|
Trouble at the ODP
By Jim Hedger, StepForth News Editor, StepForth Placement Inc.
May 24, 2005
» Click here for  PDF &  Word
Versions
The Open Directory Project 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. 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 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 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.
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 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 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.
BACK to
the StepForth Search Engine News
|
