|
I knew things were bad at
DMOZ. But I guess I didn't realize how bad, until I
started eavesdropping on a few forums, and reading the
avalanche of e-mails I received on the subject.
When it takes up to two
years to get a web site listed, there's a serious problem.
When perfectly qualified web sites are rejected for no
other reason than the fact the editor considers them
serious competition to his or her own site, there's a
serious problem.
When you e-mail DMOZ about
the status of your web site and don't even receive a
courtesy response to your questions, there's a serious
problem.
When you have egotistical
DMOZ editors fighting each other to have their own web
sites listed, there's a serious problem.
And quite frankly, I don't
see how the mess DMOZ has created can be fixed. With an
apparently endless backlog of web sites waiting to be
approved, how can they possibly catch up. The answer is,
they can't.
But this isn't just a
performance issue we're talking about here, this is a
morality issue. The very fact that it's a matter of public
record what DMOZ is doing speaks volumes about the
character of many of their editors.
After all, much of what
I've written negatively about DMOZ came directly from the
mouths and/or keyboards of DMOZ editors themselves. At
least they claimed to be DMOZ editors. And for the life of
me, I can't imagine why anyone would want to own up to
that dubious distinction, unless it were actually true.
This is what one DMOZ
editor had to say. "Since I became an editor for DMOZ
a few weeks ago (albeit for a tiny category) I have seen
on the DMOZ editors board that there are a lot of good
volunteers there who work hard to try to keep the
directory up to date and useful. Its a shame because there
are also seem to be a lot of editors there who are lazy,
or who have let the "power" of being an editor
go to their heads. (The people who DON'T ever post on the
editor message boards, or update their categories, etc.)
I think some method to
allow webmasters to check the status of their site
submissions (and to know why their site gets rejected if
it is something fixable, and the site is related to the
category and not just a spam submission, etc) would be an
excellent first step to improving the system.
Unfortunately the editor management system seems to be
circa 1998 ... I am only guessing based on
design/functionality, but I assume big changes are not
coming any time soon."
Even Google may have come
to the realization that DMOZ may have finally run its
course. Previously found via its own tab, the Open
Directory has been demoted to the "more" page.
This was Google's
explanation for the demotion. "We analyzed what
people were using, and that had become less popular over
time. As the web grows, directory structures get harder to
use. It didn't seem to be worth the real estate on the
home page." Ouch!
Demoting the directory may
also be a way for Google to eventually distance itself
from the Open Directory Project, which powers it. The
volunteer-produced directory was added back in 2000, near
the height of the Open Directory's popularity.
Today, there are often
complaints that the ODP, has not keep up with submission
demands. In addition, there have been delays in getting
the most current data out in a format that ODP partners
such as Google can use.
Ultimately, any problem
with the Open Directory--which is not in Google's
control--still reflects badly on Google.
I do have a solution to
this whole DMOZ mess, if anyone wants to hear it. I say
nuke the site for morbid, and put it out of its misery!
|
