Just some observations about getting listed or becoming an editor on DMOZ
First, I've had a couple sites listed in DMOZ, however these were back when DMOZ had about 1m links and a few thousand editors. Back when the workload wasn't used as an excuse for poor administration and a reason to ignore submissions and link pruning.
I'm not trying to ruffle anyones feathers. There are quite a few editors who really do care about DMOZ (still)...
Now for my observations:
4,615,773 sites - 83,393 editors - over 590,000 categories
That is about 55 links per editor. Throw out 90% of the editors as being the "who cares" types and we are left with about 600 links to manage per editor. I've run quite a few directories and managed one that had 8000 categories and 125,000 links with zero help. To say that 8,300 good editors cant manage 4.6m links is absurd.
"It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global community of volunteer editors."
The primary DMOZ team seems to hold the strictest of standards for an editor to be accepted, yet you'll only see a response from them if the "prospective editor" doesn't meet these standards. If a prospect does meet these standards, unless he/she "knows someone" they can expect to be ignored. The typical good ol'boys network seems to be in play here. I would suggest changing that to "It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global community of original editors and their buddies who now control every aspect of the thing."
"Editing categories is a snap. We have a comprehensive set of tools for adding, deleting, and updating links in seconds."
Wouldn't this be contradictive to the whole backlogged issue that editors always seem to hide behind?
"The Definitive Catalog of the Web"
Excuse me! If this is the case then why is every 5th link a dead anglefire, att, homestead, geocities, webs, tripod.. etc? And worse yet are those dropped links that now lead to thousands of adult sites.
"The Open Directory follows in the footsteps of some of the most important editor/contributor projects of the 20th century"
Change that to "Followed" because this is now the 21st century and DMOZ hasn't done a thing to keep up.
"The Open Directory was founded in the spirit of the Open Source movement"
I've yet to see another Open Source project become so closed, so I'd suggest that spirit is dead at this point.
"The Open Directory data is made available for free to anyone who agrees to comply with our free use license."
The keyword here is "comply", actually it isnt simply to comply, but to jump through hoops until you realise the futility of it all and give up.
Like any community, you get what you give. The Open Directory provides the opportunity for everyone to contribute.
Signing up is easy: choose a topic you know something about and join. Editing categories is a snap. We have a comprehensive set of tools for adding, deleting, and updating links in seconds. For just a few minutes of your time you can help make the Web a better place, and be recognized as an expert on your chosen topic.
Yes, the opportunity to attempt to contribute. I'd honestly suggest that you suspend the volunteer aspect of the thing and send emails to every editor telling them that unless the links are pruned and backlogs either cleared or wiped out that the "editors house" will be cleaned.
You have 4.6m links and 10-15% of those are dead. So let's say there are 4m "good" links. Youve been around for 14 years. That's an average addition of about 784 links per day. Do the math... 78,000 editors and you guys are "BACKED UP" with an approval rate of less than 1000 links per day?
That must have been some party for all the editors to be hungover this long.
Finally
On the "About DMOZ" footer
Copyright © 1998-2005 think about this one
Let the rebuttals, the back pedaling, the excuses, the attacks, the blame throwing begin...
However you perceive this post it is not me hating or being bent towards the DMOZ crew. It is merely my observations of what seems to have become a broken entity at least from its original premise. Sometimes you just have to wipe the slate clean and start over and I'm thinking it's been that time for years as far as the DMOZ directory goes.
Cheers
PS... One of my current DMOZ listings is in a category that has high traffic and only 13 competitors listed. It accounts for less than 1/3rd of 1% of my sites referrals, so DMOZ is really just another directory to me. Just so you'll understand that I really mean no malice from this post and that it's simply constructive criticism.
__________________________________
This was initially posted on a popular seo forum as an observation from an impartial point of view. While it has received many positive replies there are still those who are so protective of their beloved DMOZ (and their positions within) that anything which even remotely constitutes criticism is met with an overly obsessive compulsive protectionist reaction. They feel that this post is simply meant to churn up an already beaten issue and that I have no basis for my points.
I'd think that contstructive criticism can and should be taken as a positive rather than a negative, however these detractors reduce it to a personal level and in doing so, the merit of discussion is lost. Many of them claim to be a part of the DMOZ community and the fact that these reactionists subvert it to a personal issue leads me to believe that the whole premise of a better DMOZ isn't within the scope of their vocabulary,
especially if it means change.
|
About SEOME 
