This article by Phil Craven of WebWorkshop outlines the history of ODP and discusses some of the reasons why it fails to fulfill its originating concepts.
The following is a copy of his article:
The original concept of DMOZ was excellent for its time. The DMOZ site's "About" page makes these statements about the concept, and about the reasons for the directory's creation:-
"Automated search engines are increasingly unable to turn up useful results to search queries. The small paid editorial staffs at commercial directory sites can't keep up with submissions, and the quality and comprehensiveness of their directories has suffered. Link rot is setting in and they can't keep pace with the growth of the Internet."
"The Open Directory follows in the footsteps of some of the most important editor/contributor projects of the 20th century. Just as the Oxford English Dictionary became the definitive word on words through the efforts of volunteers, the Open Directory follows in its footsteps to become the definitive catalog of the Web."
But things have changed a lot since DMOZ began in the mid 1990s. Since then, Google came along with very relevant search results, and they were kind enough to show the other engines how to produce such relevant results. That caused dramatic improvements, to the extent that top search engines have been able to provide very relevant search results for some time, and they provide a lot more of them than DMOZ is able to do.
The small paid editorial staffs at commercial directory sites still can't keep up with submissions, but their backlogs are small when compared with DMOZ's massive backlog. According to reports, there are over a million site submissions that are waiting to be reviewed, and delays of several years between submitting a site and it being reviewed are not uncommon. The backlog problem is so huge that many editors have redefined the problem so that it no longer exists. To them there is no backlog, because the submitted sites are not there to be reviewed. They are merely a low priority pool of sites that they can dip into if they want to, and some of them prefer to find sites on their own.
Link rot (dead links) has become widespread in DMOZ through the years, and they certainly can't "keep pace with the growth of the Web". There isn't a single reason for the creation of DMOZ that DMOZ itself doesn't now suffer from.
So how come such an excellent original concept ended up with a directory that has the same problems that it sought to solve, and on a much larger scale?
One reason is that the Web has grown at a much faster pace than was perhaps anticipated, and the DMOZ editors simply can't keep up. Another reason is that there are simply not enough editors who are adding sites to the directory. At the time of writing, the DMOZ front page boasts 69,412 editors, but that is the number of editors that they've had since the beginning, and most of them are no longer there. A recent report stated that there are currently about 10,000 editors who are able to edit, and that only around 3,000 of those are active in building the directory. The word "active" is used to describe editors who actually edit quite often, but as little as one edit every few months is acceptable. The word doesn't mean "busy", although some of them are.
With so few people doing anything, it isn't even possible for them to keep up with the link rot in such a huge directory, and there's the ever increasing problem of listings that link to topics other than what they were listed for. It simply isn't possible for them to maintain the directory as they would like.
The idea of becoming "the definitive catalog of the Web" was a fine one, but it turned out to be an impossible dream. The purpose of DMOZ is dead. Today's search engines produce excellent results in large quantities, and much more quickly than drilling down into a directory to find something.
So is there any value at all in the DMOZ directory? As a useful catalog of the Web, and when compared with the major search engines, the answer is no, although a few people do find it to be a useful research resource. For website owners, the links to their websites that a listing in DMOZ creates are useful for search engine ranking purposes, but even those are becoming less useful as search engines improve, and seek to block out unwanted duplicate content from their indexes.
It was a fine concept, and it looked promising for a while, but the idea of DMOZ becoming the definitive catalog of the Web is gone. Improvements in the search engines eclipsed its value, and the growth rate of the Web meant that it could never achieve its goal. It began with an excellent concept, and they gave it a good shot, but it didn't work. The continuing growth rate of the Web ensures that it can never work. It continues as a good directory of a large number of web sites, but that is all. And not many people use directories when the search engines produce such good results, and so quickly.
DMOZ - a.k.a. The Open Directory Project (ODP) | 7 comments | Sign Up
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for the content. Only registered members may comment on articles.
Nice Try
Written on 09/18/05 at 06:28:19 GMT by N
But no cigar. This was uncovered and written about up to 5 years ago. Unfortunately when I wrote about this it was mostly ignored due to the fact that SEO was still in love with them.
The ODP aka DMOZ is a spent spam harlot that has been worn out by her spamming suitors BTW, she was built was built and pimped out by spammers for spammers.
As for Phil, why write about this 5 years later and not 5 years ago.
Lastly, it was the original posting of this information 5 years ago that led to the launch of WiKiPedia, SiteLibrary, and now The Open Grid http://www.opengrid.org
Actually....
Written on 09/21/05 at 02:53:30 GMT by CrystalZ
This article did NOT lead to the launch of our site.
What pushed us to open this site is experiences at various places Jos and I have edited at. Not the really large backlog at DMOZ or the fact that search engines are supposably giving better results etc etc. Sure 5 years ago they were but now? They are sliding back down to the pointless-area that they were before due to SEO spam being located at the top of search results.
Again...in NO way whatsoever did that article (which I just read for the first time yesterday BTW) lead to us opening this site. Just thought I'd make that clear.
Not The Article
Written on 09/26/05 at 00:41:45 GMT by N
CrystalZ, not the article, but rather the information that was available 5 years ago which the article is based upon and other issues that the article did not expand upon.
N
Still...
Written on 09/26/05 at 04:16:17 GMT by CrystalZ
Please do not link this site to that article via unmentioned things. They didn't talk about the reasons we opened this directory in that article so why link us to the article? Comparing that article, or anything similar to that article, to this site and the reasons we opened it are like comparing apples and monkeys. Two totally different topics.
Apples and Monkeys?
Written on 09/26/05 at 05:03:44 GMT by Jos
LOL interesting comparison. The only relation I see is that my experiences at ODP partly contributed to my wishing to have a better system. I never read the article 5 years ago. I worked at ODP beginning in 2001, for a little over a year. Possibly Nick may have read my partial writeup of the experience or some of my rantings at XODP after I was fortunate enough to find that place and others who ate it at the ODP. But among all the places Crystal has edited, I don't remember ODP as being one. She and I started SiteLibrary together by our lonesomes after working together as GoGuides "guides", near the time when that place fell apart due to internal strife. Perhaps we knew too much.
Monkeys and Bannas Then :)
Written on 09/26/05 at 06:57:23 GMT by N
Crystal, as you wish. The issuses discussed in the article and the experience Jos and other editors went thru at ODP have absolutely no connection to this site
The point I was *trying* to make was that the article is based upon antiquated information from 5 years ago which was uncovered by me and other former editors.
As is such that information did lead to many directories being introduced as an alternative and at the same time many an editor joined those directories as an alternative to the ODP.
Out of curiosity what was the basis for forming this directory? (runs from apples lol )
N
...
Written on 09/26/05 at 07:25:30 GMT by CrystalZ
Long story made short. Myself and Jos each had some not so good experiences at several other directories (the only one we edited at that was the same was GoGuides) that made us decide that we could do it better than them. Maybe not in terms of backlog (cause that is pretty much only going to get bigger) but overall, in terms of commradre between higher level editors and lower ones, etc etc.
This site was made with WebAPP Web Automated Perl Portal systemv0.9.9.9 RC4 , a web portal system written in Perl.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster.
1100 reads
BTW, she was built was built and pimped out by spammers for spammers. 
