I Proclaim 2008 The Year Google Puts An End To DMOZ

I'm very disappointed with Google, because they are still giving the Open Directory Project (DMOZ) influence in their results. As to why Google still keeps DMOZ around is a mystery to me. Perhaps it is a case of Google wanting to acknowledge the olden days when DMOZ was helping Google with results? Whatever the reason, the fact is DMOZ is out of date and corrupt and Google is still endorsing DMOZ as a legitimate place to pull results from. Even stranger is the fact that: some of you, me, DMOZ and Google know DMOZ is out of date and corrupt; but Google is still using DMOZ as a source for results -it just does not make sense.

How do I know Google knows DMOZ is out of date? The fact is, Google has recently implemented and is now supporting the NOODP tag. The job of this tag is to give website owners and web-masters the ability to tell Google-bot to disregard any DMOZ descriptions. The tag was implemented after owners and web-masters repeatedly tried to get their DMOZ descriptions updated, but were never able to get an editor to implement a change. So as an alternative solution, webmasters suggest Google support the NOODP tag as a way to override the DMOZ description. Google agreed, and now Google is supporting the NOODP tag. As such, this is proof that Google knows and believes DMOZ is out of date. So why is Google still using DMOZ?

To help answer this question, I will quote Matt Cutts (head of Google's Webspam team) from an interview he did in June 27, 2007, he said, "For all its faults, DMOZ is a huge resource of human signals about websites..." Matt continues to say, "... and Google used to use it more prominently." Ok fine, Google has taken some action and lowered some influence DMOZ has in Google results. But am I the only one who thinks it is time to really evaluate DMOZ for ANY usefulness? Beside being out of date the majority of DMOZ editors are corrupt. Yes: some of you, me, DMOZ and Google know it. True, at one time DMOZ was a relevant human edited directory with value on reading human signals. However, this was a time when the majority of editors were honest, filling the directory with good results. Unfortunately, the years of corruption have taken its toll on the directory and any steps taken by DMOZ to fix past abuse will only amount to, "too little, too late."

While I applaud DMOZ efforts to restore the directory to the golden days, the problems associated with DMOZ will never go away. I believe the directory can never be restored to a stature of relevance and Google just needs cut its looses and stop enabling the DMOZ project. Importantly, the corruption and out of date issues are only going to get worst for DMOZ. This is due to the fact that the internet and Google are only getting bigger. Thus, I believe the eventual collapse of DMOZ will be a good thing. I know this sounds harsh, but any influence DMOZ may whiled is too much. It is not like before, when the human element was what attracted Google to the directory. No, those days are gone. When DMOZ began it was at a time when the internet was young and Google's algorithms were only starting to make substantial headway. While this was occurring Google was using DMOZ as a source for search results and the human element (corruption) was not yet a problem; however, this is not the case today. The reality is, Google's algorithm has became better, while DMOZ has become worse. In the case of DMOZ, the human element made them great, but eventually it will destroy them.

An interesting question is, how did this corruption occur? The answer is, as it became known to webmasters that a listing in the DMOZ was a good way to get in Google, the editors began to see the power and influence they held. Back then getting into DMOZ was huge and any webmaster wanting to get good ranking in Google knew they needed to get their site submitted and approved by the category editor. Thus, over time these volunteer editors turned corrupt, pompous and greedy, leading to the modern DMOZ that we know today; that is, a directory that is dominated by editors that put their personal agenda ahead of the DMOZ agenda. And by Matt Cutt's own admission, a better than nothing directory ...which I think he needs to reconsider. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule and many of the editors that volunteer for DMOZ are dedicated to trying to bring back DMOZ directory to a better time -Ya right, good luck to that.

Since Google is using a NODMOZ tag and DMOZ is in what appears to be a hopeless effort to reestablish the directory, it is shocking that Google still has not let DMOZ go to the wayside. In an obvious ongoing battle to stop editor corruption and Google's own acknowledgment that DMOZ is sorely out of date, is the only reason why is DMOZ still has influence in Google is because it is better than nothing? Now some of you may be saying, "Maybe Google has eliminated DMOZs influence along with the implementation of the NOODP tag. Or maybe this is the first step to Google's eventual shake-off of DMOZ." Well I hope this is the case, but I don't think Google has any plans to do-away with DMOZ. To support this, I look to the very fact Google is using a NOODP tag instead of just eliminating any affiliation with DMOZ. Another fact that has lead me to believe Google is continuing an affair with DMOZ can be found in the Google "Webmaster Guidelines". Specifically, if you look under, "When your site is ready:", the last bullet point says, "Submit your site to relevant directories such as the Open Directory Project and Yahoo!, as well as to other industry-specific expert sites."; and those two facts are enough to make me question Googles motives.

What I want to make clear about the Google Webmaster Guide reference is, my concern is not only that Google mentions DMOZ as an example of a "relevant directory". Moreover, my point is when the facts are taken together: the very need for a tag instead of just doing away with DMOZ, Matt Cutt's better than nothing argument, and the webmaster guide still referencing DMOZ, it seems obvious Google still feels DMOZ has some usefulness in determining Google results. My question to Google is WHY? What am I missing? I'm sure many of you will tell me the error of my thinking, and I welcome your critic, but those are the reasons why I proclaim Google makes 2008 the year they finally put an end to DMOZ.

Website Design
website design and graphic design services