My experience is one of double standards!

As we know the DMOZ rules state that your site shall belong to a single category only. We are told NEVER submit to more than one category!

Yet - my prime competitor is in at least THREE categories! It makes me wonder who he has "on the inside" that is getting him this blatant favouritism.

Why call it "open" at all - its a big joke.

Excellent post. When I was an editor, I'd hit a dream site like you suggest and list them immediately. Obvious spam got deleted immediately. Sites that were "iffy", meaning I had to really dig through them to check for deeplinks, re-write an accurate description, etc. I always left in "Unreviewed" until I had more time. The real nightmares stayed in Unreviewed for months. Poor submissions, as well as spam, were the bane of my existence and they made it take that much longer to get to the good sites that were correctly submitted and deserved to be listed.

As as been said several time in this thread - yes editors can list there own sites.

Yes that is correct, but where is the double standards? Editors can list a site in as many catgeories as they like, provided it provides unique valuable content to the catgeory.

peakstudio - any editor can check the logs for your site to see how much you have spammed DMOZ - you also know how many times you submitted.

CBP

First if you believe the competitor's website does not support 3 listings - report it... that's up to you. You truly can't complain to the rest of the world about how grossly unfair DMOZ is - if you chose not to take the initiative to report it through the appropriate channels.

On the other hand "some websites" deserve a second listing - possibly because they have a physical location (storefront)... or possibly something "exceptional" that adds enormous value to DMOZ by way of added value to DMOZ users.

Clearly a site with small breadth & depth of topic and offering sellable items for a business with no added value - isn't the same as a website that is truly development for the end user with far more than just "buy me".

So put this all in perspective... the "double standard" can be on your side. By not making your site superior than the ones currently listed.

You obviously missed the posts (or did you not read the whole thread?) about what the "open" in Open Dierectory Project means - its has nothing to do with being open to listings.

CBP

That's the impression I got, but I wanted to here it from an ardent supporter. No other profession would tolerate such an overt conflict of interest. More distressing, how is it I never knew that before? I always thought of the Open Source Directory Project as a buch of enthusiasts.

Guess it's not the first time I ever been a chump.

Any large organization that vulnearble to abuse WILL be abused. I don't see how it's possible for a structure that size to operate under guidlines like that and not already be unsalvagably corrupt.

Same old, same old ... more innuendo with proof.

There are very very clear guideines about editors listing there own site - it has already been dicsussed several times in this thread - or did you not read it?

The link has been provided several times in this thread on where to reort abuse. Please do so. Come back and tell us the outcome after you have had your proof investigated by the proper channels rathr than just post innuendo.

CBP

And one look at your website shows why you believe this.
...but 2 hours to read... and about the same time to invest in reading DMOZ guidelines that allows free.

I would (guess) estimate that a large percentage of editors don't own any sites in any of the categories they edit.

Editors who do have control over their site's listing are often closely scrutinized by senior editors. This is one of the measures in place to prevent abuse. This is especially true in the more "commercial" categories.

Abuse certainly does occur, but I would again estimate that the abusers are caught more often than not. If you suspect abuse, please complete one of the reports already mentioned. It is the only way your complaint/allegation will be taken seriously and investigated.

I can tell you that those reports are reviewed and alleged abuse is investigated.

__________________
SEO Firefox Extension | Free Link Development Tool | New SUSE Linux Users

that's all i can say to the reaction of this thread... for those who think i've attacked DMOZ unfairly, i will be writing a follow-up article on thursday that will largely present their point-of-view.

my motivations for this article was NOT to bash DMOZ. i simply stumbled across some issues i felt needed to be brought to light. DMOZ serves an important function as one of the more popular directories on the internet. its backlink and PR value cannot be understated. also, DMOZ approves 1 to 2000 sites a day, so it's obvious the MAJORITY of the editors are trying.

i guess it's a case of one bad apple spoils the bunch, and that's unfortunate. please continue your comments, but do not make them of a personal nature. posts like that will be removed and the poster possibly banned.

thanks to flood, cbp, and fathom for their work in moderating this discussion. they deserve all the kudos we can give them...

__________________
Former WebProWorld Admin

Agreed. THANX!

Dave

__________________
Religious-Jewelry Blog - Deep Link Directory - Religious Jewelry

Oh please, fathom. That's just SPECIOUS. That's called marketing copy. You don't wanna read it, don't read it. The signup form is easy to find and linked to multiple locations, and it really does take about a minute to fill out. As for the rest...

Well forgive me for trying to not only sell my product, but make sure my prospects know exactly what they're getting.

First: This is not a big company. The owner and 2 designers.

Second: I'm not sure how a short order form equals corruption.

Lastly: I don't need prroof to have an opinion do I? I have no proof that politicians lie, but it's my opinion they do. To hell with "plausible deniability".

I am glad you dropped by though. As you can see I don't rely on SE traffic. I rely on word of mouth and PPC. My sites not optimized at all, so I have nothing to gain or lose by my opinion.

And by the way, an online tech journal just reviewed us. It's not out til next month, but they sent us an advance copy of their article.

5 out of 5 stars in all 6 of their catagories: automated content, ease of use, tools, visual, site marketing, and pricing and value. :)

Sorry, cbp. You weren't specious at all. A difference of opinion is fine.

Fathom=specious.

Quote:

"Great one? Did you give yourself this name?"
-Lawrence of Arabia

On another subject for DMOZ. Does anyone else notice that the search function is ALWAYS down:

The Open Directory search is temporarily unavailable. Please try back later.

I always get this when I try to use it. Any ideas why?

__________________
KBK Marketing | Jaan Kanellis Search Marketing Blog | Be the best and a link is what you'll get!

LMAO. No. No clue. :)

It just worked fine for me.

Just a reminder re the search function at DMOZ before anyone else jumps on it - we have already discussed it in this thread...

DMOZ is a directory. Directories are for browsing. Google is a search engine. Search engines are for searching. If you want to search for a site, use Google et al. If you want to browse a category of sites associated with a keyword(s), use a directory. SO, search at DMOZ is best thought of as finding a list of categories associated with a keyword(s) and maybe also show a sample of sites - it never shows all sites.... having said that, he DMOZ search could always be improved to return more sites (if it wants to be more like a search engine :-)

CBP

Yes it works fine for me on some terms and then others it gives the error message above. I understand that DMOZ is for browsing, but I was just wondering why the error message all the time. I got the error on a keyword like "ohio":

http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=ohio

__________________
KBK Marketing | Jaan Kanellis Search Marketing Blog | Be the best and a link is what you'll get!

That isn't actually true. Sites can be, often are, double listed but the circumstances are strictly controlled. Generally you can have a listing in the Regional branch if your site has local relevance to where you are based. It may also be listed in a topical (i.e. non-Regional branch) if a category exists that fits the site. It may also be listed in Kids and Teens separately if it qualifies there. And it may be listed in each of the different language branches for which a translation exists on the site.

The help guidance is actually a little misleading on that one. It does say "You should submit your site to the single most appropriate category that is directly relevant to your site's content" but in http://dmoz.org/help/cats.html it explains about the others. It isn't a secret but it could be better signposted.

An interesting view but you have to understand the way DMOZ works internally. Firstly it would be patently unfair to deny editors own sites a listing wouldn't it. Secondly, editors always list their competitors at the same time as their own and none must be given any slant positive or negative - how an editor handles this is scrutinized very carefully. Thirdly every editor declares their affiliations so potential conflicts of interest are known and subject to monitoring. Fourthly, editors watch each other like hawks and there is no hesitation should an editor have a suspicion about another in hitting the Report Abuse button. There is nothing an editor hates more, even more than a pain in the *ss spam submitter, than a fellow editor who abuses their position. Put quite simply there is no tolerance in DMOZ for corruption whatsoever.

Maybe it would be useful to also give the top ten tips on how to get the most out of editors in terms of advice and assistance in submitting sites.

1) Be polite - editors are unpaid volunteers and are under no obligation to give anyone advice or assistance. They do so because they want to but if all they get in response is abuse then they will stop. Many editors have given up editing, others have given up communicating with submitters because of abusive attitudes directed at them.
2) Don't insinuate the whole of DMOZ is corrupt - editors hate corrupt editors more than anyone can possibly imagine. If you have a genuine concern and specific evidence, meta editors are waiting to hear from you.
3) Don't insinuate editors are lazy or neglectful - they have real lives, a living to earn outside, and are trying to build a resource in whatever spare time they have available. Your commercial concerns are of no interest or importance compared to reading the kids a bedtime story.
4) Read and grasp things like submission guidelines before criticising editors for failing to list your Nokia ringtones affiliate site.
5) Learn how to submit sites properly, to the right place, titled and described to standard, so editors can list them without delay.
6) Don't submit sites you know we won't let in, it wastes our time and yours, and don't then inquire about its status, wasting more time on both sides.
7) Don't threaten "legal proceedings" for the failure to list a site. To my knowledge no-one has succeeded to date after 6 years nor has even got as far as a courtroom. Frankly it just amuses us but if you want to pay $$$$$ to your lawyer to find out then go straight ahead.
8) Don't start spouting about rights - you have no rights over the efforts of unpaid volunteers.
9) Try and grasp that DMOZ is not a commercial listing service - we list sites, we welcome suggestions, we make no guarantees that suggestions will be accepted or when a decision will be made one way or another.
10) Try and work with us, not against us. Help us to help you by following the "secrets" I posted earler.