ctcomp,

You've made two points here, neither of which I can pretend to fully understand. But...

1. Why should DMOZ care about Webmasters? If I was an editor (I'm not BTW) I'd much prefer searching for relevant sites than have to wade through mountains of spam to find the couple sites worth including.

2. Unless you're a user you don't have any say whatsoever in the status of DMOZ. Don't give me any "court of public opinion" crap, or "you and your twelve hard mates" will see to it that DMOZ is closed down. You can't, your mates can't, and your uncle who knows Bill Gates aunts friend can't either.

pne

__________________
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/" target="_blank">Employee Assistance Programme
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/employee_wellness_programme.php"/target="_blank">Employee Wellness Programme

Why do I get the impression WPW is turning into a tabloid?

I say consider the source when sweeping conclusions are made by some people. I cannot see where stating that DMOZ is crooked or this and that based on a personal experience has any relevance to a reasoned debate.

Every attempt at name calling and judgement denigrates the opinion giver, in my view. It just sounds to much like self pity and sour grapes. This thread is full of slanderous accusations and libel, and I am embarasses.

You are 100% correct, PNE, the more popular, and bigger a presense something is - organization etc. - the more people show up that have 'proof' of corruption.

In my experience, the ones who complain the most vehemently and make the damningest conclusions and judgements are painting a picture of their own beleifs and way of conduct.

I know two editors that bust their backs editing, and they are very considerate and honest people, IMO, but they never talk about corruption or fighting with the powers-that-be or other editors.

They tell of numerous and stiffling amounts of poorly thought out or outright fraudulent submissions that make it difficult to do their job properly.

There may be bad asses among the people at DMOZ, there are many places. But a full out conspiracy? That would mean that AOL and Yahoo and whoever else, Google perhaps, are all in cahoots?

Oh ya, I am not listed in DMOZ. I have felt frustrated a couple of times with submissions, but I never came to the conclusion that DMOZ is corrupt.

Can be improved? Sure. Corrupt? Prove it.

mikmik,

As usual you're absolutely right. There are a number of posts here from people who, if I were to diagnose them (I used to be a practising, qualified psychotherapist), would be described as suffering from an excess of "Projective Identification" (not to be confused with projection, of course). The inner conspiracy theorist is so large that it needs a huge object to "project" on to. Me, I just believe that when my girlfriend burns the toast it's because she hates me.

Good to hear from you on this one, mate.

Regards,


pne

__________________
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/" target="_blank">Employee Assistance Programme
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/employee_wellness_programme.php"/target="_blank">Employee Wellness Programme

Editors maybe? :P~~ < sarcasticly >

__________________
Regards, Peter
UK Web Hosting | Website Directory

WebProWorld is a forum for discussion. People have been stating their experiences with Dmoz and their opinions. That does not make WebProWorld a tabloid! Could you please show me excerpts of posts that make you come to this conclusion?

I've read all of the Dmoz related posts and I think there has been a heavy dose of name calling by both sides. Using words like "self pity" and "sour grapes" and "slanderous accusations" are name calling by you. I don't believe it is appropriate to slam posters for their opinion in a forum. But, that's just my opinion, feel free to slam me for it.

__________________
Rich Ord
CEO, iEntry, Inc.
http://www.ientry.com

RE:

So, go complain to Google (see previous entries in this thread).

Isn't DMOZ owned by the same people that own Google? Do you have a link where I can complain to Google and actually be heard?

RE:

My understanding is that DMOZ would get by without submissions from Webmasters. This isn't a Search Engine it's a privately owned directory, like they care about Webmasters.
pne[/quote]

I personally do not find DMOZ superior. If I want comprehensive search results, I use a search engine other than Google. I find Google places too much emphasis on the large companies, and downplays small companies. This is a marked disadvantage to entrepreneurs and small businesses in a supposedly democratic environment. Does Google really want to strike down the little guy?

__________________
http://www.studiodavinci.net
http://www.emeraldislestudios.com

Most of the critics here, and everywhere else DMOZ is discussed, have not the faintest understanding of the concept of DMOZ as a non-commercial, voluntary project. Most of the vocal critics are people who have made a fundamental mistake of thinking DMOZ is something it isn't, and because of that they start ranting, throwing accusations around without proof, and being generally very unpleasant about unpaid volunteers, 99% of whom have done nothing but give up their spare time. Why do you think most editors don't respond? Why do you think more and more editors now refuse point blank to answer emails? We are not paid to put up with crap, so we don't have to.

This may be only a small example but as a matter of policy I do not feel that I need to respond to any webmaster or site I do not feel meets my criteria for linking. As a matter of fact I really don't have to even provide any kind of guidelines for them to do so. Granted my tiny corner of the WWW is not given any where near the weight the DMOZ is. I would suspect when it comes to your site, the same is true. I don't feel the DMOZ is really any different. They not only set their criteria they tell you how to meet their criteria rather clearly and consisely. Problems? Sure always going to be problems with any organization whether it's an organization of 1 or 1 million. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DMOZ is not a government agency, and not a publically held corporation. I'm not sure why they should be expected to give me, you or anyone else for that matter a justification for anything.

Dave

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

Do you mean being reasonable, provide proof and be honest is "MY TERMS" and it is WRONG?

If I understand your position correctly it goes like this:

DMOZ- does not need to be reasonable, logical or ethical, every one else should.

DMOZ- does not need to answer critics since it is discussing on other people's term and every one else should just keep quite or if they dare to talk, they should provide the highest proof for every little detail that they mention.

with this kind of thinking, no wonder that DMOZ editors (some moderators here) were trying to censor and delete other people's post before they were stopped by rich_ord, CEO of iEntry.

Sorry, but this is still a democracy and this kind of reasoning is not accepted. Now if DMOZ, some of it's editors and supporters open a forum in North Korea, I am sure that goverment there will have much more symphaty for this kind of logic but then who wants to participate in such forum?

I wanted to expand on what I wrote. When it comes to your site, I suspect the decisions involving it are yours to make. You set the criteria and you apply it. My guess would be that if you don't feel "something" adds value to your site, no matter how vigorously the "something" argues that is does, you don't add the "something." Should you be expected to explain why? Afterall, your site, your rules, your decision.

Dave

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

I see nothing "lame" about the statement at all. What's lame is the fact that people are still not getting it. As per your example I'm assuming the "users" you speak of are people who use the directory? And the "media" is the directory itself? Then where do the webmasters fit in??? I'll tell you...NOWHERE. The directory was NOT created for them, which was my whole point in the first place.

If we were to go with your "logic". We could say the same about Google and it's users. Sure webmasters "whine" when they can't get ranked in Google but that's about the extent of it because everyone knows Google is a search engine that people use for searching the web, not a free listing service for webmasters to make money and get traffic. Would a webmaster "freak out" and send emails to Google demanding to know why they aren't being included? Not likely, although I'm sure some do.

Why should it be any different with DMOZ??

Get some knowledge under your belt before you sound off about things you obviously know little about.

Sheesh. Why the fascination with DMOZ? It's just a directory and there are many out there. You have no control over DMOZ just as you have no control over ANY directory on the internet (or any other site for that matter). You submit your site...it get's added or rejected...period. It has nothing to do with reasoning, logic or ethics.....only relevancy.

Ok, here is a question that can help everyone. Which categories are backlogged in DMOZ? Would they accept help in those categories? (I have applied three times to three different categories to be an editor and have been turned down all three times without reason). Is there a place where we can see the backlog if we are not editors?

__________________
http://www.studiodavinci.net
http://www.emeraldislestudios.com

Hey!!! Quit shouting at each other and listen! Which categories are backlogged in DMOZ?

__________________
http://www.studiodavinci.net
http://www.emeraldislestudios.com

I was an editor for 4 years. In the process I learned a lot about how the thing really works. If you are truly interested in the truth I will tell it to you in this post.

First...the DMOZ is by far the most valuable directory on the entire internet to get your site into. I know many search engine optimizers claim it is not so but that is completely untrue.

You see when your site gets into the DMOZ you gradually will pick up hundreds of decent quality links because so many web sites and directories utilize the data from the DMOZ. This ends up elevating your site in both Google and Inktomi and probably a few other web portals. If you are in a highly competitive environment and your site is not in the DMOZ....you're screwed.

Now...how the DMOZ really works! (My discussion will focus only on sites that are commercial. The DMOZ is a good, fair, and honest directory for non-commercial sites.)

Now the first thing you must realize is that the DMOZ is a "crooked" directory. 95% of the editors have a vested interest in being an editor. They want to get and keep their own sites in the directory.
They also want to try to keep their competition out.
That's why they became an editor in the first place. In spite of this every editor has a line of BS making them sound as if they have the "highest morale character". That is how they relate to one another and how they relate to the public.

That's exactly why hardly anybody gets approved to be an editor. The more editors they have the smaller the slice of the pie. You see the DMOZ has so many rules that can be interpreted in any number of ways. It's quite easy to come up with a reason to accept or reject a site and also a new editor application.

Usually the editor of the category is the one that's crooked. If an editor higher up is interested monetarily in the category he will harass the lower editor, removing his sites, reprimanding him for one thing or another until the lower editor either quits or they remove him for not following the editor guidelines (which I already stated are numerous and can be interpreted any number of ways).

That's fundementally what the problem is. Too much "conflict of interest". Even if you do succeed in getting your site in the DMOZ...NEVER depend on money you're making from that site! Sooner or later an editor will come along that wants your site out because it is hurting their own sales from their site. There are so many guidelines and rules that are subjective that it's easy to find something about your site that can be used as an excuse to delete it.

The solution is for the DMOZ to begin charging a nominal fee for every submission. Say $10. This will eliminate virtually all the spam. Then get rid of all but the very best editors. Then pay the editors half that fee to review each site submitted. The editor can then easily make a very good living and will be scared to death about doing something wrong. The job of being an editor will be worth a lot more than having their own site in the directory. Then you will have a fair and honest DMOZ.

In the mean time you have to become an editor to get and keep your site in the directory in most cases. Start by applying for a non-commercial category. A category that no one in their right mind would apply for who is not passionately interested in the subject. These cats can be gotten. Once you do get in then and only then can you begin to work your way toward the category you are really interested in. Once in the dmoz....don't immediately apply for the cat you really want. Apply for some more non-commercial cats for at least 6 months to a year. Only then should you attempt to apply for the cat you really want to get your own site in.

Be advised. I am not interested in debating the fact of whether the DMOZ is crooked or not. (It is). I am simply someone who has come forward and spoke the truth about a terrible directory that contributes little to nothing to the commercial side of the internet.

The truth is that the DMOZ should have "crashed and burned" a long time ago. Maybe if enough people complain perhaps google will stop elevating the status of sites in the thing.

If that occurs there will be a lot of angry DMOZ editors. A lot of personal bankruptsies too. A smooth editor in the DMOZ can easily make $250,000 a year by getting and keeping a few of their sites in the directory.

joe_561,

You have "insisted" the content of your post is "factual." I'm not going to suggest it is nor am I going to suggest it isn't. You make some very scathing and libelous accusations. I'm sure all those, including myself, hope you're prepared and able to follow up your post with some solid facts and proof. Please excuse me if I do not take your word for it, I do not. You purport many things without showing any factual basis.

I would hope, not in defense of DMOZ, that the Administrators of WPW would at the very least ask you to provide some shred of credence to your accusations before allowing your post to continue much further. When anyone levels the type of "damnation" that you just have, without providing anything substantial to base it upon, I would hope that any organization would verify its' voracity.

Dave

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

I have 4 different websites which have been submitted to DMOZ 4 times each. I have given up trying as I have NEVER had a reply back on ANY of them, in spite of the fact that one site is deemed by scientists, academics and farm organisations worldwide to be the most authorative Global site on it's subject matter. Even Google gives it Page Rank 5. [ http://www.MolecularFarming.com ]
My other sites are shopping type directories specifically for Plus Sizes, and contain limited amounts of unique content, but at least if I had had at least ONE reply saying so it wouldn't be sooooo bad.

There was a question about which categories are backlogged in DMOZ.

With hundreds of thousands of categories that is not a question that can be answered. Generally if you think of categories with names that sound like moneyspinners those will be the ones backlogged. And those relating to industries with high levels of affiliate and MLM business models - contact lenses, flowers, gift baskets, cellphone ringtones, etc.

Will DMOZ accept help in those areas.

Not from new editors. The reason is simply - to deal with high volumes of submissions and sift spam from the gems, and in order to get a sense of what is good quality content as opposed to a lot of hot air, you need to get some experience first. Webmasters in these areas are often very clever at hiding spam under something that appears genuine so to be able to spot little signs and undertake investigation requires time to learn the DMOZ methods of spotting and dealing with them. Plus DMOZ meta editors who make the decisions about granting category editing rights need to have a reasonable level of trust in the editors they allow to edit in those places.

Anyone wanting to edit in those areas really needs to spend time to gain trust, and put in a lot of editing to learn the ropes, in smaller and less prone to spam categories. Categories where commercial interests are irrelevant - a favorite band or movie, a social issue, sport, academia, etc. are all good places to start. Or home town in Regional or maybe niche shopping sites. Categories with maybe under 50 sites. You then work your way up until you have the trust and experience to handle one of those spam magnets.

So many people think "I'm an expert in that field, I must be able to do a good job there". But really that isn't the case. Subject expertise is useful but editing skills are more important - a good experienced editor can edit in any subject area but not the other way around.

So the high spam categories are not suitable for the inexperienced editors and once they are experienced, many decide they don't want to go anywhere near them, even if that was their original intention. The fault lies not with DMOZ or the editors but with the spammers I fear, who have made many of these categories virtually no-go areas. One solution that can work is to stop spamming - but that is unlikely to happen. Another solution, as happened with MLM sites, is to ban them. Basically block new submissions to high spam categories. That has pluses and minuses but might ultimately be necessary at some point. We already list 25,000 web design and development companies. Is that actually useful to anyone trying to find a web designer in a directory?
Probably not. Over 5,000 online booksellers. Over 9,000 auto related sites. Over 600 sites on kite flying. Perhaps we need to get more selective about what we list and not less. And that is happening already - sites that are listed but are little more than an online business card or an advert are being removed.

Lets go back to web designers for a moment. 25,000 of them is no use to anyone unless you use a search engine to sift them down to a reasonable number - located near to you so you can meet face to face, the type of technology you want, etc. Unless you are particular that your web designer's name must begin with K. So perhaps for the directory's users and the web design companies, being listed in your Regional locality category would be far better. But many web designers give nothing more than their cellphone number and no indication of where they are so a Regional listing can't be granted - there is no local relevance on the site. So whilst Tinyville's local businesses really need to know there are five designers in town, we can't list them because (a) none of the designers says they are in Tinyville, and (b) they want their place in the Computers...Web Designers category along with the other 25,000 and have forgotten to submit to Tinyville locality category where they might well get listed in a matter of days and be one of only 5 choices. An editor won't find them by using search engines because there is nothing on the site to tie them to the town and get picked up by spiders.

The corruption issue is still rearing its head. DMOZ meta editors do everything possible to trap and dispose of corrupt editors, for some that is all they do. To be effective in this they need information, precise information, reported to them. Innuendo, circumstantial evidence etc. is no good. As I said before, you have to be trusted and experienced to edit in high risk categories. Also if you know DMOZ from inside you would know that editors are rarely left completely alone to do as they want. Most importantly a majority of editors do not come from a professional commercial webmaster background - we have students, seniors, homemakers, priests, government employees, doctors, military, as well as real estate agents and lawyers. Most are not in business for themselves and if they are then they must take off their business hat at the login prompt.

"I am not listed, ergo the editor is corrupt and is deliberately blocking my site" is such total nonsense, it can't possibly be taken seriously as evidence. Nevertheless all reports of abuse are looked into. Most times the actions reported as evidence were not even done by the editor being accused and the case is dismissed. As a matter of policy reasons why a case is upheld or dismissed are never revealed, even to other editors, to prevent the development of ways not to get caught.

Former DMOZ editors who have been kicked out for corrupt practices very often form the core of those wanting to inflict damage - they got caught so they want the project to burn in hell. The truth, as joe-561 well knows, is that there are a small number of corrupt editors who number less and less as they are caught and removed and the techniques improve to prevent their re-entry. The truth is that it is impossible to get away with abusive editing in a prominent commercial category as too many eyes are watching. The truth is that the majority of DMOZ editors are not commercial webmasters. And DMOZ is now run by Admins who were picked, amongst other reasons, because they have no possible conflicts of interest.

However, to give joe the benefit of the doubt, he may have been editing in a different era to me, and picked up exaggerated conclusions from observation of a small number of very prominent editors who have long-since been ejected. The metas now in place, as a group, are extremely intolerant of abuse and the techniques involved and systems in place for selecting new editors and monitoring existing ones are extremely effective. I don't say corruption wasn't once endemic within DMOZ - I can't comment on before my time, though I think it is probably wildly exagerated. But if ever it was so, it most certainly isn't an accurate portrayal of DMOZ in 2004.

Not only allow and condone... encourage. You got 2 cents? Bring it. If it doesn't hold up it doesn't hold up. Here again, that's what a good forum does. If somebody brings some flimsy argument it aint gonna stand very long in an active forum. Precisely what you would want I would think. It's precisely what I want anyway.

__________________
WebProNews Videos

Absolutely what I and anyone would want at the very least. 2 cents? Shared 1 cent so far

About time. Nuff said.

Dave

unrelated side note: If you're out and about and happen to be around Spa Gallery on New Circle Rd., bop in and tell CJ, Dave says Hi.

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

I'm gonna sign off for the day now but will leave you with some useful information.

Editors don't really care about the whines and whinges in this thread though it will no doubt have had them rolling in the aisles at times. Nothing said here will make the slightest difference within DMOZ though the constructive comments will be noted.

Where this thread can make a difference is in people grasping what DMOZ is about, and listening to the advice given out about how to work with DMOZ to get a listing. You want to be listed in our directory, follow our rules. Same for Jayde no doubt (I have a couple of listings in Jayde - different concept, different approach, but I followed all the rules to the letter and I'm in.)

DMOZ editors will help people, advise people, on how to follow our rules. But they won't change those rules nor react to ranting.

This was exactly what happened to me a year ago. I took on a category that had no editor but a backlog of more than a year, worked hard for 3 months, then went on two weeks vacation. I came back and my "boss" - 5000 miles away from Spain and without a glimmer of personal experience there - practically undoes the whole work of three months. You would think that I did something wrong or classified wrongly or whatever. Nope. All according to DMOZ's book. Mind you he could have spent his time on one of the thousands of subcats that still have no editor. For good measure he also kicked off one entry that belonged to myself and that many many month earlier had be classified complelety wrong by some other kid (I have experience in the category because I work in that category - how could I have experience otherwise? - so its not a surprise nor s sin to have a site in that category too [but in DMOZ philosophy it is a sin - infact anything that smacks of commercial intent seems to be a sin to those gifted volunteers who seem to come from an age when they even would have loved to ban AOL from the Net]) and after 6 months I threw the towel. Dmoz is in my view unprofessional, poorly organized, does not monitor properly what is going on in the lower ranks and obsolete. It does not fulfill the high and lofty goals it has set for itself.

Catering? Not exactly.
They simply have to be responsible and fair towards them, because of their influence to the outside world.
I am not sure why are you so consistently fighting it and trying to simplify things.
And I still think the media is the best analogy to understand it.
What do you think John Kerry team would do if an independent tv station like NBC or CNN (well, just another AOL) starts favoring Bush without even mentioning Kerry at all?
"We are sorry John, we decide what do we air, it is between us and our viewers. Besides, we were not set-up to promote someone's commercial or other interests. If you don't like it just switch the channel or try with xwzyy news".

activeco,

The comparison you are trying to make here isn't valid,

"Catering? Not exactly.
They simply have to be responsible and fair towards them, because of their influence to the outside world."

No they don't. The don't "have" to be anything at all. Webmasters (whatever that means in practice) would, on the basis of your statement, have a complementary responsibility to be "fair" towards DMOZ. The real world of commercial competition simply isn't like that.

This is part of the problem with this thread. There's too much sloppy thinking going on. I'm finding that replying to these posts is becoming more and more like teaching a 16-18 yr class in critical reasoning. If you don't get the parameters for debate you can't really understand the answers you are being given. Read anything by Schwartz on the subjects of education and the mother imago, you'll see what I mean then.

I don't mean to be offensive I'm just frustrated by the lack of thinking that's going into some of the posts here.

pne

__________________
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/" target="_blank">Employee Assistance Programme
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/employee_wellness_programme.php"/target="_blank">Employee Wellness Programme

Quote:

Originally Posted by brizzie The truth, as joe-561 well knows, is that there are a small number of corrupt editors who number less and less as they are caught and removed and the techniques improve to prevent their re-entry.

Finally some one from DMOZ admits to the problems in that organization. I think I read some where that DMOZ has about 60,000 editor (I don't remember but if I am wrong, I am sure cbp jumpps in mentions that it is only 59,995), if we estimate the corruption is 1% then it makes 600 corrupt editors, 10% makes 6000 corrupt editors, so what is your defination of small number 100,1000 or 10,000?

Why DMOZ does not open it's process to all, so the corruption can be rooted out? If DMOZ is serious about fighting corruption, why does it insist in operating behind closed doors and without any accountablity? After all honest people have nothing to hide.

Yes, I will jump in as you are wrong again. Its not even close to that number - this has been discussed in this thread already (or maybe the other one) - did you not read it?

That number is the total number of editors that DMOZ has ever had.

CBP

I don't know the figures but spammy webmasters aren't always stupid and will have tried numerous times to get in and succeeded from time to time. Once they get in, the vast majority are easily spotted and removed - many times they remove themselves by logging in once, listing their own site, and never logging in again. It is inevitable from the misconceptions here alone that people will try and become editors to abuse the system. The fact that only a minority of applicants are accepted should tell you how closely applicants are scrutinized.

But it is very rare that these abusive editors get away with it for long. Editors are constantly under scrutiny internally and externally. And because new editors' rights are restricted to small categories the impact and damage they can do is severely restricted also. That means it is not a major problem, the systems to uncover and remedy corruption are in place and they work.

One source of corruption allegations comes from people whose sites have been rejected supposedly by competitors. Time after time though a quick internal view reveals the accused has done nothing wrong with decisions undertaken or confirmed by multiple editors with no connections at all to the category. Obviously in those instances no action is needed.

Should DMOZ be more open about its investigation of abusive editors. No. If they knew how they'd been caught it would give away the advantage. But the reporting of abuse is open to anyone. And whether or not the case was proven is also open too - if the editor is removed then the evidence existed, if not it wasn't. If you don't trust the process inbetween that is up to you but really it is none of your business anyway and it isn't going to change so just live with it.

To repeat what I've said several times before, editors hate corrupt editors more than anyone else - they hurt the reputation of the vast majority, cause many man-hours of work in putting right their mischief, and betray their friends and colleagues. If you have evidence, submit an abuse report, it will be taken seriously but if the evidence is circumstantial and based on innuendo and assumptions about the way editors work and there is no actual case to answer when investigated then it won't be upheld and the editor won't be removed. But it will be investigated thoroughly before that conclusion is reached.

Not sure editors are under any misconceptions, but that is one of the fairest external assessments I've seen.

As I mentioned before I am always ready to learn, can you please tell me what is the number of ediotrs since I am not member of your club.

Also, since you are the resident authority on DMOZ, I will be thankful if you could also provide the number of corrupt editors that brizzie admits that exists.

Thank you.

It is self-evident, since there is an abuse reporting system and editors do get ejected for abusing their position, that abusive editors exist. Don't make it out to be major tabloid headlines or an "admission". For the reasons previously stated they are not a major problem and they are rooted out and their logins disabled as soon as they show their hand. Why would you, and everyone else here, be invited to report suspicion of abusive practices if there was denial that any existed. It is investigated, it is dealt with. Not always the result you might want because circumstantial evidence is never reliable.

As to numbers that would be a matter for a meta editor to answer, and though I may be wrong, I would have thought such information, if it exists, would be confidential. Why that might be is also a matter for them alone. Not only that but abuse covers a much wider spectrum than corrupt practices - the guidelines are open to the public, look them up.

As for the numbers of active editors, that is also something that most editors would not know or bother to think about. Given that an editor need only do one edit every 4 months to stay an editor and others may do dozens in a day, raw numbers of editors is really totally irrelevant, the important piece of data being how many sites are reviewed per day and you already have your answer on that one. And the number of editors changes daily as some time out, new ones join.

Some editors don't make the grade, some editors find it isn't for them, most have no conception of what they are taking on when they sign up. That's true. Once you are an editor and have read all the recommended reading before you edit, no editor should be under any illusions.

How this discussion has grown over the weekend!!!

To give my story - I joined as a dmoz editor about 3 years ago to get a club I was a member of listed. I applied as editor for a non commercial category relating to my hobby and my club. Over the years I applied for higher and higher category and sometimes was given the rights and sometimes not but at the end of it all am now the editor of the top category that I am interested in. After a while I also appled for categories that were related in the Business section and in all cases received the permissions. In my 3 years I have never seen sites deleted without reason. In fact there is normally a huge amount of discussion about listng some sites, moving , etc etc. I have never had the impression that any category that I have edit rights in has been manipulated by an editor except one (see below) .

Yes there are editors that are removed. I am aware of 2 - one came to my attention because of the discussion in the editors forum and another because I saw a strange edit and when I followed the link to the editor profile I saw they had been removed.

The only problem I have had with metas is some arrogance. The ODP is a volunteer organisation and volunteers need to be encouraged otherwise they fade away. I think it should be a task for metas to "manage" the editors and motivate them as any senior person would do in any organisation.

There is a method of reporting abuse in the ODP and I have used it once when I found an editor listing sites contrary to the rules (Verly sloppy descriptions). This was sorted out in a very short space of time. For those webmasters and site promoters that have so much critisism. Wait your turn like all other site had to do. Your site will be listed. It might take 2 or 3 years (I once listed a site that had been submitted almost 5 years prior to listing - it was in a category that I inherited after being promoted to a higher level).

I must admit I do not edit very much any more, it is time consuming and a thankless task but still do go in every now and again. The sites waiting for listing in the categories I have rights in is increasing every day - but if you are not happy - get involved.
Just a personal story to get some balance

An article 4 years old and which has no bearing on DMOZ in 2004.

You are not willing to listen to anyone here telling you the way it is today in 2004. I cannot say what the position was 4 years ago but if corruption was widespread it isn't now. If meta bullying was ever an issue it isn't now. Systems have moved on, technology has moved on, the DMOZ editing community has moved on, the critics, it seems, remain rooted in the past.

This bit is not addressed to you, gworld, but to readers in general.

The real issues of today are efforts to identify, prevent, and remove spam, to improve the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of listings, to improve editor efficiency through technology, to improve the structure to make it easier for the users, to develop new areas of the directory presently under-represented - new categories are born every hour and populated with sites never included before. In my personal opinion these are far more pressing than adding another 100 web designers to the 25,000 already there, or a dozen more hotels to the Californian tourist spots.

Scientific and academic research sites, schools, colleges, charities and hospital sites, community services, history, culture, and sport sites, wildlife refuges, battered wife resources, cancer advisory services. In the commercial field niche services, specialists, small town businesses, artisans and craftsmen. To me as a user not an editor, a directory that is definitive and comprehensive in those types of area is far more worthwhile than the choice of yet another pantyhose reseller, or a web designer - that type of service is often better found through search engines not a directory. To be honest, webmasters of the non-commercial and the specialist services sites are a lot more friendly, more understanding, non-abusive, and tend to follow submission guidelines, don't spam and don't hype. Where do you think my priorities lay?

They won't recognise problems you insist exist when in fact they are only in your mind, not reality. Real issues and priorities, such as those mentioned above, DMOZ welcomes views and suggestions on but like all organizations reserves the right to accept or reject at its discretion.

I liked those two until I got to:

Never ever submit again!!! I've never heard of anyone getting a notification of what was wrong with the site though the editors' own Resource Zone forums will often yield this information. Editors are discouraged from responding to emails from submitters due to threats and intimidation that followed on from initial polite emails in the past.

For the same reason the editor above is unlikely to reply. Never submit to another category - it is as bad as resubmitting to the same one. If, when the site is reviewed it is deemed more suitable for another category the editor will move it. Again the editors' Resource Zone is the place to go to ask questions about site status.

"abuse reporting system"

Isn't that like the cat watching the mouse?

This has turned in to another waste of time.

And brizzie also said

In regard to DMOZ abuse system, let me tell you a story ( it is a real story) about when I was designing a software for high school exceptance for a European country.

One day the man who was responsible for the project in the education department, just run to my office and told me that we have made a big mistake and we have to correct the problem as soon as possible.

I asked him, what was the problem, he said that we have forgotten to make a routin to register the complains from students who were not accepted to the high school of their choice, since this is a democratic country and every one has a right to file a complain against the decision from a goverment office.

I told him, this is not a problem and we can add the function very fast but then we will need another program to follow up the registered complains and register what has happened with it.

He looked at me, like I was crazy and in a very serious tone answered: No, it is not needed, they HAVE the right to file a complain, but according to law, we have NO OBLIGATION to answer it.

I hope, you do not close your eye and see the irony and the resemblance of the above story to DMOZ abuse reporting system.

On the strength of the discussion here, I went to resource-zone to determine the status of a site I had submitted.

The response I received was that "the site was rejected and is ineligible." I was then told to review the edit guidelines to determine why I was rejected and ineligible.

Since I had read the editing guidelines before submitting my site, I had considered what I had submitted to be suitable, certainly eligible. Since the editing guidelines are general, they are not very helpful for someone who thinks he or she has done it right by the guidelines in the first place.

This brusque response was like telling a blindfolded marksperson that s/he missed the target but not removing the blindfold (and worse yet, suggesting it is useless to try again.)

That was the bad part of the experience.

The good part was that I actually got a response from an editor explaining why the site was "ineligible". I don't agree with the conclusions and rationale, but I understood them and appreciated the response and the help.

At least, I can do something to make my site more acceptable. Maybe I will succeed.

The difference between the initial response and the second response was night and day, although I did detect a tone of "hey, stupid" in both responses.

So, with all respect for the hard, volunteer work the editors do, it would be helpful if there was a little less "arrogance" and a little more attitude of helpfulness to submitters who are just trying to do the right thing. It certainly worked with me.

For a number of reasons DMOZ will never usually give feedack on the reasons why a site is not listable. For a lengthy discussion on this, see this thread at Resource Zone:
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20718

CBP

This one paragraph reveals a lot. If most editors are of this same opinion, then their priorities are very narrow in scope. It also smacks of bias.

First off, I have only submitted one site in my entire life and I had it approved in little under 5 months. It was a nasty old commercial site too. I just want to lay this out there to show you that I am not one of the nasty spammers you are referring to, and that I have no complaints one way or the other.

What is the difference between a commercial "niche" service, a "specialist", or a "web designer" that might cater to small businesses at a decent price and does quality work? Perhaps this web designer might specialize in customized dynamic programming that he almost gives away to his clients well below cost (but you see, he is "artisan" at his job -- just like a glassblower making some funky assed birds that nobody really cares about).

What makes the glassblower a more prized entry in the DMOZ directory (by your standards) than the nasty old spam happy web designer (as you so eloquently stated)?

Now I am sure that not all editors share your opinion. There are different levels of arrogance, that is for sure. But it is still arrogance.

This is part of the problem that I see eminating from a lot of editors, not all, but a lot. Sure there are spammers and multiple-submitters, but not all of them are that way. Yet you, with bias, look at them that way.

So you can see how your reputation precedes you in most cases. People are not so much angry at not being approved, they are angry at the condescending nature of some of the comments that are made.

__________________
Web Design & Development News
The BoG Reborn

Guess it's my turn to chime in:

Every Site I have submitted to DMOZ in the past has been accepted and listed within 2-3 months except one that I have been trying to get listed for over a year. The category has only 14 listings. The Site is well designed with W3C validated XHTML and CSS, and Ranked well (Pr4s)in GOOGLE.

The category is Top: Business: Industrial Goods and Services: Casting, Molding, Machining: Machine Shops: Full Service: Regional: North America: United States: Texas (14)

I figured after 1 year after 1st submission that it was time to re-submit, so that was done a couple months ago. I never rcvd a rejection notice, it just seems like a "black hole". With 14 listings, it wouldn't seem that it would take much time to administer this category, but maybe they haven't had an editor there in a while.

How does one find out if a category has an editor and/or who the editor is? How do you view the public profiles?

If these questions have already been answered, please kindly refer me back to the appropriate page in this forum.

Thanks,
Ken

__________________
Mountain Eagle Marketing
Contemporary Art News
Modern Art News

You just work your way back through the categories until you find a named editor in a higher level category.

PM me the site's URL and I will look it up for you.

CBP

Hi Ken,

if a directory has an editor assigned, their author name will appear at the bottom of the page. The public profiles (if available) are linked to the editor's name. If there's no editor for the category, there's usually a notice saying "Volunteer to edit this category" or words to that effect.

Paul

PS. I've never had any problems submitting sites to DMOZ, and earlier this year I was accepted as an editor for a small category.

__________________
London Web Design Agency | London IT Support | IT Support - Mac & PC

Ronnie and Ken,

Welcome to this debate. It has been conducted on an "interesting" basis. I'm probably not alone in thinking it's gone way off-topic many, many times, so thanks for the pertinent questions (none of which I'm qualifies to answer by the way).

For the record DMOZ, IMHO, is very important from the point of view of links and link popularity. I too have been trying to get "in" but so far without success. I've decided to get on with other things, some just as frustrating.

Hope you get the answers you need.

pne

__________________
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/" target="_blank">Employee Assistance Programme
<a href="http://www.sochoose.com/employee_wellness_programme.php"/target="_blank">Employee Wellness Programme

Thanks cbp, Paul and pne,

I have checked back and found an editor several levels up. I have PM'd cbp.

Thanks again,
Ken

__________________
Mountain Eagle Marketing
Contemporary Art News
Modern Art News

I just wanted to react on pretty big part of this thread spent on offtopic. Theres PMs and e-mails for personal misunderstandings, i believe that no one here is interested in someones personal fights or in excerpts from dictionaries.

Well, not to be offtopic myself now, heres a new article about DMOZ - http://www.metamend.com/article-dmoz.html. The first part is in the newsletter, sorry couldnt find it on their web. But, the second part is definitely more interesting.
Btw, I didnt know that you are allowed on 2 listings? Subject and geographic listing. is this true?

__________________
Yacht Charter Croatia
Crewed yacht charter croatia

Except there is some pretty poor advice in that article - it is offline at the moment, but when I read it earlier ... I remember thinking that - just can't remeber what they said is poor .... whatever it was, following the advice would have meant your site would take a lot longer to get listed.

Its correct, provided your buisness service's a region.

CBP

OK - I found the article - the bad advice was about only submitting to a category with an editor .... very bad advice - please don't do it.

If you submit to a category with a named editor, you will wait until they get to it --- they will then just move it to the correct category to wait all over again for an editor get to it --- you could end up waiting twice as long...

Shame that article was not reviewed by someone who knows something about the topic before it was published ... its only effect is to create more work for editors (ie moving sites) rather than reviewing and listing sites.

CBP

One effective way of keeping track of your submissions is to use a domain tracking service such as seotie
The site offers to: Registration is free. I've already had one email alert from them informing me of a dmoz acceptance for a site I submitted in August.

__________________
London Web Design Agency | London IT Support | IT Support - Mac & PC

First I must say that thanks to Brizzie and cbp my opinion on DMOZ has changed. If all editors are like two of them, then DMOZ has great future!

I have applyed for editor on category (http://www.dmoz.org/Recreation/Trave...urope/Croatia/) for two times, and i was just rejected for second time. I am not whining now, but i just dont understand this reasons, especially after things I have learned in this thread so far. So here is what ive got back:

- Incomplete application. Insufficient information has been provided in some
fields including reason, affiliation and/or Sample URLs.

I wrote an article-like answer for every field.

- Improper spelling and grammar.

Possible, although I put everything on spell and grammar check. Btw, how much grammar and spelling is needed for Title and Description?

- Sample URLs are inappropriate for the category which one has applied to
edit. They may be too broad, too narrow, completely out of scope, poor
quality, or in a language inappropriate for the category. All non-English
sites are listed in the World category. Applications for World categories
that include sites only in English will be denied. Likewise, applications
for World categories that include sample URLs in languages other than the one
appropriate for the applied category will be denied.

URLs Ive given:
www.ab-ovo.hr
www.brukva.hr
I dont remeber third URL, but it was charter agency with its base in Croatia.

- Not properly disclosing affiliations with websites that are, or have the potential of being, listed in the category.

I wrote that I am employee of company Yacht-base (www.yacht-base.com). How much disclosure is needed?

- Titles and descriptions of sample URLs (and other information provided)
were subjective and promotional rather than unbiased and objective. ODP
editors do not rank or write website reviews. ODP editors provide objective
and unbiased descriptions of websites and their content.

I dont know how can i be subjective towards competitive company which i am proposing for listing?

- Self-Promotion. Application which leads us to believe that the candidate is
interested primarily in promoting his/her own sites or those with which the
applicant is affiliated. The ODP is not a marketing tool, and should not be
used to circumvent the site submission process. If this is an applicant's
motivation for joining, then we ask him/her not to apply. Editors found to be
inappropriately promoting their own site will be promptly removed.

I understand this, but I dont know how can I promote just my company for longer than a week, and with that risk the listing of my company? I ve learned in this thread that there are meta-editors that are monitoring new editors?

Sorry for longer post, but i thought this might be of some interest. Cbp, Brizzie, should I ask for explanations on DMOZ forum?

__________________
Yacht Charter Croatia
Crewed yacht charter croatia