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.

__________________
What I am is what I am, are you what you are, or what.
Eddie Brickel

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 >

__________________
Left WPW to do better things So long

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.