I’ve known that there was something wrong with DMOZ (Open Directory Project) for some time. There have been many sites over the years that I have submitted to DMOZ every six months, painstakingly going over the information to make sure that it meets the requirements. What a colossal waste of time. The sites rarely get listed. No explanation from the editor. The submissions just fade into nothing.
DMOZ is a valuable link. Google uses the DMOZ directory as a basis for the Google directory. Many other directories on the Web do the same, so your DMOZ link is duplicated many times over. This can add up to a lot of incoming links, and significant link authority.
The DMOZ editors are volunteers, but they hold a lot of power. I found a enlightening example of how this power can manifest itself in the blog Corrupt DMOZ Editor.
Here’s an excerpt:
Another day, another screwed DMOZ submission
It’s another day and more submissions are lining my queues. I go to a cafe with free internet access and cute college age kids behind the counter, and log in to one of my dmoz accounts using firefox to spoof the OS and browser. Then I delete a handful of listings starting from the top without even looking at them. The next batch I include but I make sure to drain the listings of any useful keywords. The next bunch I keep on hold for the next time. I have a few listings that have been on hold for, I kid you not, eighteen months.
The postings on this blog are a few years old, and I’m not sure how tongue-in-cheek some of the information related is, but reading through the blog confirmed the image I had of what goes on behind the scenes at DMOZ. Geeks with power. Not a good combination. Something as obviously dysfunctional as DMOZ will go away on it’s own, hopefully sooner than later. In the meantime, there are plenty of other ways to promote your website. I’m done wasting my time with DMOZ.
#1 by Marah Marie - December 12th, 2008 at 01:41
Not such a valuable link anymore. I wouldn’t sweat it. Took me two years to get into the directory (only after I had an online argument on a popular blog that wrote about DMOZ unfavorably, with a DMOZ editor, who finally listed me, I believe, just to shut me up) and less than five months to get tossed back out again simply because I changed the site’s URL. I put in a few requests for re-submission over the following year explaining the content had not changed, just the web address, but never heard back. Could’ve kept at them but gave up.
Result: With a DMOZ listing I ranked #1-#3 for most of my keywords, in contrast to ranking that highly for just a few of them before that.
After DMOZ dropped me, ranking higher for most of my keywords than I did back in my DMOZ-listed days. No loss. And no stupid DMOZ-edited site description under every single one of my links in Google and Yahoo! search results. DMOZ can stick it where the sun don’t shine: Not. Worth. The. Aggravation.
#2 by Robert Whittaker - December 12th, 2008 at 04:37
“I have submitted to DMOZ every six months, painstakingly going over the information to make sure that it meets the requirements“
It is odd then that you missed the part of the site suggestion instructions that tells you only to suggest each site once. I wonder if you may have missed other parts too…
As for “Corrupt DMOZ Editor”, have you seen when the last post there was made? Is there any evidence that the author is currently an ODP editor?
Yes, abuse can and does happen, but it is not something that is tolerated within the project. Editors found to be accepting bribes or unfairly treating sites will have their accounts removed very quickly once discovered. If you have evidence of any editorial abuse, then please report it at http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ and it will be investigated.
Note thought, that just seeing a suggested site not being listed is not evidence of abuse. You can imagine the number of site suggestions we get each day, and there are only a finite number of volunteer editors who donate their time to help the directory. It’s far more likely that no-one has got round to reviewing your site, than that it is being ignored or has been deleted by an abusive editor.
#3 by Bottlecap Napkin - December 12th, 2008 at 10:13
It is odd then that you missed the part of the site suggestion instructions that tells you only to suggest each site once.
I actually didn’t miss that part of the instructions, and have submitted the vast majority of sites just once. I’m obviously talking about resubmitting after a significant amount of time under the assumption that there was something “wrong” with the initial submission and it was dumped. I now get it that resubmitting doesn’t help.
For those of us who had no idea bribery was an issue with DMOZ, I think “Corrupt DMOZ Editor” is an interesting read. I did add the caveat that the blog was a few years old and I wasn’t sure how much of it was tongue-in-cheek. Maybe you didn’t read that part… (sorry, just mocking the initial condescension).
I think we all realize that there are long queues and we have to wait for months if not years if we submit to DMOZ. The possibility that maybe our submission has been “treated unfairly,” or that our competitor got in because they bribed an editor isn’t good news to us.
DMOZ is striking in it’s lack of transparency and responsiveness. Here are some suggestions:
1)When a submission is dumped, send out an email with a boilerplate reason. No email? Then we know that we’re in a queue and can wait patiently.
2) Really want more editors? Change to process from one that tries to weed people out to one that tries to educate, inform and help people become editors.
#4 by Johnny - January 16th, 2009 at 23:04
“1)When a submission is dumped, send out an email with a boilerplate reason. No email? Then we know that we’re in a queue and can wait patiently.”
And what would you do when you know a website is rejected (dumped as you call it)?
Suggest it again? That would be a waste of time for you and DMOZ. If a site is not listable suggesting ot again will not make it lisatble.
What would you do if you know it is still waiting review?
The answer in both cases would be that you should do the same as when you know the site is listed. Continue to build and promote your website. Or do nothing. It is all up to you and only your activities can make a success out of a website. Do not rely on the actions of other people, certainly not if these other people are a bunch of hobbiest who like to collect links to websites.
#5 by admin - January 17th, 2009 at 11:51
My suggestions are aimed at creating some transparency in the DMOZ process. Transparency is the enemy of corruption. My post isn’t called “how to promote your website,” but thanks for the tips.
#6 by admin - January 18th, 2009 at 22:10
ATTENTION DMOZ EDITORS:
1) Please read the blog post before commenting. If you don’t address the points in the post or comments, or if you obviously haven’t read it carefully, I will delete your comment.
2) Don’t be rude, nasty or condescending or I will delete your comment.
I am happy to publish your well thought out responses to this post. Remember that the post is about corruption in DMOZ, and not how to follow DMOZ guidelines or mistakes that webmasters make.
#7 by Mark - January 31st, 2009 at 11:58
You’re spot on.
I have been working with my team on the website of a multi-billion $ company. They are # 2 in their market worldwide, and their website is world-class. Tons of information, and not just advertising. Good research studies and whitepapers as well. They not only deserve to be listed, I’d go as far as saying that the directory is incomplete when they are *not* listed.
We submitted once last summer (2008). No chance. Site is still not listed as I write this.
I explained this to the customer, and while they did not believe us at first they seem to understand now.
I believe that DMOZ is totally corrupt, but I don’t care. The idea of DMOZ was neat, but over time the editors have become the most elitist (and probably corrupt) folks on the net. In my opinion.
#8 by Weed - March 10th, 2009 at 07:29
My search engine pages, which have been online since 1997, no longer contain any links to DMOZ. I was an editor there many years ago, but no longer regard it as a credible directory, partly because of the lack of transparency regarding submissions and partly because of the difficulty (impossibility?) of getting quality sites into competitive commercial categories.