Is Dmoz dead or editors active?

No more dome

Update (2017): This blog was written in 2009. After 9 years, the life of Dmoz is coming to an end on March 14th, 2017, officially. Dmoz was a challenging Search Directory for SEO professionals of the last millennium. It was powering Google once. It had a powerful search supported by a team of volunteer editors. 

We all know Dmoz was the largest human-edited directory on the web and the link juice from DMOZ produces good Google ranking. A large group of editors managed Dmoz who was getting your site registered by the Open Directory ( was vitally important as far as search engine positioning is concerned.

In earlier 2005 I used to add sites in Dmoz and it gets listed within few weeks but not from 2006. In mid-2006 their Service was Unavailable, as most of the regular Dmoz submitters should know. It was told that the editor server  had problem and, was recovered only by the end of 2006.

From 2007 there had been huge delays and flaws in approving links. Many tried to have their sites listed following Dmoz guidelines. But they failed. These episodes made many webmasters to research Dmoz performance and many discussions, blog posts and forums have been raised claiming Dmoz dead?

Here are few examines

(1) Most of the links are broken and do editors check old sites included in their categories and they maintain?
(2) Many sites are listed with promotional words and this is against DMOZ guidelines. Any corruption?

Besides I have read a thread that states that few Dmoz editors sends mail for paid inclusion and charge $. Check out the mail posted in the thread. Mail content is really funny, may be true or fake 🙂

Suppose if you get any such emails do not hesitate to post your query in Open Directory Public Abuse Report System. Let’s make Dmoz as genuine as it was before and active 🙂

  • Mike Toronto

    That is what I was wondering also!
    Tried so many times to get my sites added to DmoZ – no results…silence…dead silence. I have never received any paid addition offers though I have to admit I would consider paying to make sure my sites will be added to Dmoz directories).

    and after all – is Dmoz THAT important? I receive good results without being added to its dir’s so maybe it is overrated? used to be good once but useless now? obsolete? =) RIP


  • Agreed, and to top it off the majority of the editors carry an elitist attitude that’s beyond belief. I’ve yet to see any of them post an acceptable excuse for the state of utter shambles the directory is in. What is really sad is that you can find posts dating back to 1999 asking questions about why sites aren’t being added and dead links being pruned… 10 years of marginal management. Astonishing that Google still associates themselves with it.

    Here’s an interesting post if anyone is interested:


  • Jon

    I’m completely thrown by the good’ol boy system that is now dmoz. My hope is that they become obsolete in the near future.

  • I used to be an editor of DMOZ. My very puny niche directory really had so few submissions – that I would only go there about once every 6 months. Often nothing new – so eventually I was removed as an editor for not logging in frequently enough. No one else wanted to edit the category I had because it was so small of a category in the world. So they loose a good editor because of policy requirements. In addition – there was an elitist attitude amongst senior editors. As if they could control your success or failure from a simple link. I don’t think so. DMOZ links aren’t that important anymore.

  • DMOZ is dead long back and they have every excuse of spreading the myth that they are still alive. Which are the latest non big site they have added recently?

  • Name withheld

    DMOZ is most certainly corrupt; however, it is not clear whether it is truly dead because Google still seems to place a degree of value on websites that are listed in the directory.

    My experience with DMOZ.

    I am the author of a website that is the highest ranked in its niche. The website has tens of thousands of words of quality, unique content. It enjoys hundreds of visitors a day from most of the english speaking countries around the world. To put it into perspective, it often outranks the corresponding Wikipedia article (they continually jockey between search results 1 and 2 for all relevant keywords).

    I submitted my website to the corresponding DMOZ category over two years ago and the website has still not been included in the DMOZ category. I have two theories to explain this: 1) the category is not being looked after by an editor, 2) the editor has ulterior motives.

    Given the fact that an increasing number of online stores that are somewhat related to the category have been added, whereas my free resource (that does not monetize its content) has not been added, I am inclined to believe that the latter is at play here.

    My story is not unique; it is also endemic of the problems that plague DMOZ.

    The problem I have illustrated is emblematic of the corruption at the heart of DMOZ. Giving editors the power to add or remove websites at will is inherently problematic because it plays a huge degree of control in the hands of an (often) unqualified minority. It also violates many of the principles of an open internet because it puts the power of DMOZ in the hands of an oligarchical editorship.

    The real problem, however, is not DMOZ. DMOZ is systemically corrupt because it is a closed-source enterprise that governs a wide-range of content. The real problem is that Google still places some measure of value on DMOZ. Google ought to both devalue DMOZ listings in its ranking algorithm and disincentivize webmasters from using the service.