeks were really interested in the
role. Like many geeks, they're very intelligent but kinda out of touch with
aspects of the real world. Aspects of great importance to an individual
webmaster are not regarded with due diligence by senior editors and those they
loosely oversee further down in the pecking order. Prima Donna's? Attempt to
contact them to find out any information meets with the response similar to
some high official you have approached inappropriately. The Prima Donna's of
DMOZ are the only interface between the webmaster and the directory - and if
the webmaster treats them wrongly they react with the attitude of some offended
film star, and they're off to their trailer in a huff. How can something so
important be so ridiculously managed? It's only a matter of time until Google,
the search engine that uses the repository more than other search engines
concludes the same (the others, sensibly, have their own).
Enquiries:
Once submitting a site to DMOZ - you can just check progress along the way -
right? Wrong. Enquire at your peril. Prior to early 2005 DMOZ had a forum where
progress could be checked - though the forum was subject to the replies of
editors with all the characteristics cited in this article. It was a difficult
and arcane way of getting information, and marginally better than nothing. Now
there is nothing. But there are editors for each section - could you not just
contact them and ask for status? No. As previously warned - enquire at your
peril. It will almost definitely result in a negative effect for your site's
listing potential. The temptation to plead with one of the DMOZ Prima Donnas is
strong. It may be all you have - but we can't say the result is good - so think
carefully about the wording and attitude. It may be difficult to find their
email address - if so this is an indication that they don't want to be
contacted. It's a closed organisation and it's just so surprising that the
heavy-weight search engine Google has such a high regard for a badly operated
structure like DMOZ.
Be an Editor?
Since the backlog for editors seems to be so great - the obvious attitude of
webmasters is to offer to become an editor. One would imagine that such an
organisation would welcome such free assistance. However, if you have submitted
a site and declare your situation (if you don't they'll do a search), they will
block it in the vast majority of cases. The intention any well be to assist and
add quality sites to the index - but they'll assume you just want to get your
own site in. Could you blame an ethical webmaster - there's little other choice
as long as Google rewards the directory with such kudos? Sites need to be
listed with the directory - and the fact that it's such a hit and miss pursuit
is frustrating and pointless. There are not enough editors, the editors don't
approach their responsibility with due diligence and they don't easily accept
new editors into the organisation. How can it work? It can't. Google should see
the obvious truth in this.
Corruption:
One hesitates to accuse - but the forum postings of so many webmasters
complaining of corruption and apparent postings of editors who themselves say
they are corrupt cannot but lead one to the conclusion that there is corruption
at the MOZ. There are editors that just will not accept sites into a category
where the site competes with existing sites they have a financial interest in.
There are editors that will do worse than not list a site. They will change the
description of the site that appears by default in Google search listings such
that surfers will not see the site as appropriate to their search (as of mid
2006 Google have permitted a 'NOODP' tag to be used to overcome this - but the
knowledge of this mechanism isn't widespread). There are supposed editors that
have posted in forums that themselves say they invite payments to be made to
have a site listed - payments to be made to the email address that sometimes
appear along with the editor details, and others that can be found through web
searches for that editor name. There are editors that will deliberately seek
out other editors that have a very high queue of sites to consider and who
aren't doing much about reducing the workload and pass the site over to them
-which delays the site consideration for perhaps 2 or 3 years! When it is
eventually turned back to the correct editor, the editor may do the same with
another over laden editor. One forum posting by a supposed editor said that he
combined the above two techniques by finally adding the site in his category
after giving it the run-around for some period of years, then changing the
description of the site to repel visitors. This is dysfunctional to the point
that most objective observers would conclude the existence of corruption. Sites
which exist as a small business with one or two hard working employees have
this kind of behaviour to grapple with - the webmasters are close to powerless
- Google should recognise this and reduce the value they attribute to a DMOZ
listing.
So What to Do?
If DMOZ is to continue to be the directory of choice for Google, the solution
is obvious. A volunteer group assigned to do something so important is a bad
business model. The editors need to be paid employees and the system needs to
be fair, instead of arcane and very probably corrupt. We struggle to see how
Google don't appear to already recognise this - it's blindingly obvious.
Another solution would be a win win for the two parties concerned. The two
parties are webmasters and Google linked with DMOZ. Google could either junk
DMOZ or buy it. If they junk it - build another directory. Then, with the new
directory or with the purchased DMOZ charge webmasters for commercial site
consideration just like Yahoo do. Yahoo is far too expensive especially for
small businesses, but webmasters of sites representing small businesses would
be happy to pay a substantial sum like $100 for listing consideration is such a
heavy weight directory. Webmasters would pay with a smile - content that the
previous farce of DMOZ is now gone.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that DMOZ is an important directory. But its arcane way of
operation makes it a liability as far as appropriate listings are concerned.
The submission process doesn't work properly. Editors have a regal attitude
towards their conferred responsibility and act like Prima Donnas in their work.
There is no way of getting any status of sites, Sites may have been rejected or
may still be in the queue, and any attempt to find out in order to put things
right puts the listing at peril if it's still in the queue. You can't be an
editor if you are attempting to list a site, and reports of corruption are so
common that it has to be at the very least probable. When inclusion in the open
directory has such an influence on making or breaking a small company, DMOZ is
a travesty of justice and an inappropriate influence on ranking of sites by the
search behemoth Google. We believe it is only a matter of time before Google
recognises this.
About the Author
By Baron Turner of TurnerDow Premier Search
Engine Optimisation, a British Web Optimisation company specialising in
SEO, SEM and PPC Management.
|
