DmozSucks

Our purpose is to expose the Open Directory Project - ODP located at Dmoz.org and its short-comings. The initial concept and purpose of Dmoz was great and is very much needed online, but now it seems that it can do more harm than good to some innocent websites. There is a lot of controversy about this directory which is now heavily utilized by Google and other search engines. Keep an eye on DmozSucks.org . A website that is created just for this purpose.

Friday, May 05, 2006

Dmoz.org Lists DmozSucks.org and then removes if quickly. cowards? Indeed!

I came across a forum thread on V7N.com where someone noticed that Dmoz has listed this DmozSucks.org website in a category that they maintain of websites critical of their directory. But, this did not last for long, I am not sure, but it seems it only took minutes for them to remove it from the directory. The search for DmozSuck on dmoz.org the listing still shows in the search results. Search usually lacks behind the main directory listings. Dmoz Editors love to brag about their openness and transparency, and often boast about that category, yet they only list 3 URLs to old stale or abandoned pages that are no longer relevant to them. But they cowardly removed this site within minutes. I believe what happened was that a lower rank editor approved it first then tried to get approval afterwards from a higher ranked editor who removed it right away. What a bunch on cowards. Dmoz sucks indeed and they know it but way too coward to admit it.



- Yahoo's Cache of the listing

- Google's Cache of the listing
Click below for the original thread about this on V7N.com http://www.v7n.com/forums/web-directory-issues/29515-dmoz-agrees-they-suck.html

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Dmoz is in dire need to improve its image


Dmoz is in dire need to improve its image.
By DmozSucks.org

Dmoz.org or ODP (the Open Directory Project) is a web directory which was originally created in 1998 as Gnuhoo by Rich Skrenta and Bob Truel while working at Sun Microsystems. The first controversy started soon Soon after the launch the directory and lead to renaming it to NewHoo after wide spread accusation that the name of the directory implied open source yet the directory was a closed source which negates the spirit of free software of GNU projects which the directory was originally named after.

The directory was sold to Netscape which is now part of AOL/Time warner and currently boasts of having 5,229,762 sites, 71,337 editors, in over 590,000 categories. The importance of the directory increased and its status and the status of websites listed in it also increased despite the Internet trends of using search engines to locate websites faster than navigating through a multitude of categories in a web directory to find what you're looking for. The popularity and importance of Dmoz to webmasters followed the increased importance and relevance that the big search engines like Google, Yahoo, and MSN place on the directory and on sites listed in it. This can be seen clearly in search results with sites listed in Dmoz listed on top of most search results for most search term. Another value that has been closely associated to Dmoz was Pagerank, which is a value Google places on web pages, one of the most important factor that drives Pagerank up when Google does its calculation of Pagerank is the number of back links, and the Pagerank value of those linking web pages.
Dmoz is important not only because it is a great web directory, but also because many search engines adopted it as their own de facto directory because of the ease of importing the the whole directory data and reusing it as its own. Google's own web directory is based on that of Dmoz. The estimated number of web sites that use Dmoz's data as a base for their own directories, and the number of complete Dmoz mirror sites is not known exactly but it can be argued to be in the thousands. This number translates to a huge number of back links to websites listed in the directory. This alone makes Dmoz very important to any serious webmaster in their website's marketing strategy, and contrary to what Dmoz editors (at their public web forums) attempt to convince webmasters otherwise.

Having a very valuable Directory at their disposal the editors of Dmoz have a great deal of power at their finger-tips and they know it. I say they know it because of their over the top attitudes of "take it or leave it", and "its our way or the highway" attitudes expressed at the resource-zone forums (the hangout of the egotistic editors). Many webmasters depend on their websites for a living and hence they try to market their websites with everything available to them in order to ensure a steady stream of income. When there is a perception that there is a great resource that can help make or break a website by the mere fact of being listed or not listed in Dmoz makes it hard for webmasters to swallow. It is not a bad thing for the directory to be controlled by competent editors, Yet the stories of unethical editorial behavior, kickbacks, and revenge and the overwhelming feeling of corruption and egotistic attitudes towards webmasters makes a person cringe at the mere mention of Dmoz submission.

There are many other stories and complaints about Dmoz, about its editors, about the way they run the directory, about their refusal to listen to suggestions for improvements, about their lack of sensitivity to webmasters, about the length of time it takes to review a website (though they have thousands of editors), about their inability to get with the times and roll out better measures to control and run the directory while minimizing abuse, about their need to set in place better tools to help enforce a fair and equatable checks and balances approach in administering the directory.

There has been many suggestions to the directory and its editors, most have been dismissed as unworkable, or too much of a burden on the directory and its army of editors to handle, yet they forget that they have a lot of responsibilities to the general web users and webmasters. A constant theme with the editors is that the directory is here to serve the public i.e. the surfer/visitor public and not the webmasters, This is very wrong and very annoying to say the least. The webmasters are the ones who made the whole Internet what it is today, the webmasters work is what the public actually seeks. Measures to accommodate webmasters and realize that they DO COUNT and that the directory does need them is required, and DMOZ does need to reach out and work with webmasters in order to help make the directory better and more reflective of the reality of the Internet.

When looking at Dmoz as a project there are a multitude of features that are badly lacking and in need of urgent improvement, some of the needed improvements are critical to the well being of the directory and to its survival, others are nice to have and will help make the directory better, and help give the project the respect that it needs and is currently lacking.

One of the most important improvements is a system that will make submission and review faster than the current system which can take up to 3 years for a website to be reviewed and added to the directory. This should not be accepted today, as it was not accepted in the first days of the Internet. In todays world of constant change, it is very hard to find a decent website that does not make changes weekly or daily let alone yearly. A web site submitted a year ago may not be the same a year form the submission date and maybe rejected on that bases alone. A system that will decrease the SPAM the directory receives is the first step to improving responsiveness to site submission and review process. Editors claim that over 95% of websites that they receive can be classified as SPAM or BOT submissions. Implementing something like Captcha (a way to control web forms, which distinguishes between human and automated robotic entries and submission) or a similar measure should be put in place ASAP. If this measure is implemented it could weed out 90% of web site submission the total wait time will improve accordingly. A web site that might have had to wait for 6 months to be reviewed will be reviewed in 18 days (6*30*0.10=18). That alone would be a great improvement and it would elevate the heavy load on editors.

The second critical improvement to the directory and to its image would be in implementing a system of better control over editors and their power in accepting and rejecting websites, especially those that directly compete with their own websites or websites that they are affiliated with. A good start would be by implementing a system that marks websites added to the directory with an existing affiliation to an editor. Currently Dmoz require editors to declare their association, yet the public does not have access to base any complaints that is supported by this claim. Dmoz itself does not have to publish this association in the public directory but should make sites associated with editors clearly stated in their public profile, so when someone has a complaint about how a directory branch is edited they can find any relevant information in the editor profile where they can base their investigation of any unfair editorial claims.

Another benefit of the above would be helpful for the directory mirror sites when editing listing and deciding on a relevancy of websites to be included in their implementation of the directory data. I know first hand of some of the major implementation of web directory based on Dmoz data that administrators would like to know which websites exactly belong to editors which may need to re-reviewed by a third party before inclusion in their directory but the volume of the links in the directory makes it hard to weed out any sites that are implanted unfairly by corrupt editors and are being spread unintentionally throughout the Internet. This is in no way meant to punish or remove sites belonging to editors, but after all the accusations and controversy this may be needed and website using the Dmoz data can decide on their own what to do with those websites.


There are many more things that can be done to improve the directory, but the above two main suggestions would make a huge difference in restoring the respect, the image and the spirit that the directory was created under.


DmozSucks.org

Friday, December 30, 2005

Dmoz Editors deserve contempt!


I thought I should make a post about the Dmoz Editors. Dmoz prides itself on having "an army" of editors, current as of today the published number of editors are 70,927 editors, editing 5,182,325 sites in over 590,000 categories. Very impressive numbers indeed. In my opinion, a very small fraction of that number can handle editing a directory of this size, providing that a better set of tools are made available to those editors and a little more control over the website submission form or as they like to call it "suggestion form".It seems that becoming an editor is a huge undertaking, from all the the forum posts I've read it is a daunting task, maybe not because of the over-whelming intricacies of the "job" but it seems that politics and self promotion butt kissing, back stabbing are all part of the daily reality of the day to day operation of the directory. From the numbers of Editors posted above, you would think that they would be able to easily handle any number of submission to the directory, after all, each normal editor is only responsible for very few categories, so the load is distributed in a fair way. Yet waiting time in some cases has approached 3 years! You heard it right, that's 3 Years, not months or days. Even if this is a free and volunteer driven directory this is still unacceptable. I say that because Dmoz has gained popularity with search engines, Google and recently MSN two of the top 3 search engines online are using Dmoz Title and description of websites, Google gives more weight to sites listed in the directory since they theoretically have been reviewed thoroughly by qualified human editors. Dmoz is "syndicated" around the web by other search engines and web directories utilizing the freely available Dmoz directory dumps or accessing the data live through the many php and cgi scripts available to scrap from the directory. At present the number of sites that are using the ODP data and are listed in the Dmoz directory stand at 380, though the real number is in the thousands. Which translates to a lot of unique links for listed websites. Webmasters are flocking to get listed in the Directory because of the above reasons. and some of them flock to the resource-zone (those who know about it) to check on the status of their submissions. This service was in my opinion the only decent thing that the resource-zone was good for, but this has been abandoned now, and editors would jump on you in seconds if you post anything resembling an enquiry of the status of your submission. I believe that the resource-zone is worthless now and should be avoided like the plague unless you are in need of a heartache or can't wait to be spat at and kicked in the face by one of the kings and queens of Dmoz. After announcing that status checks queries will no longer be answered, they claim to be there now to answer to other more important issues. Wake up monkeys, No other issue is more important than that to any webmaster. I (though I have never been an editor at Dmoz) and many other people can do exactly what you do now, which is answer to irrelevant questions with a list of what to do and what not to do when submitting and when communicating blah blah blah... All this information is already available on the main website, you can just point to it and save your breath. But I think the real reason for the resource-zone website is to feel important, with the ego trip that answering helpless webmasters can bring you, you are the one in charge, you are the one who decides who gets in and who gets out. I tend to never mention any names so it does not get personal, but I can't help but to thin of one editor with her/his small avatar in the forums as a a queen/ fairy/witch whatever it is, but with a big crown. This is avatar sums it all up.

A lot of posts on the website in answer to why it takes so long to review websites, or why a category has not changed for years though it does have editors listed, would start with a lesson on how Dmoz editors are God's gift to the web, editors are not obligated to edit or review anything if they choose not to, they don't even have to login more than once every 3 months i believe, so in reality the number above is hardly true, and I came to believe that the great majority of those editors are applying for the sole purpose of adding their own websites and then calling it a day. They at the same time try to maintain editor status so they can control their chosen categories, and remove or add anything they choose. Of course not all editors are corrupt or only edit for their own self interest, but this has been a hot topic at most forums that deal with SEO issues.

An editor recently tried to list one of 3 editorial accounts he holds at Dmoz for sale at eBay.com. The auction was quickly removed by eBay, but not before the auction received a few bids, with the highest of which closing on US $1000. Why would anyone be willing to pay $1000 for an account that you can get free? strange but true. As mentioned above, it is very hard to get an editor account, and even though the folks at Dmoz constantly ranting that if your website will not succeed without a Dmoz listing then you should go and do something else! I agree with that statement, yet a decent and honest listing of a quality website in Dmoz is by far the most important link a website can get today. That's why people are willing to pay $1000 to get it.

Another issue with editors has been seen in some requests where a few webmasters asked for their website to be removed from the Directory. I have read a few posts and blogs about this issue. and I do understand that no one is obligated to remove links to other websites if they chose not to, yet I can't help but to think that Dmoz should make this available to people upon request. If any webmaster feels (rightfully or not) that a listing in Dmoz is hurting his business, he/she should have a recourse to have that listing removed. After all Dmoz was created for helping everyone and its a volunteer based, non-commercial with a "social contract" and fair treatment, and and and... So, its only fair for Dmoz to accommodate this.

I am sure the above may sound a little harsh, and I am sure the majority of those who do actually edit, not just sit at their thrones at the resource-zone, are decent people, but the few rude, corrupt and and selfish and controlling Editors are making a case for the whole project to be put in the trash as a failed attempt at a decent project. Unless of course AOL/Netscape or whoever the true owner of Dmoz can step up, clean it up, or just out-right sell the damn thing.
And for the sake of the web I hope that Google and MSN abandon any affiliation or reliance on anything that is Dmoz.

DmozSucks.org

Friday, December 23, 2005

DmozSucks.org



This is the first post in this Blog, and it will also serve as an introduction to the new website DmozSucks.org.DmozSucks.org is created after seeing the need for a website dedicated to deal with Dmoz.org and all aspect of this web directory. There are a lot of horror stories online about being included or not included in this directory. There are a lot of people who would love to be included and who submitted their websites and waited for almost a year without any luck. On the other hand, there are documented cases of people who are already listed, and who begged, threatened and groveled to have their websites removed from the directory to no avail.This is a huge problem for serious webmasters and Internet professionals. Dmoz on its own does not normally generate any decent traffic to any of its listed websites. Its value webmasters is not in the directory itself, but to how the directory is perceived by more important entities, mainly Search Engines and on top of this list is Google. Google is responsible for the biggest chunk of most websites traffic resulting from search queries to their search engine. Google has been using Dmoz data in their own web directory and recently has been utilizing the Title and Descriptions of websites listed in Dmoz in its search results. This has a huge impact on webmasters and their websites. Now there seem to be no way for a webmaster to even control how search engines describe their websites. No matter what you do, a vengeful editor can bring your whole website to the ground by giving a negative or misleading title and description of a website that you spend your hard earned money creating and is a big part of your livelihood, and you can do nothing about it. Dmoz has a lot of negative affects, and some positive ones as well. Yet you will not feel the negative ones until it affects you personally. Being listed at Dmoz for years and keeping your business practices above line, legal and transparent does not guarantee that you will not be targeted by an evil editor, who might have a direct interest at devaluing your website or maybe just the need to feel powerful in affecting other websites and other people. I see how Editors at the resource-zone.com forums thrive on seeing the misery of webmasters. One editor actually loves to flaunt her power by using an image of a witch wearing crowns (motsa), which I suppose is what she is. There is more to come on this here and on the DmozSucks.org websites