By exODP on Sunday, August 19, 2001 - 03:26 am:

Older stuff from old board. I tried posting this at webMASTERworld and the brave dumbozers killed it in a matter of hours. Makes you proud to be an American. The Open Directory Project needs a name change. Consistent with its ownership perhaps AODP (America On-line Directory Project) would be more accurate and appropriate. Shortly after my first contact with the private (closed to non-members) club I saw an ironic deception in the use of this word "open." Members seem particularly obsessed with good grammar and spelling, yet they routinely accept bending word meanings into unrecognize-ablity to contrive a category or to perpetuate the myth that they aren't a closed society with all the negative attributes those words imply. From its closed message boards, through its lynch mob court, to its inaccessible and unaccountable management. The ODP is the personification of a closed society. Worse of all it has the typical, petty, "closed mind" that makes it incapable of tolerating let alone thoughtfully considering criticism or suggestion. I have in the past suggested to ODP members that they start working in the day light and find a way to embrace simple ethical concepts like free speech and due process-- or they will continue to earn comparison to an organized crime family. Why I thought mobsters would care, I can't explain beyond believing that they all can't be small-minded thugs. I think now the hope for successful change from with-in is lost. If the ODP is to be made better it must be forced to compete with something better. I think my "whatis" proposal (recently published at webrefrence.com) would provide that better competition. For those of you who cling to the misconception that the ODP is satisfactorily fofilling the reponsablitys of the power it possess. I would like to offer this elaboration on the ODP example I used in my article. Quote: ...Makes it virtually impossible to find all websites fitting a particular "class", Like-- all sites relevant to a region or a particular subject. (The typical spam-ectory category is as incomplete and incoherent as this ODP example)... I had thought referencing this category in my article would have motivated an ODP member to do something about it. Yet a week later it remains a pathetic example of AODP incompetence (in case they have gotten their act together by the time you read this here is a copy of the category as it existed.) What category should be of more interest to people who have taken on the responsibility of web indexing than this one? Yet of the claimed thousands upon thousands (more disregard for word meanings and the truth.) of professional, quality, editors at ODP-- I am to believe none saw anything horribly wrong with this credibility defining category? 4 for 13 might make it in baseball, but In web indexing it's hardly what we should accept from "better humans." Than there is the fact that of the only 4 site listed that can be reasonably described as "Discussion" sites (and not commentary or reference material) all just happen to be strongly affiliated with ODP members. This isn't minor, defensible or acceptable oversight it is clear evidence that the AO-Deception-P isn't about anything but fooling us all into thinking "someone" is taking better web navigation seriously.

By OD-PU on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 07:43 pm:

The fact that the “O”minous “D”irectory “P”roject is a closed spam-rectory maintained to serve the narrow interests of its insiders and not the public interest is becoming more and more apparent. A year ago no ODP defender would admit that a site submission might languish for a year or two before review. Today such admissions have become rather routine. What hasn’t changed is the absence of any reasonable justification to refute the reasonable conclusion that the “project” is in practical fact closed. As week excuse cult members offer the mush that they have too few editors or that their “high” standard of editor review is time intensive. This BS might fool the really big fools --but until they quit openly lying about how many working editors are maintaining the directory all us lesser fools will not be fooled. The fact that they see reason to keep factual, current information regarding the size, and growth of the editor army “private” points clearly to a private agenda. Maybe if they let it be known that most ODP categories have no editor more people might feel a responsibility to volunteer-- One can only assume they for some “private” reason do not what that to happen. As for the laughable high standards you will find no evidence of them in 99.9% of ODP categories. What you will find is an abundance of dead or uselessly dated links and a strangely inconsistent rating “system” where sites are listed based on the irrelevancy of alphabetical order with the strange exception of a few uncooled, ungood sites that “for some reason” get elevated rank. As example lets look at this relatively important category www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Searching Notice the brilliant category structure. Search engine chat--Who but a dumbozer? Strange how they felt the need to use a dumboz word like “comparison” in place of something more descriptive like “analysis” yet they follow it with this bit of uncommon language “Integrated Search Pages “ ? Looking at the comparison (analysis) category: dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Searching Here we learn the dumboz rule “friend “E” before “B” as long as no one Cs you do it.” Are we to believe that the subject “expert” editing this category just accidentally listed a few sites out of alphabetical order, or just accidentally didn’t think to elevate the rank of the “best of category” site Search Engine Watch . Lets not even bother to count how many browser windows “pop-up” if you foolishly visit the useless top 4 sites. Like most ODP categories this category hasn’t received 10 mins. attention from anything that could be considered an honest “better human” and that’s the way they want it to remain.

By ayearolder on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 - 12:42 am:

Well it only took a year but the ODP has finally indexed my Search-opoly game. So now that the game is actually getting some traffic I guess I have to update it-- too bad so much time has passed from when I submitted it for indexing, that I probably wont be able to remember how to read my own programming code. The fact that it took a year to get a site indexed in what was a completely empty category is in a word, ridiculous...But this is an internet by the spammers, for the spammers so why should I or anyone else expect anything better.

By Gunpointed Athead on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 - 01:29 pm:

I was watching CNBC this morning and saw a discussion between the regular greed mongers that with ENRON-ick clarity illustrates why the internet is this broken. As is too often the case, “the brain” and company decided to discuss the stock price of a company for which they couldn’t care to take 5 minutes to research. The company was Overture (GOTO.com). The “conversation” started with something like “So what, people pay these guys to get into some index or something” As the camera pans the vacant blank faces of the rest of the commentators-- I realized how truly hopeless things have become. If big media, business information providers, aren’t required by job description, or their own curiosity, to understand the very basics of how internet navigation has been structured, what hope is there that the general public will ever be given a clue. One nation, for exploitonists, by the corrupt.

By SomeLinks on Friday, February 15, 2002 - 03:11 pm:

I was doing some looking around for some non-SEO (search engine opportunist), sites relevant to “internet navigation” and found this interesting “Information Pollution” article. If the “mapping industry” is not soon obligated to comply with some standards that will insure integrity, web serf-ers will be doomed to remain lost forever in a sea of marketing mush. This SearchDay link to an article that asks the question “Is Pay for Placement Ethical?” is a must read. For those interested in “Internet Infrastructure” this Blog has good ICANN coverage.

By NoDealZeal on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 02:47 pm:

This week zeal was a stop on my relentless journey to find a web community (or even just a site) that promotes and defends the web using publics right to a free, open and a logically “honestly” navigateable internet. Like the ODP, Zeal is an internet mirage that gives no substance for the hope and energy it steels. Built out of BS, by the same BS’ers that daily fool the internet “sucker” public at the ODP, Zeal is just another swamp of insincerity and greed. You need not scratch very hard at the Zeal facade to see what it is made of. The first give away is that site submission is effectively closed to non-members. It is reasonable to conclude that without a fresh stream of contribution only the parasites of stagnation can thrive with any zeal. To be certain that Zeal’s hopeless “corporate play thing” design is not overcome by some internet magic, just look at some of these credibility defining categories. ... Internet > Search the Web > Advice & Guides > Comparisons ... Internet > Search the Web > Advice & Guides > Chat & Forums ... Internet > Search the Web > Advice & Guides Notice the Dumboz-speek where the intelligent concepts of analysis and discussion are reduced to trivial “chat” and “comparison”. Than notice how after creating these less than usefully descriptive categories the Zeal-oz “army” couldn’t care less to move appropriate sites from the main category. If improving web navigation by supporting innovative better alternatives (and not just their own self-interest) was the sincere ambition of most zealots, these highly relevant categories would not be in this pitiful condition. Fact is, Zeal is just another community of SEO (spammers edit only) shit. Andrew Goodman the chief liar and censor at traffICK has repeatedly accused me of unoriginality and of unfairly maligning the brilliance behind the current structure of internet navigation. Yet where do I go to find the original copy of my plagiarized ideas. Is there a site anywhere on this rotting web of sticky marketing scum where one can find “brilliant” people discussing “brilliant innovative ideas” regarding improving internet infrastructure as it relates to the all important issue of navigation? One thing is for certain there is no point in looking at SEO Zeal inc.

By link on Saturday, February 23, 2002 - 09:06 am:

How to Improve Web Navigation, or “Whatis” the “Whois” -UsabilityNews.com

By Lucy England on Tuesday, March 05, 2002 - 06:46 pm:

DMOZ and its "Open" Directory Project is a closed minded cult specialising in harrassing anyone who chooses to question its chief cultists' decisions (which amusingly are often in conflict with one another). Make a comment and you are black banned. There is little cohesion and the latest little glitch in the works has eradicated all recent edits. Heavens they now even have abbreviations showing! This is a nut house for nut cases.IMHO.

By andrewattraffick on Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 06:02 pm:

Gary, I was actually enjoying some of these posts and was hoping to quote you on them for an upcoming article. But as usual you turn on anyone who might possibly be an ally, thus guaranteeing no forward movement for your "cause." It's nice to see that you still have nice things to say about Chris Sherman. But I suspect Chris shouldn't get too comfortable. You're apt to turn against him the moment he steps out of line. Really disappointing. I'll be publishing an article or two on the ODP situation that will interest you, in any case.

By Ally Oops! on Sunday, March 10, 2002 - 03:52 am:

All I know about Chris Sherman is that he produces an excellent newsletter and is some kind of defacto Industry authority. He doesn’t have the guts to provide a message board, so I don’t get to judge him with the pressure on. Odds are he would be quick to censor his critics too. In fairness to you, Andrew, you “gutted” it out for 2 years and you deserve credit for that. But the fact remains, you have taken some cheap shots, and you should not expect a polite thank-you for that. Regarding quoting me, do what you did the first time you quoted me. Quote my words, then a couple days later delete the link to my site, and then a couple days after that, delete my name. Personally, I think you ought to speak your mind. If you think an idea is good or bad, then say so. The fact is you’re a very good writer, but if you’re going to modify content because you think “Gary’s a jerk,” and you won’t quote a jerk, even when he’s right, then I think you’re a pretty jerky journalist.

By PussieHoo on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 02:08 pm:

Some Dumboz Dick-tators have taken time away from watching "Mount ODP Unreviewed" grow to provide all of us lucky citizens of the net with yet another redundant ODP forum. Considering the fact that it is even more excessively moderated than the other “let us put a gag in your mouth and lecture you” forums--it's hard to see anything else but a PR BS purpose. I did start this “suggestions” topic and got the predictable counter suggestion (go away). Here are some of the "just too horrible" for public consumption deleted posts. Sub: lizards lying in wait "One more--too cool, smileee faced, forked tongued dumbozer exposed for what he is...an irresponsible and unaccountable “runner from the facts”." Sub: In stores soon, Internet Barbie “Next time, do your research.” ahhh, the charming arrogance of youth. I can’t describe my “amusement” over the fact that some important parts of navigational infrastructure on the zillion dollar, information superhighway are in the capable hands of Know-it-all, “expert” 15 year old girls. What is it Scrooge says? ..”I think I shall retire to bedlam.” Ps. You think maybe we could find a 10 year old willing to just fix the category, instead of giving lectures. Sub: liftarn; king of lizard hooey Sub: I will say a-du-hoo Don't waste our time Your duplicity and arrogance is showing. You vent YOUR fustration with the unnecessary characterization that [I] someone is wasting your time yet if anyone else dare exercise the impulse to "characterize" anyone else's remarks [or yours] you feel entitled to to make the time spent composing those remarks a "real" waste of time. The ODP reeks of arrogance (Pius judgment) hiding from accountability, and eventually the bad smell is going to motivate enough internet environmentalists to see to it that your rotten core is disposed of. 4/9/02 More examples of Oppressive Deletion Policy From Alternatives to alphabetic sorting? [[ Dmoz.org is set up only as a place for editors to process sites. ]] No doubt by a "process" similar to the one that turns ham into Spam. The beef of this ( dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Searching/Comparisons/ ODP category (listing 2 through 9). Is pure ODP editor pork without even the transparently inadequate wrapping of alphabetic sorting.

By cooljunk on Friday, April 19, 2002 - 12:28 am:

We are nearing the middle of 2002 and this dumb chart is still listed in the dumboz category. I visited the also listed “Open Directory Project Cool Sites - Lists all ODP cool sites” (regional/North_America) page, and randomly visited 10 sites-- not one was very “cool” (particularly outstanding in design or content) and three of the links were dead or as good as. http://www.prairiewebdesign.com/ http://www.nps.gov/inde/exindex.htm http://www.laconnection.org/ This “junky” directory should not be the gateway to inclusion in “industry” indexes and the internet public deserves a LOT better than this.

By A33 on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 02:39 am:

This is sort of related to what's happening inside the ODP... I'm an editor at the ODP (not using the same username) and I've been pondering whether to quit, simply because of the arrogance of the more experienced editors. They never try to listen to suggestions of others, thinking that they're always right and everybody else is wrong. I've heard of incidents where some people get kicked off the ODP because they questioned one of the experienced editors' suggestion. The power of the exp'd editors is being abused, and something has to be done about it. Don't get me wrong, not all experienced ODP editors are that way, but I feel like most of the ODP is a dictatorship where outside suggestions are not allowed. It's stupid, and if something isn't done about it soon, the ODP will have no more editors left.

By Infomercialnetatoiosis on Monday, June 24, 2002 - 07:13 pm:

The ODP is nothing but a self-serving SEO cult that has disguised itself as a Volunteer Internet Service Organization. It is in fact a "Trojan Horse" full of disgusting parasites (many under the age of logic, reason, and accountability) who seek to infect Internet navigation with the disease of crass middle-man-mania in the hope of assuring themselves an abundant supply of Internet pus and scum to skim and scam. Unfortunately the host organism (the information super-highway) isn't going to survive the infection and it will soon be (as mapped) just another "vast wasteland".

By sugar on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 07:09 pm:

Please help me. I believe I was suspended for the following issue: "Multiple submissions of the same or related sites may result in the exclusion and/or deletion of those and all affiliated sites." I did not understand as my site has several business services: Dance Instruction, Dance Entertainment, DJ Event Music, Wedding DJ, Wedding Coordinator. I thought it was OK to make a single DMOZ listing in each catagory. I was wrong and I apologize. I am a great person and have a wonderful business and website. How can I get in good standing with DMOZ? How does one list their webpage in a second category (if it is allowed)? Mainly, I'd like for someone to contact me and let me know how to get in good stand again with DMOZ. Thanks

By Anonymous on Thursday, October 09, 2003 - 05:00 pm:

There is a movement that is for now riding on the coat tails of the gay rights movement. Polygamy, yikes! Whatever you think about it, I have a true story to share. Just happened this week. An "editall" personal came into the cat. Now, the cat's editor has been there for four long years and had added 200 useful sites, a wide variety of opinions and very resourceful, mind you, and the editor is an expert on the topic. This, female, editall person went in and deleted many of the key 'activism' pro sites. Now, the editor thought that very unfair, and relisted most of them. They were not against guidelines! The next time the old-timer editor logged on, she got an "account deleted" page. And someone from Dmoz has deleted most of the pro-sites, uncooled the most thorough site on the topic (which happens to be the 'activist' hub). Can someone say agenda? If this were the /gay category there would be an uproar. Imagine half of the pro-gay rights sites being deleted from Dmoz. Hey, maybe that happened, I haven't looked. This 'movement' is getting more news coverage in papers, and will be on TV a lot more in the coming months. But, one place it apparently won't be is dmoz. Anyway, is this the road Dmoz is taking? "Humans do it better" NAH , GOOGLE DOES IT BETTER! Humans are too biased and usually to &*tchy to do it all that well. BTW, is dmoz on the path of destruction? I hear Google hasn't updated it's dmoz listings in months with no explanation. Do they know something?

By GoogleAlsoSucks on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 12:21 pm:

If google is SO proficient and unbiased... Why hasn't this page--which is over two years old--been indexed by google? In my opinion google is part of the problem, not a solution.