This Just In: ODP Still Sucks
Nebuchadrezzar also pointed out the fact that Jimbo Wales frequented XODP back in the day and opined that XODP may have played a role in helping Jimbo avoid many of the pitfalls of ODP in creating Wikipedia. I'd like to think that were true, but (knowing Jimbo) I doubt that he would acknowledge that XODP had any kind of profound impact on him or on Wikipedia. Even so, Wikipedia is precisely the sort of open content community that I had hoped to inspire and/or create when I founded XODP, and while I have my reservations about Wikipedia, they are minor ones, and I make a point of extolling the virtues of Wikipedia from time to time on XODP and elsewhere.
I first came across Jimbo Wales during my tenure as Chief Evangelist at the-late-and-never-that-great Wherewithal. Much to my surprise, Jimbo had a distant history with one of Wherewithal's founders, and there was some talk of licensing Wherewithal's ad serving technology to Jimbo's company Bomis. At the time, my stock as an Internet celebrity was very high because of XODP, which is how I and Wherewithal first came to Jimbo's attention. At the time, I was also consulting with Project Napa as their Chief Ontologist and Community Architect, and I also tried to sell them on the idea of serving up ads a la Wherewithal as a way of generating revenue for their open content people portal. However, both of these promising business leads (and many others) were burned by Wherewithal's founders who simply did not have the wherewithal (pun intended) to put a profitable business deal together. Consequently, I stopped bringing the leads to Wherewithal and started operating in stealth mode, quietly playing matchmaker with my various business contacts while Wherewithal faded into obscurity.
The dot-com bubble had already begun to burst when I signed on at Wherewithal and Project Napa, but I felt (and still feel) that there was (and still is) quite a bit of promise in the area of open content generation and indexing. Even now I think that the ideas underlying Wherewithal and Project Napa were sound, and I've long toyed with the idea of reincarnating both of them in some form. Instead, I have focused on the needs of my paying clients; occasionally, I have worked on various XODP Web Guides and contributed to Wikipedia to satisfy my innate need to index online content.
In addition to satisfying my innate need to index online content, the XODP Web Guides have allowed me to demonstrate "proof of concept." And but for the fact that I am making a decent living as an Internet consultant for attorneys, work that I truly enjoy, I would embrace the opportunity to make more money by publishing XODP Web Guides while also improving the quality of online content indexing. Indeed, there may yet come a day when an investor throws so much money at me that I will take the necessary time and effort to hire and train enough staff to publish and maintain thousands (or even tens of thousands) of XODP Web Guides instead of the three hundred or so I currently publish. Of course, if making money were my primary motivation for indexing online content, I would probably start up a Web Directory like the aforementioned Seven Seek and charge for website submissions.
While I don't know how Seven Seek is doing financially, charging for website submissions is a proven business model that has worked on a large scale for Yahoo! and LookSmart and on a smaller scale for GoGuides and Best of the Web. Getting back to the subject implied by the title of this post, if there is a failure inherent in the ODP business model, it is the fact that ODP has no business model. Rather, when Netscape acquired ODP for the sum of one million dollars back in 1999, it purchased the good will of the then nascent open content indexing community.
When Netscape acquired ODP, it almost seemed to make sense, as Netscape had (a largely unearned) reputation for being a good 'Netizen. However, when AOL acquired Netscape and gave away ODP's content (albeit with bizarre and probably unenforceable licensing restrictions), it made sense to do so in a different way: Business sense. To wit, because AOL exercised editorial control over ODP content, it was able to offer quid pro quo to professional content providers like AOL and Rolling Stone. It also took the profit out of LookSmart's bottom line as a content provider, thereby appearing to eliminate a serious AOL competitor from growing and prospering. However, when LookSmart turned the tables on AOL and offered to share advertising revenue with its publishers, ODP became totally irrelevant and has been ever since.
My original purpose in founding XODP was to point out the flaws in ODP and foster discussion about the future of the Open Content Movement. Since that time, Wikipedia has deposed ODP and rightfully claimed the mantle of that movement with a viable business model that relies upon charitable donations. However, rather than letting ODP die with dignity, AOL keeps ODP on public display in its critical care unit, a sad state of affairs that will probably last at least until the next ODP system crash occurs. In a perfect world, the powers that be at Wikipedia would acquire ODP and make it a truly open directory, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. As for the proprietors of the aforementioned Dmoz Sucks website, I wish them well, and they are more than welcome to join XODP and rant. However, I really can't be bothered to review their website any deeper than their Home Page and offer a substantive opinion on it: The fact that ODP sucks ain't news, and it hasn't been for quite some time.