During my first years online DMOZ was always my first stop in any website promotion project. If I had a new website or domain to promote a targeted submission to DMOZ always put a feel good factor and helped me kick start any website development campaign. Over the years DMOZ has been a close friend and back in the days when I wasn't managing an international internet marketing company I even applied to join their ranks as an editor!.
DMOZ stands for directory.mozilla.org which is this Open Directory Project's initial domain name. Simply put, DMOZ is a free online directory on which all websites can be submitted and categorized, regardless of the language and national origin. Its upkeep is the responsibility of volunteer editors.
For an open directory run by volunteers, DMOZ has done very well for itself, indeed. This directory's main merit is the fact that it is being controlled and maintained by human editors. Such an arrangement carries with it the connotation that the directory will only accept web sites that have been reviewed according to set criteria and standards.
As such, it became a trusted source of site indexing information by Google as it carved out a new era online to become the worlds largest search entity. It is no wonder, then, that given a choice between submitting a web site to Google's "Submit A Site" Page and submission of the site's URL to DMOZ, most web masters including myself chose the latter option. DMOZ used to take only weeks for an approval (or lack thereof), whereas Google could take a lot longer. DMOZ listings are also a powerful force in the world of expired domain traffic. Our company has always preferred to acquire an expired domain that has a DMOZ listing rather than one that has not. Sites with DMOZ listings have that bit extra and it has been proved time and again that expired domains maintaining such listings provide traffic flow far superior than those that do not. DMOZ became a favorite backdoor entry to Google's index and rankings in the worlds biggest search entity could be greatly increased by a placement in the fabled halls of the open directory.
The Open Directory Project's main strengths, however, seems to be turning into its main shortcoming and its greatest weakness. DMOZ has always been run by volunteer human editors ensuring that listings remain high quality. However, this fact is fast becoming DMOZs downfall most notably in the last 6 months. However, before we go in deeper and talk about DMOZs whys and wherefores, let's first look at how the famous - or infamous (whatever side you're on) - DMOZ came about.
DMOZ: From Swaddling to Beast
The DMOZ Dinosaur came from quite humble yet undeniably ingenious beginnings. It first came to be in the year 1998 and was a brainchild of Engineers Rich Skrenta and partner Bob Truel. At the beginning, the baby dinosaur was called Gnuhoo directory or simply Gnuhoo.
The Gnuhoo directory had a rough time of it when it first started. Name issues kept getting raised. First, GNU complained about the first three letters in the directory's name. Gnuhoo became NewHoo to appease GNU, but Yahoo began to make its objections known, too, about the use of the similar three syllables at the end of the name.
Netscape took Gnuhoo or NewHoo under its wing and named it ZURL. Afterwards, it became the Open Directory Project (ODP). Then Netscape became a subsidiary of AOL which later became part of the Time Warner Corporation. ODP came with every change of hands.
The whole transition from Gnuhoo to ODP and from founders to AOL took barely a year. It seems that this directory project has had a truly choppy beginning. However, it seems that the Open Directory Project took off rather beautifully. From its humble and rough origins, it became one of the foremost URL indexers in the whole of the World Wide Web. From its inception in 1998 to 2006, it became one of the biggest and the most trusted directories of trusty and legitimate web sites.
The Dinosaur's Decline
October 2006 was a bad month for the DMOZ Dinosaur. At this time, the Open Directory Project suffered a major setback when its main server failed. The problem persisted for three months and in that period, no new web sites were accepted, assessed and indexed. Every ODP activity was frozen until the system recovered in January of this year. At that time the return of the directory's functional form seemed a blessing. Some people, however, thought that DMOZ was on a self-destructive path and the standoff caused by the server catastrophe just gave people time to air their grievances against ODP.
Not soon after, new issues not at all related to the system failure began making the forum rounds. Apparently, some people's patience had begun to run out with the whole Open Directory Project. People stopped keeping a lid on their grumbles against DMOZ, especially against its editors.
First on the list of complaints is the directory's declining efficiency in approving websites. Apparently, there were websites that had to wait years before they got listed. When DMOZ was first established listing could take a matter of a few weeks. Over time as DMOZ popularity grew so did listing times.
The main reason for this, it seems, is the lack of editors in the network. It became known that some categories inside DMOZ did not even have any editors. In other categories editors became inactive and the backlog of submissions just continued to mount up. However, instead of eliciting sympathy for DMOZs obviously understaffed condition, DMOZ began taking more flak when people started saying that the reason DMOZ is so lacking in editors - which leads to some categories not having editors at all for a great length of time - is the fact that the powers that be at DMOZ are reluctant to admit new editors to their ranks. At least this is the popular explanation, for how else does one explain the rejection of obviously capable editor candidates including myself all those years back :-)
There's supposedly another reason for DMOZs inefficiency. According to the masses pointing fingers at the ODP, some editors' heads have become too big for their body. These rumors are also backed up from some DMOZ editors themselves. Allegedly, some editors have become too lazy to do their jobs properly. More serious allegations joined the fray. It became said that editors have become petty and have started declining the applications for DMOZ listing for no valid reason. Other claims of corruption in the ranks and paid listings became widespread. This began another round of rumors that said editors have turned dictatorial in their approval to protect their own interests; that is, if an editor perceives a site to be his competition, that web site isn't going to get approved at all, and there'll be no explanations given for the rejection.
From this vantage point, the DMOZs future looks dim indeed.
DMOZ: Decaying and Useless?
DMOZ started out to be the most democratic open directory in the web. Due to its usability and authority it became a good friend over the years. However, it is now being touted as dictatorial, biased and inefficient. At this point, inner bickering within DMOZs ranks and continued heat from the internet citizenry have continued to weaken DMOZs position and influence. In fact, Google has begun to disassociate itself from the Open Directory Project. Nothing can be more symbolic than Google's relegation of the directory from a prominent position in Google's site to a position reserved for ordinary 'worth checking but not really that important' type of site.
Since the clamor of discontent has reached such a high pitch and DMOZs staunchest ally - Google, has begun to keep its distance, DMOZ is like a decaying dinosaur that other animals are steering clear of it to avoid the vultures that are expected to feast on the beast when it dies. The death toll has been sounded for DMOZ. This begs the question, how can it remain useful when people no longer trust its human editors?
Money makes the world go round they say. In 2007 it is also true that money makes the world wide web go round. In a world where online businesses can sell for a billion dollars the original lure of DMOZ for both webmasters and editors is waning. Today, DMOZ is still being used when web masters want their web sites listed. However, people no longer attribute much importance to it. Out of habit I still begin any website promotion campaign by submitting to DMOZ. However, I hold it in the same category as getting a lucky dip on the national lottery once a week. That pretty much sums up my and a million other people's sentiments about the current status and usefulness of this Open Directory Project.
DMOZ has had such a colorful and powerful beginning and life. However, the ideal around which it has been built has long since died. The future of DMOZ seems bleak and its reputation is severely tarnished. Sweeping changes and reform are required for the open directory project to change from a dinosaur into a viable force in the world wide web of today.
Quick Link
Traffic Booster Ebook