Lately Google has done a good job reducing the value of incoming web links coming from less than stellar locations. This would include most ezine article web sites, web directories, and similar sites. Some SEO’s still argue that ‘high quality’ or targeted directories are still a viable source to give link love. I on the other hand don’t think that’s the case, or in the very least, all directories are slowly becoming useless.
Dmoz Quality and Expansion Stifled By Elitist Editor Class?
I will concede that there are some useful directories out there, especially local ones, that offer some link value. However, for the vast majority, link building that consists of directories and ezines should be short and small.
One of the biggest directories (most trusted) in the late 90’s early 2000′ was/is dmoz.org, the human edited directory . Sure there were others, but for a free human edited machine, Dmoz was the best. Nowadays links from Dmoz (and all directories) are slowly becoming junk. However, I wish to point out some key failures as to why Dmoz was/will never be a huge success–it all stems with people.
Now you’re probably wondering why I’ve drawn Wikipedia comparisons to dmoz. Content and purpose wise they are completely different, however, one aspect remains similar–human editors/contributors. Wikipedia is wildly successful due to the quality of human editors, dmoz is not. Why is this so?
Why Dmoz is a Failure and Wikipedia Reigns Supreme
1. At Wikipedia there are checks and balances that are largely orchestrated, or in the very least accessible, by the general public. In Dmoz not a sole knows who the editor of a category is (if one even exists) nor can they approach a central person (not a forum or a bot but a person) to inquire.
2. In Wikipedia changes are instant. Dmoz = 6 month minimum waits to never.
3. Wikipedia is efficient. Dmoz may never list your web site, may never tell you why, and frankly don’t really care.
4. People are accountable in Wikipedia. There exists a system of accountability in Dmoz but the system is entirely broken. It is next to impossible to go ‘to the power at be’ to claim your case away from the eyes of overzealous category editors.
5. Wikipedia loves new content, additions, and visitors. Dmoz is not suited for new content, relies to heavily on editors who don’t show up, and disdains offering more power to smaller editors who are solely interested in making Dmoz a better place.
6. Wikipedia loves when people make Wiki a better place. Dmoz hates newbies challenging the turf of elitist editors. Cast in point. Out of the goodness of my heart I volunteered to edit a denomination category. I have no affiliations web wise so I’ve never claimed any. I noted a massive category that needed lots of work to be relevant and current. I’ve approached mini-higher-ups twice. The first time they said I needed more edits…. Ok, I thought, fine I’ll try, but my category is so small that more edits are hard to come by. Almost a year later I submitted again to help the category out. My benefits? Zero. Benefits for Dmoz? Current data in a much needed category. Response from Dmoz overzealous editor? Not only did they reiterate the lack of edits (ok fine, the rules), but I was essentially labelled a liar for not making web site associations (I don’t have any that are relevant). I’m also not ‘experienced’ enough to handle a larger category. So now I’m a kid?! When I said I had nothing to claim on the web sites the editor was rude and pointed it out I’m a problem and they don’t mind losing me….. (I will admit in many instances Dmoz does have a number of rules (not checks and balances). But when too much power is handed down it gets to editors heads.)
I doubt this editor represents Dmoz, but nobody will ever care nor remove the editor. What does that leave? Further degradation in Dmoz. Instead of two categories updated and current they now have two less categories updated and current.
What should you do? Web marketing strategies should include some form of directory submissions but honestly you can contract that out to India for CHEAP. Some targeted directories would be worth while to do yourself but otherwise, steer clear of making any time investment in directories especially the behemoth of an inefficient piece of junk that is Dmoz.
[tags]dmoz, dmoz directory, web directories, seo directories, web directories seo[/tags]
Some of what you say is certainly true, but I think you’ve forgetting that the ODP and Wikipedia are completely different in what they’re trying to achieve, and in the perceived pay-off for those who manage to manipulate the system. The ODP aims to be a useful list of web links, and if you believe what people say about the PR weight assigned by google, presumably google at least thinks it’s doing a reasonable job.
This in turn means that there are a lot of people out there who will try various tricks to get their site listed more quickly. In turn this necessitates a degree of secrecy and closedness about some of the internal aspects of how the ODP operates. For wikipedia on the other hand, apart from prank vandalism for fun, and the occasional attempt of someone to rewrite their own history, there’s not, relatively speaking) that many concerted attempts to subvert the content. I think this pretty much explains the differences you’ve noted in points 1 to 4, and the first part of 5.
So to put the record straight, here’s my take on your points:
1. There are checks and balances at the ODP, though they are largely internal and discussing the details would only help those that want to circumvent them. Editing logs for all editors are available for any other editor to inspect (links on your dashboard). There are internal forums for discussion, and there are documented mechanisms to report suspected abuse. There are also two links on every category page for members of the public to let us know about broken listings, or report suspected abuse.
2. From an editor’s point of view, changes are also instant (well within a couple of days anyway). Due to the large number of public suggestions we get, and the finite number of editors available it’s not surprising that it takes time for any individual listing to be reviewed.
3. The ODP doesn’t exist to be a listing service. It exists to provide useful information to the public. It should be judged by the quality and and usefulness of the set of links on each category page, rather than by the time taken for any particular suggested site to be added.
4. Editors are accountable in the ODP — but to the meta editors and admins, rather than to the public. If you want to report any suspected abuse, contact a meta or admin, or use the link on your dashboard.
5. The ODP loves to get new editors and give additional permissions to existing ones. However, this muct be balanced with the need to restrict access for those with ulterior motives or who have not demonstrated they can follow the editing guidelines. You’ll find all the procedures documented publicly in the guidelines. http://dmoz.org/newperms.html http://dmoz.org/guidelines/meta/apps.html
6. I’m not going to comment on your particular case, but suffice to say that even if you have a small category that has a perfect set of links with no more in existence to add, there are plenty of ways to gain more editing experience. If you’re unsure how to, please contact a meta, or post in the internal forums. (Oh, one comment I will make is that you certainly do have at least one affiliation to declare — this site. Have you declared it? Are they any more I wonder? See http://dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html for details of what you should declare.)
I hope this helps present an alternative point of view to you and/or your readers.
Oh, dude, you’re soooo funny with this one! Not because what you said was funny, just because you are so biased and angry. Anybody can easily see this coming from your lines.
You are right with the DMOZ issue but to really, really give a massive value to this kind of article, try and calm yourself before you write it down. Just because you got so negative about it, ppl will tend to think you’re just too nervous and you’re just throwing shit in DMOZ, that you’re definitely exaggerating facts.
And would be a shame to think something like this, I really appreciate this blog and I don’t think I’m the only one.
Excuse my faulty English and keep up the good work. Smile more :)
Robert Whittaker: I acknowledge they have different purposes, but they have a similar element, human editors. ODP could be so much more with more transparency. Tons is internal…. It’s like a union, when you’re in you’re in but it’s a bugger to get in.
2. Finite editors only because many people are turned away. I know everyone want to help themselves, but honestly a better system is needed (assuming dmoz was a worth it’s weight in link love).
3. I have found regular search results far better. Dmoz is merely a location to get a single link and for scrapper directories to find a source.
5. Evidently I didn’t ‘declare’ my affiliations so they won’t give me another category (which is completely unrelated). But hey, rules are rules so fine. ODP is merely a huge link directory, Wiki is a online resource of information. You can see why investing time into the boards and ‘learning the trick of ODP’ is not high on the priority list for people these days.
6. Haven’t declared this site, guess I should if I was serious to continue. <-- So that's the only hang up hey :PBut thanks for your input, much appreciated.metrathon: and to think, I waited a couple days before posting! If something grinds my gears than I'm inclined to blog about it. Certainly a biased article, not meant to be objective, but it does highlight some interesting observations. I have already said that I don't know all the facts about Dmoz but I certainly can observe the impact of human trends.
Never beg for links, let someone else add your site to dmoz. Dmoz really cares about quality. If you’re harassing dmoz editors about listing your site, you’re seen as a spammer or marketing idiot.
Sure, but that wasn’t the context of this article.
Heather. DMOZ really cares about quality? I am falling of my chair laughing. It would be so nice if your statement is true, but the truth ist DMOZ does not care about quality. If DMOZ would really care about quality they would fire every editor and start over, because as soon as the Google connection became apparant the quality left the building. Submissions are/were made for the link juice, but that is about it. Everyone sees that, except for some Uber-Editors and the main person behind DMOZ – but I guess nobody even knows if that person is still around.
Okay, then setup your own wiki.
DMOZ is a junky, outdated and obsolete link farm.
DMOZ editors are actually quite paranoid and keep shooting each other down for policy disagreements or unfounded suspicions. No qualms about abusing the newbies and making them feel stupid or corrupt for trivial reasons.
It’s ironic that they are so paranoid, because the links are virtually worthless. Proof? There are plenty of sites that have been listed in DMOZ for over 2 years, and have no other link. Many of these sites have ZERO PR, yet are are listed on PR5-6 DMOZ pages. It’s not helping them at all, is it?
All this infighting and poison over a worthless link farm of worthless links.
Luckily Google does not attribute much value to DMOZ links. Google hasn’t refreshed its clone of DMOZ in two years is a hint.
Multiple links stemming from the many DMOZ clones are automatically discounted by Google’s algorithm.
Wikipedia is a worthwhile assemblage of human knowledge. It is welcoming, open, and always assuming of good faith. It is not a unused and neglected link farm. Wikipedia’s owners would not neglect having backups to insure that the Wiki does not go offline for extended periods of time. DMOZ is viewed as so worthless by its owner, AOL, that no backups are felt to be necessary, and a 2-month outage is taken in stride.
I do not know why dmoz even exists anymore. The only reason people even submit is to get a free link to rank better in google. I do not know of a single person that uses dmoz to search for anything. This directory may of had a point when SE were just full of spam and people wanted a reliable source of websites but google has largely sold thsi problem.
DMOZ editors really need to find a new hobby. The time it takes to list sites, the fact that getting info changed is so close to impossible and the absolute lack of anyone actually using this directory suggest to me it should either be monetrised and properly maintained and updated or abondioned. IMO the D stands for dinasor, and the Z is just zzzzzzzzzzzzzz of those involved just sleeping and not keeping up with the times. DMOZ is a joke and an anachronism. (oh by they way my sites are in DMOZ I only submitted to get that free google link).
We have been trying to get into DMOZ for several years and evidently someone in the past submitted us multiple times. So now the editors just refuse to consider us. They say “tough luck”. It seems really unfair because we are one of the largest businesses of our kind in the US and a lot of cheesy website competitors are right there listed. If you are an editor and you read this Please won’t you consider us again?
This article is right on the money. Many a generous volunteer has submitted an editor application, generally putting a lot of effort into suggesting two or three new sites required on the application form. Then a DMOZ “meta” editor just rejects the application within minutes, accuses the applicant of all sorts of ridiculous things, and burns another bridge. By the way, I am a DMOZ editor (not meta editor), so I do know how this works. The metas would rather have the directory remain stale then accept new editors.