Corruption at DMOZ

[Brian Turner]

Rand Fishkin complains that entire major categories in Google are being doctored with poor descriptions by DMOZ editors, to help promote their own or client sites:
http://www.seomoz.org/blogdetail.php?ID=388

This is because Google are using DMOZ descriptions in their results, instead of the website's own descriptions of themselves.

This is a point Dan Thies has highlighted with chagrin, due to his own DMOZ entry being mis-spelled and poorly written, which he feels puts him at a disadvantage when listed among sites which are able to use their own marketing copy for their descriptions:
http://www.threadwatch.org/node/3728

[MarkD]

Hi Brian,

whether true or not I think the whole thing is dis-credited. Many of the categories I am interested in having no editor or where there is absolutely no additions for months on end. As google does place a certain amount of importance on DMOZ, if they are not prepared to drop the whole thing they should at least zeroise any importance attached for any category that is not actively growing to give a level playing field for all!

[michael74]

Unforunately I see DMOZ as a failed experiment really. The idea was a great one but logisitically impossible to implement.

It only seems to be of use these days as a good link source.

[Brian Turner]

Just to follow up on that, I had something of a run-in with DMOZ after finding my DMOZ description used in Google - and it was bloody poor.

http://www.abakus-internet-marketing...moz-delisting/

[bumfluff]

I just had a read of that. Seems the argument that it's free so don't complain is a pretty poor one. Some of the replies came across as very high-handed.. but at least there was someone there who was willing to help and not hide behind 'policies'.

[pnelson]

I think DMOZ was suitable in the days when the internet was run by geeks, for geeks and they were just doing a little link collection.

Nowadays, with PPC and SEO budgets in the 1000s of US$, there's going to be lots of politics involved ;-)