Did Google's Success Overwhelm DMOZ?

With the recent closing of the Open Directory Project's Status Check Forum, search engine experts like Danny Sullivan have suggested that perhaps it's time to change their name to the Closed Directory Project.

Transparency issues aside, the ODP (aka DMOZ) has gone through some rocky times, ironically its fate tied to Google's decision in 2000 to mirror the ODP's content on their directory.google.com subdomain.

Initially the Google version of the directory was the only way to view PageRank ™, until the introduction of the Google ToolBar a year later in 2001.

Part of the benefit of having a site listed in DMOZ was, plain and simple, the dozens of mirror sites across the web, including Google's own version, which sent inbound links to listed sites. In the quest for better rankings, a DMOZ listing was a definite edge.

However, as more and more promoters got wind of Google's achille's heel, things got out of hand. In what could be considered a 5 year long "slashdotting", DMOZ was flooded with Google-powered submissions, and both legitimate and "overly commercial" sites jammed the submission cues. In today's DMOZ, waits of 18-24 months from submission to listing are not uncommon in some cats, and unfortunately, "never listed" is more the rule than the exception.

In part, these enormous backlogs, and the flood of "low quality" submissions is Google's fault. It was Google that emphasized the importance of DMOZ by making a mirror of the directory; it was Google that put a link to the directory above their search box, it was Google that added the Directory icon to their Toolbar advanced features options, it was Google that used ODP editor descriptions of sites in their search results.

It only goes to follow that search engine promoters would notice this and do their best to get their sites listed, by hook or by crook. Although listing criteria have become increasingly strict, and rumors of corruption at DMOZ are rampant, the problems continue to grow.

This has led to, in my opinion, to Google's gradual de-emphasis of the ODP on their site.

Last year, the directory search was relegated to the ignoble more >> tab. Google stopped using DMOZ editor's descriptions for sites in favor of the "ransom note" snippets, and the new Google 3.0 Toolbar doesn't have the directory icon as an option.

DMOZ detractors rejoiced on forums like webmaster world, "Google hates the ODP now!", they said with tears of joy in their eyes.

However, I believe this was a doubleblind bluff by Google.

They've diminished the public visibility of the ODP on their site, and by doing so, made an attempt to relieve some of the enormous pressure created on the Open Directory Project, yet at the same time they remain vitally dependent on the human edited results as a vital crosscheck of the quality of their own algorithmically generated results. Google cannot afford to ignore the valuable data that can be mined from a gargantuan directory that quickly outpaced Yahoo's directory, which had a 5 year head start.

Recently, in order to combat the "scraper site" phenomenon, Google has returned to using DMOZ descriptions in their SERPs again, probably because the DMOZ descriptions have a less keyword-laden snippets than Google's machine generated "ransom notes" do.

It is unfortunate that the minimal transparency afforded to DMOZ through Resource-Zone's site status forum is gone. In my opinion DMOZ remains a vital component in the success of a "white hat" site. This is not to say a site cannot make it without a listing, of course it can, but a DMOZ listing is a giant shortcut.

There is only one productive approach when attempting to get a DMOZ listing.

1) Carefully make sure that your site complies with all editorial guidelines.

2) Carefully choose the most appropriate category for your site, and submit a concise, accurate description.

3) Click submit, and never think about it again. If you get in, your in, if not, there are plenty of other places to get links from.