5 major flaws of DMOZ May 18, 2009

There has been a lot of talk the past 12 months about what is so wrong with DMOZ. I have tried to list 5 of the main reasons I believe are causing DMOZ to become a thing of the past and offering some thoughts on how to take things forward and regain popularity:

  1. AOL has have heartedly sponsored DMOZ. After the downtime fiasco they have provided very little for design and development infrastructure. DMOZ is too dependant on AOL and one of the focal points would be to raise revenue from alternative sources.
  2. Quality control is difficult for top level editors. Sites are placed in generic categories that are not in line with their standing in their field, from an internet popularity perspective.
  3. There is still minimal communication between the editors, the users and the website owners. DMOZ needs all. In the submission process there is no feedback as to why a site has been accepted or rejected. This causes website owners confusion and negative sentiment towards the editors.
  4. The acceptance rate for new applicants is below 10%, meaning that there are too few positions being filled so most categories remain empty. From the categories actively looked after, few editors are very active. More applicants accepted, more quality control over their initial activity, which again in term means more mid level editors.
  5. It is too difficult for low-level editors to take on more responsibility over more categories, as most internal applications are also rejected. The application and acceptance process would need to be re-evaluated and changed to adapt into a more flexible model.

Hope to see DMOZ rising up the ranks again.

Interested? Call us now on 0203 397 3735

1 Response to 5 major flaws of DMOZ

  • Couldn't agree more. What's particularly galling for those submitting websites (beyond the fact that no feedback is offered and in fact if you resubmit the editors tell you you will be penalised)is that Google places importance on DMOZ listings, and that other engines use it as a primary source.DMOZ editors argue that they're performing a fair service, but because not every category is edited, and because editors can pick and choose which sites to list with no accountability whatsoever, perfectly valid websites are overlooked, business websites owners are suffering.

    Anthony Hewson

    9 September 2009 at 22:40