Article printed from SiteProNews: http://www.sitepronews.com
  HTML version available at: http://www.sitepronews.com/archives.html

Trouble at the ODP
By Jim Hedger, StepForth News Editor, StepForth Placement Inc. (c) 2005

The Open Directory Project (http://www.dmoz.org/) is the largest
human edited directory of web sites and documents existing online
at this time. While many search engines such as Google, Yahoo,
Ask and MSN maintain larger databases of electronically spidered
sites, the volunteer editors at the ODP read, sort and classify
all submitted content before it is added to their search-database.
Started in 1998 in reaction to difficulties webmasters had
getting their content into Yahoo's then human edited directory,
the Open Directory Project was a simple and effective idea.

Founded in June 1998 by Rich Skrenta and Bob Truel, the ODP drew
its early inspiration from the first major open-source
cooperative initiative, the GNU Project (http://www.gnu.org/).
It was even originally named after the GNU project, launched as
GnuHoo. The name was quickly changed to NewHoo in order to avoid
confusion between the two projects. Over time, the NewHoo morphed
into the more organized Open Directory Project. The ODP is owned
and operated by AOL's Netscape division which has pledged to keep
the directory 100% free as part of Netscape's social contract
(http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html) with web users.

Over the years, inclusion in the ODP became increasingly
important, especially after Google began using it as the primary
database for a Google directory. Getting a site listed at the
ODP almost guaranteed a beneficial visit from Googlebot as a
listing there was seen as a vote of confidence from a live-human
reviewer.

For the past twenty-four months however, webmasters and search
marketers have expressed extreme frustration while waiting for
their sites to get listed in DMOZ. The Open Directory is a
volunteer driven initiative, and like other non-paying projects
they often have a hard time finding good help. Submissions to
categories are backed up for months and in some cases, even
years with many of the over 1500 unique directory categories
lacking volunteers assigned to edit them. A backlog in sites
awaiting review is one thing but recently, accusations of
bribery, favouritism and editors lashing out at critics have
caused many to lower their previously favourable estimations of
the Open Directory.

The submission backlog, incidentally, grew so rapidly that the
ODP editors opened a discussion forum known as the Resource Zone
specifically to address questions and concerns from webmasters.
After operating for over a year, the collective of ODP editors
that ran the Resource Zone elected to close down the most used
service available on the forum, the Site Submission Zone. While
the forum was established to discuss ODP issues in an open and
public space, the Site Submission Zone took far too much energy
to maintain and moderate. Editors felt it did not offer users
enough relevant information as much of what could or perhaps
should be said to site owners would fall into the confidential
category.

For several months, there have been accusations that some ODP
editors are accepting payments for faster attention. Stemming
from the Blog, Corrupt DMOZ Editor (http://corruptdmozeditor.com/)
which was started in December 2004 by DMOZ editor Ana Thema,
the blog lists several entries detailing systemic corruption
throughout the Open Directory editorial structure. In her
February 8 posting, Ana states, "Links are a commodity. Links
from DMOZ are a hot commodity. Everything in this world is a
commodity: everything. If you disbelieve that someone would be
so corrupt as to sell submissions into the ODP, then Dorothy,
this is your wake up call." In other posts she claims she uses
at least a dozen unique editor names and maintains a network
with dozens of other ODP editors. Reading Ana Thema's blog is
much like watching one's first episode of the corrupt-cop drama,
The Shield (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286486/).

Another issue critics have had with editors at the Open
Directory Project is one of favouritism. Editors have almost
total control over their sections of the directory. While there
is a hierarchy of editors with Meta-Editors having the power to
re-edit categories that have received complaints, most
meta-editors don't have a lot of spare time. This has led to
some "fixing" the listings to favour their friends and
associates. There are stories of search engine marketers
becoming editors at the ODP and then gently favouring sites that
would benefit their clients. A more sophisticated story tells of
a search engine marketer manipulating ODP results to generate
stronger Google page-rank scores for his clients. Another tells
of ODP editors networking with each other to provide reciprocal
favours.

In a case of reverse favouritism, Ana Thema posted a story at
corruptdmozeditor.com from another DMOZ editor that states, "My
arch competitor had a dupe content subdomain that they set up
for traffic overflow and I changed their dmoz listing to the
subdomain with duplicate content and it slaughtered their
rankings for a couple of months. Speaking as someone with 4
years of sabotaging experience, switch their listing from www.
to non-www from time-to-time. Switch them from www.example.com
to www.example.com/index.html, stuff like that."

After complaining about abuses and neglect, some webmasters
might expect an apology or a reasonable explanation from the
Open Directory Project. None has been forthcoming though the
Resource Zone was intended to be a space for DMOZ editors to
communicate with DMOZ users. A growing problem for the ODP is
the lack of patience users and editors are showing with each
other in various search related discussion forums. A post
(http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=5708) over
at the Search Engine Watch Forums likens the accountability of
some ODP editors to Seinfeld's character, the Soup-Nazi.
According to the post, criticize these editors and, "NO SOUP FOR
YOU! NEXT!"

In its defense, the Open Directory Project is staffed by
volunteers, all of whom are humans with real lives, real jobs
and other responsibilities. Given the backlog of submissions and
the deterioration of the directory, it is rather difficult to
see them being able to straighten out the mess quickly or
easily. While many DMOZ editors put up with a lot of abuse,
almost all of them (with the possible exception of Ana Thema)
take great pride in the size and scope of the Open Directory
Project.

For search engine marketers however, the question of relevance
vs. effort comes into play. At one time, a listing at the Open
Directory was mandatory in order to guarantee strong listings at
Google, Yahoo and other search engines. Today, while still
helpful, the strength of a Open Directory listing has been
diluted by the search engines themselves. In an article
(http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050523-113618) titled,
"...Time for The ODP to Close?", Search Engine Watch editor Danny
Sullivan suggests three ways the venerable DMOZ could reorganize
and revitalize itself. Whatever it does, it should do it soon as
the importance of the largest human edited directory of websites
is decreasing as quickly as the backlog of submitted sites is
increasing.

================================================================
Jim Hedger is a writer, speaker and search engine marketing
expert based in Victoria BC. Jim writes and edits full-time for
StepForth. He has worked as an SEO for over 5 years and welcomes
the opportunity to share his experience through interviews,
articles and speaking engagements. He can be reached at
"jimhedger@stepforth.com"
================================================================

Copyright © 2005 Jayde Online, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.

SiteProNews is a registered service mark of Jayde Online, Inc.