Jason Murphy

Website Producer

Which is worse? DMOZ, Wikipedia or Mahalo?

Notice I didn’t ask which is better? Think about it and I’ll get back to the question in moment.

It seems that when the Open Directory Project is in the news, it comes in waves. It has been a while since we’ve really heard anything about DMOZ even though users have been suspicious of their editors trustworthiness for a while now.

One such DMOZ wave is building up now. Their reputation is on the line as major search engines and general users determine how relevant the site truly is. Their history has been a downward spiral, from once being one of the most sought after resources for web users looking for sites on a subject, to now being a mere afterthought for the sake of SEO. It’s just never become a common household name that you’d expect hear around the dinner table.

Remember when you could count on finding at least 1 or 2 DMOZ categories on almost any generic keyword search result page within Google? We know those days are long gone, but there does seem to be a few other regulars taking its place. Most notable is Wikipedia. Many current and former editors at the ODP are now regular contributors to Wikipedia. The site isn’t without its flaws, but one thing it does do is give editorial voice to those who seek it. Wikipedia has become such a heavily referenced piece of media, that you’ll find a Wikipedia entry on just about any search within Google.

This is where things get interesting. Google likes to trust non-profit, user generated, user edited, mega resource sites. This sorta makes sense, since Google’s end goal is to deliver the most relevant results they can for the search they received. Sometimes, as much as I don’t wish to believe it, Wikipedia is the correct answer. I just disagree with the frequency of how often it is.

So what about DMOZ? Well, the project is still well and strong, and receives plenty of care from its army of volunteer editors/gardeners. But ever since SEO started becoming a common practice, and SEOs started applying for editor positions (hell, even I was an ODP editor a few years ago), the scales of biased inclusions have been tipping. Look at this account of bribery that happened to Shoemoney. He lost his site listing because he didn’t pay the $5000 ransom to the rogue editor. Apparently its happened more than once from what others are saying in their comments.

So, how long until Wikipedia starts the corruption? We already have government offices, large corporations, and PR agencies trying to manipulate Wiki entries to give themselves a more positive spin. How long until SEOs start ganging up and manipulating entries to remove competition. Sure, one guy with one account could get banned easily. But how hard would it be for a determined individual to hire a freelance shop in India, train them to build trustworthy accounts, and then go on a full-out assault on against all their competitors? It may be closer than it appears.

Perhaps a non-profit, user controlled, resource isn’t the best solution to include in results pages for generic searches. Yahoo has been their paid directory ever since they started. Since it is edited by a paid staff AND a property owned by Yahoo, you rarely hear of people getting upset about gaining or losing submissions like they do with DMOZ.

Maybe Jason C is right. His Mahalo project is maintained by a paid staff. He claims it’s a user generated search engine, but this post suggests that even he knows its more of a directory project than a search engine. He’s got the branding and awareness train running full steam ahead. Is it enough to take on Wikipedia? Not sure. But is it enough to beat out DMOZ? Definitely.

Some people even think that Mahalo is poised to overcome Google in four years time. Such a thought is just silly.

So, DMOZ is becoming more corrupt, Wikipedia is becoming too trusted, and Mahalo is trying to strike a balance. Isn’t this a great industry we’re part of?

• Today is Day 19 out of 30 for My Own Thirty Day Challenge.