Sorry this site requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser. See the following guide on How to enable JavaScript in Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox and Safari. Alternatively you may be blocking JavaScript with an advert-related or developer plugin. Please check your browser plugins.

Barry responds to DMOZ’s editorial post about the lack of respect they’re getting. Some interesting points and great debate opportunities here.
Comments8 Comments  

Comments

Avatar
from KateMorris 1993 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Going to agree with Barry, this post caught my eye, but when I can’t get listed for a few clients at all in the past year, respected client in the space, my respect declines for DMOZ.

Avatar
from lyndseo 1993 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Ditto to that Kate.  If DMOZ wants respect, they really need to clean up their approval process.

Avatar
from seowoman 1993 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Pfft. Call the waaaahmbulance.I was a DMOZ editor, and it sucked. The amount of bureaucracy you have to wade through just to make a few simple changes is UNREAL. Everything is decided by committee and consensus, which -- surprise, surprise -- usually results in no decision at all.My enthusiasm for DMOZ waned very, very quickly.

Avatar
from crimsongirl 1993 Days ago #
Votes: 0

"Everybody loves Google, everybody loves Wikipedia - so why doesn’t everybody love DMOZ?" Hey, I don’t love Google or Wikipedia! But seriously, DMOZ is in a worse situation than being unloved or even hated. It is just irrelevant. And a little pathetic. Once it was important. The web moved on and Open Directory didn’t even try to adapt. Some day some business professor will write a case study about the Open Directory as a shining example of bad strategy. AOL’s neglect and allowance of the inward directed culture to grow up among the editors appears to be the main cause. As they became less relevant, the active members (who did put in a lot of work), took the pouty position of: “We’re doing our own thing! We don’t need you or care what you think!" Their feelings were hurt so they said they didn’t want to be in the game. Which even for an all-volunteer organization is a bad move. Businesses (even non-profits) have adapt to stay relevant to their industries and have to be engaged with the rest of the players.  Despite the talk, I’ve never seen hard evidence that there was corruption at ODP and I doubt much money was exchanged for listings. I’m sure most of the editors were honest and did a good job. But the organization’s failure to expand their volunteer staff to try to keep even somewhat up with the web made it irrelevant.  

Avatar
from lyndseo 1993 Days ago #
Votes: 2

crimsongirl - Unfortunately, I worked for a company that paid ODP for links. A coworker had a little network of editors who he knew would accept money.

Avatar
from jonbey 1991 Days ago #
Votes: 0

DMOZ does have some shockingly poorly chosen sites listed. No surprise there was a backhander or two.

Avatar
from rubberbracelets 1991 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Yahoo was one of the first true web directories. Back in the day, everyone wanted to be included in Yahoo, yea that was a long before

Avatar
from markn 1989 Days ago #
Votes: 0

Sometimes paying is the only way in. Especially when a dmoz category editor repeatedly ignores submissions. If they want to clean it up they would probably need to change from volunteers to another business model.

Upcoming Conferences

Search Marketing ExpoSearch Engine Land produces SMX, the Search Marketing Expo conference series. SMX events deliver the most comprehensive educational and networking experiences - whether you're just starting in search marketing or you're a seasoned expert.



Join us at an upcoming SMX event: