Go Guides, Go Home

Home > Promote > Search Engines > Articles

by Aaron West

Disney's Go Network has recently implemented its own version of the Open Directory Project, called Go Guides. The directory launched approximately a month ago and has been steadily picking up steam ever since. Unlike the Open Directory Project, data from the Go Directory will not be used (at this time) by other search engines, but only by members of the Go Network, namely Go.com and Infoseek.

The Go Guide System is very well designed and implemented, but has some serious failings. The failings are in the submission and the review process.

There is no 'Add URL' form like other engines and directories. Only Go Guides can add sites, and everyone can be a Go Guide. This means webmasters will have to go well out of their way to get listed. This doesn't mean that sites won't get listed. Quite the contrary in fact. If anything, this helps maintain a quality directory. How many people are going to wade through a few forms in order to list their Geocities page? Not many.

There are plenty of incentive for Guides to find sites to list. The more sites a Guide lists, the more responsibility that guide is granted. Go has put together a Level system. All Guides start out at Level 1. At the bottom level, Guide can only submit sites for review. All sites must be approved by two other Guides before they are added to the index. Once the site is added, the submitting guide is awarded a point. The more sites the Guide submits, the more opportunity for him/her to collect points. Once a Guide achieves a certain amount of points, they are increased a level.

When a Guide gets to Level 2, they have the opportunity to review submitted sites. It is also easier for them to collect points because they are given points for each site reviewed. If they choose to submit a site, it only has to be reviewed by one other guide before it is added to the index. If a Guide continues to add and review sites, they will continue to receive points and receive more responsibilities.

Only the best sites are allowed into the directory, hence the strict reviewing process. Sites are rated on a Star System. 3 stars signify 'Best', 2 stars are 'Very Good' and 1 star is 'Good.' 3 star sites are listed first in the index, alphabetically, followed by 2 and 1 star sites.

Does the system work? I say no. I browsed through many of the sites in topics I'm familiar with. I saw several sites rated with 3 stars that were of very low quality. One of my favorite sites was rated a 1. Most of the sites I browsed were rated improperly.

That is exactly the problem. Opinions differ. Sites I think are wonderful, others might find horrible. I also found no criteria for the rating system. There is plenty of documentation on the project itself, but nowhere does it say: '3 star sites require the following:'.

One would think the reviewers would review categories they are interested in, therefore the quality of the reviews would be much higher. Not so. In fact, I submitted a site that I admire to a category I am familiar with. The next day I received a message from a Guide saying that the site in question should be resubmitted as a 1. This is a site that I consider among the best out there when it comes to web development. To be honest, I was amazed this Guide was so critical of it. So I researched her background a little. As it turned out, her expertise was 'Food.' After spending 2 seconds at her web site, I knew she was no expert on web development.

Let's compare this process to the editing process of the Open Directory. While the Open Directory also has its failings, there is a much tighter process for site submission and review. The ODP encourages editors to maintain categories where their site is listed (and list their site if necessary). This could cause a conflict of interest, and I'm sure it has on many occasions, however they can be assured that most of the editors are qualified to review sites submitted to them.

With the ODP, there also are not the strict limitations on new editors. New editors are given free reign over their category. The only real limitation is that they require a certain amount of edits before being accepted to another category. The decision to be given more categories is made by another human being. They review the numbers, but they also review the quality of the editing. They'll look at the person's category if necessary. They'll be more inclined to give more categories to someone who maintains an organized category already. With Go, the Guide could have a cluttered category with poorly written descriptions. As long as they keep on fishing for sites, they'll get the promotion they desire.

The biggest failing of the Go Guides, as well as the biggest success of the ODP is pride. ODP Editors are extremely proud and are motivated by the will to create and maintain a quality directory. Go Guides are motivated to get more points. ODP Editors feel that they are doing the Internet world a service by providing useful resources. Go Guides are providing a service to Disney? When I joined the Go Guides, I wasn't trying to join a large 'movement' or 'project'. I was simply trying to list my site.

It is unfair to compare the two, but how can one not? Go fails where the ODP has succeeded.

The Go Directory, or 'Topics' as they call them, can be accessed from Infoseek or Go by clicking on the 'Topics' tab. The directory can also be searched by choosing 'Topics' next to the search field. Infoseek hasn't been taking submissions for months now, so I'm sure there is some plan in the works to implement the directory with all searches.

The project will surely be successful, drawing on the success of Infoseek and the money of Mickey. It will become a necessity for every webmaster to become listed there.

But will it ever be better than Yahoo, ODP, Looksmart, Snap or any other directory out there?

In my opinion, I doubt it very much.