Many businesses depend upon search engines to generate opportunities and sales leads from their web sites. Some, like mine, a custom software development company, depend almost exclusively on traffic referred from these sites, most notably Google. Webmasters follow published guidelines to insure consideration of their web sites and often attempt to optimize their placement by conforming to what they believe are Google's proprietary algorithms. There are countless SEO (search engine optimization) sites that address a myriad of perceived ranking factors such as age of domain, site naming conventions, keyword density, internal and external links, etc. The list of perceived factors goes on and on, growing as increasing subtleties like position of keywords, use of special characters, etc. are added. Compound these factors by the rate at which Google changes its algorithms and it is easy to understand the challenge facing SEO experts and web masters trying to optimize sites for placement.

Most webmasters recognize Google as the industry leader and appreciate the difficulty the search engine faces in cataloging and ranking millions of internet web sites. They realize that this is a daunting task that requires constant adjustments by the search engine providers, and it can never be truly perfect. As such, webmasters are accustomed to the nuances of changing algorithms and try to adjust their sites accordingly, knowing that mistakes or overly aggressive interpretation could result in penalties such as their site being placed in Google's Sand Box. But what if the Google algorithm contains a fundamental flaw?

The case against DMOZ.

When conceived, the DMOZ Open Directory was a good idea. A pioneer in its field, the directory was committed to careful human review of sites requesting inclusion and prided itself on the quality of its content. As other search engines evolved, the DMOZ directory became a valuable source of content. Inclusion in the directory became a virtual badge of honor and, most believe, a significant factor in the placement of the site in search engine algorithms. The system worked great, for a while. As the Internet grew exponentially, the DMOZ model appeared more and more flawed. Established companies like mine (15 years in the custom software development business) with reputable web sites found it impossible to get consideration from DMOZ. Carefully following submission guidelines didn't help. Two plus years of trying and nothing, no acknowledgement of receipt, no accepted notification, no rejection notice, nothing. The result: countless internet postings alleging DMOZ favoritism, negligence, and corruption. Even webmasters volunteering as editors complain that they haven't received answers on their volunteer requests (although many are probably following widespread Internet advice to volunteer in an attempt to approve your own site).

So what does this have to do with Google?

As previously mentioned, the Google algorithms are proprietary and therefore subject to interpretation of results, not evaluation of the rules and criteria used for scoring. It is widely believed that DMOZ inclusion is a significant scoring factor and a quick check of highly ranked sites appear to substantiate this belief. If DMOZ is really a ranking factor, isn't Google ignoring its webmaster base by not addressing their poor submission request performance and if it isn't true, shouldn't Google let the world know so busy webmasters can stop wasting valuable time on the pursuit of a DMOZ listing? Who knows, maybe DMOZ would clean up their act if challenged by Google.

Charles W. Clark III is President of The Integrated Solution Group, Inc., a custom software developer located in Woburn, MA. http://www.intsolgrp.com