Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals
Blog Categories (aka Tags) Archive of Traffick Articles Our Internet Marketing Consulting Services Contact the Traffickers Traffick RSS Feed

HOME » TRAFFICK ARTICLES » ARTICLE

Why the Open Directory isn't Open

By Andrew Goodman, 3/30/2000

[Warning: this article contains links to adult content.]


The Open Directory is fast challenging Looksmart and Yahoo as one of the most
important means of searching for web content by category. Consequently, it has
become a vital part of the economy of site management. Webmasters and companies
ignore the Open Directory at their peril.


In what way is dmoz open?

What is it? And why is it said to be "Open?"


Since it was acquired by Netscape, The Open Directory has also been known as
dmoz. The name "dmoz" is a combination of "directory" and "mozilla" - mozilla
being a code name long associated with the Netscape browser. It's not a stretch
to see why Netscape employees, noted to be above average in the idealism department,
might embrace the Open Directory Project.


Before being acquired by Netscape, the directory was called Newhoo. It was founded
out of frustration with the limitations of Yahoo. Yahoo, the leading web directory
with a paid staff of category editors and surfers, was seen as remote and distant
and overwhelmed by the growth of good web sites. As a result, many good sites
were having trouble getting listed, and link rot, went the legend, was setting
in. Newhoo would leverage the community spirit of the global Internet community:
volunteer editors would manage categories. As the web grew, so would this organization.


And grow it has. Today, this Netscape-owned directory has 1,547,388 sites in
its database, edited by 22,763 editors who maintain 234,846 categories. Little
wonder that this gang is being referred to, on the dmoz home page, as an "army"
of volunteers. An army?


When one scrutinizes the situation, one notices that this project has adopted
almost every possible flavor of feel-good terminology. The "project" is "open."
It's staffed by a "volunteer" group of editors. The main dmoz site adopted a .org
domain, conjuring up an association with the realm of not-for-profit organizations.
(Dmoz.com also works.)


Self-aggrandizing rhetoric... vs. reality

When they're not calling themselves an army, dmoz is also referred to as a self-organizing
global network of "net-citizens." As if this weren't enough, we're told that it's
also a "self-regulating republic" where you can "make a difference." And just
in case we're thinking they may be robots or monsters, we are reminded that this
is the largest "human-edited" directory of the web. Largest! Right on! Human!
Better than monsters or robots!


Perhaps a good reason for calling the directory open is that it's made freely
available
 to any web site or portal which seeks to offer a categorized
directory of web content on its own site. In the world outside of the dmoz republic,
this is commonly referred to as co-branding.


This giveaway model didn't hurt the popularity of the directory, clearly. Many
companies large and small subsequently took advantage of the opportunity to add
a directory to their own search offerings without paying a dime. Indeed, Hotbot,
Lycos, AOL, and dozens of other search sites and giant net companies have adopted
this as their underlying directory. Well, why not? They can't use Yahoo, they
don't care to build their own, and Looksmart costs money. Some companies have
adopted a hybrid approach. Go2Net uses both dmoz and Looksmart in different ways.
Excite, bless them, have their own directory which presumably came about as a
result of their doing the respectable thing and acquiring Magellan.


But let's examine even this form of relative openness before turning to the key
reasons why the Open Directory really isn't open.


Giving away a product for free is arguably just a marketing and distribution
model. The Netscape browser itself was a groundbreaking example of this. By making
something ubiquitous by not charging for it, Netscape gained a position of functional
importance in the wired economy. They had the eyeballs. Eyeballs, Internet analysts
now believe, can eventually be turned into profits, or at least revenues.


Hotmail did a similar thing, giving away its web-based e-mail tool for free.
In that case, advertising taglines in every Hotmail message led to what came to
be called "viral" growth and again, a huge market advantage. Since then, it's
hard to find a company which doesn't use some form of "free" or "open" shortcut
to getting big fast on the Internet. Isn't that really what "NewHoo," dmoz, and
the Open Directory "Project" are all about? Major portals and small webmasters
alike are acting as an "army" (if I may borrow a term) of distributors for dmoz.


Dear AOL: Is this the kind of "openness" you wanted?

AOL, as mentioned, uses a version the Open Directory to add "category search"
to its search offerings at AOL.com. It's soon going to come under fire from some
customers who trust AOL to keep their kids safe from pornography, however. An
Open Directory category for "Adult Image Galleries," including "fetishes" and
even "teens," is easily accessible on the AOL.com site.


You can access it here:


href="http://www.dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/">http://www.dmoz.org/Adult/Image_Galleries/


or more to the point, here: href="http://search.aol.com/cat.adp?id=532">http://search.aol.com/cat.adp?id=532


Right below the various sub-categories under "teens," including "oral" and "lesbian
teens," I was awed to find additional search options in general for the AOL.com
site: "Also Search In:  Web Articles - Personal Home Pages - Downloads -
Encyclopedias - Newsgroups - Health - Kids Only"!!!


I'm not much into censorship, but I admit I was bemused to see the AOL.com logo
hovering above so much controversial smut, followed by a link to something called
"Kids Only." I don't imagine this will stand for long, even though, in reality,
you can't easily find this stuff on the ODP unless you go looking for it. It's
just that companies like AOL have to grapple between the stuffy public image they
try to uphold and the reality that a lot of what people use them for isn't consistent
with that image.


So much for openness. Here are some reasons why the Open Directory is anything
but open.


Open? Hardly.

Open Directory Category Editors are volunteers -- indeed, an army or self-governing
republic of net-citizens -- but their numbers are, nonetheless, finite. It's not
open to all comers. A recent scathing commentary by one disgruntled ex-editor
described the army of editors as "as a horrible mix of corrupt generals and untrained
privates," since "there are only two kinds of 'guide' volunteer: The passionate,
often self-interested, 'subject spammer' and the virtuously motivated, but web-ignorant,
'want-to-belonger'."


That just about says it all, but let's examine some more considerations on this
issue of openness at a volunteer-edited directory:



  • Lack of representativeness and lack of transparency. Unlike
    the federal bureaucracy in a democratic nation, you don't precisely know what
    the criteria for acceptance are. Criteria for progress through the ranks is
    similarly unknown. The Open Directory's procedures for accepting new editors
    or accepting site submissions are no more open or transparent than they are
    at private companies like Yahoo or Looksmart.



  • Incentive for corruption and excessive categorization of low-quality
    sites.
    Yahoo and Looksmart (presumably "closed shops") have employees
    performing similar functions to the Open Directory Category Editors. Think about
    this. Looking at it from the point of view of organizational sociology
    (yes, I must), the underlying reality is that these three are all organizations
    with rules and structures whose main output is the opinionated categorization,
    and importantly, rejection, of a vast number of submissions of web sites and
    Internet content. The key difference seems to be that dmoz category editors
    aren't paid. What is the likely result of this? Think about the analogy of a
    country whose bureaucrats are poorly compensated. Any textbook can give you
    examples. All moralizing aside, extremely low pay creates an incentive for the
    postal inspector or the traffic cop to engage in petty forms of corruption.
    What's my city health inspector's incentive to REALLY crack down on all the
    bug-infested restaurants downtown? And what might motivate a dmoz category editor
    to prevent their buddies' lower quality sites from getting one or even several
    listings? And are they likely to think about the whole mess all fits together,
    or is that someone else's problem? In fact, there are considerable incentives
    in volunteer directories to pump up one's numbers of site submissions,
    since that is the key criterion for advancement through the ranks. The web's
    best resources, therefore, are impossible to find, buried under a mountain of
    minutiae.



  • The "open" directory is owned by a $300 billion company. Most
    importantly -- and I hate to bring this to the attention of the self-governing
    republic of dmoz -- the relatively benevolent overseer of its operations, Netscape,
    was acquired by AOL, which recently merged with Time Warner, creating a $300
    billion behemoth. To repeat: the Open Directory Project is owned by AOL Time
    Warner. The "project" now has marketing executives assigned to it, though you
    won't see that openly admitted on the "About us" page. AOL Time Warner: a bastion
    of openness? Quite the opposite. AOL loves to be proprietary. It dislikes the
    "open" Internet, but just now it probably wants as much PR as it can get which
    juxtaposes the word "open" with "AOL." This could help a lot in smoothing things
    by the regulators. Fair enough. But when that's all done with, AOL, how about
    some truth in advertising?

    Andrew Goodman is Editor-in-Chief of Traffick.com and principal of Page Zero Media, a Toronto-based consulting firm which focuses on search engine optimization and related marketing services. To stay in touch with search engine and portal trends, be sure to sign up for Andrew's Traffick Monthly email newsletter.  

 

Speaking Engagement

See Andrew Goodman speak at ClickZ Live New York

Need Solid Advice?        

Google AdWords book


Andrew's book, Winning Results With Google AdWords, (McGraw-Hill, 2nd ed.), is still helping tens of thousands of advertisers cut through the noise and set a solid course for campaign ROI.

And for a glowing review of the pioneering 1st ed. of the book, check out this review, by none other than Google's Matt Cutts.


Posts from 2002 to 2010


07/2002
08/2002
09/2002
10/2002
11/2002
12/2002
01/2003
02/2003
03/2003
04/2003
05/2003
06/2003
07/2003
08/2003
09/2003
10/2003
11/2003
12/2003
01/2004
02/2004
03/2004
04/2004
05/2004
06/2004
07/2004
08/2004
09/2004
10/2004
11/2004
12/2004
01/2005
02/2005
03/2005
04/2005
05/2005
06/2005
07/2005
08/2005
09/2005
10/2005
11/2005
12/2005
01/2006
02/2006
03/2006
04/2006
05/2006
06/2006
07/2006
08/2006
09/2006
10/2006
11/2006
12/2006
01/2007
02/2007
03/2007
04/2007
05/2007
06/2007
07/2007
08/2007
09/2007
10/2007
11/2007
12/2007
01/2008
02/2008
03/2008
04/2008
05/2008
06/2008
07/2008
08/2008
09/2008
10/2008
11/2008
12/2008
01/2009
02/2009
03/2009
04/2009
05/2009
06/2009
07/2009
08/2009
09/2009
10/2009
11/2009
12/2009
01/2010
02/2010
03/2010
04/2010

 


Traffick - The Business of Search Engines & Web Portals

 


Home | Categories | Archive | About Us | Internet Marketing Consulting | Contact Us
© 1999 - 2013 Traffick.com. All Rights Reserved