Fired by ODP DMOZ

[jacobwissler]

In the time I worked with ODP as a volunteer editor (3 months), I more than doubled the size of the categories I edited, mostly by finding sites on the Internet and listing them. I never violated any rules that I know of, and was never given any warnings.

Then, I was denied permission to edit a new catergory, and the reason given was "trust." I had applied to edit a category with 77 pending submissions where the editor was doing just 2 edits per month. When I was rejected, I asked a meta editor for guidance, and was ignored. The next day I was terminated, and told that a reason for being fired is never given, and decisions are final.

This is of course their right; I have no right to participate. It is unprofessional to terminate people without giving a reason, but who says that they need to be professional.

It always broke my heart to find a submission from a very ligimate company that had waited more than a year to have the submission reviewed. Companies that employ 300 people are often at the mercy of a 22 year old editor who hides behind a screen name. ODP isn't about business, it is about editors building a directory their way, no matter what the impact on people who need that listing.

The alternative is Yahoo. They have always listed me, fast, and the listing results in 3 or 4 links (Yahoo USA, Yahoo Regional, and Yahoo Australia.) That's worth $299, and Yahoo is like any business, they try to please the customer whenever possible to do so. ODP does not view the site owner as a customer.

[cbp]

ODP does not view the site owner as a customer.

Thats because they are not customers.

Companies that employ 300 people are often at the mercy of a 22 year old editor who hides behind a screen name

If any business model is dependent on a DMOZ listing, then they do not deserve to be in business.

CBP

[minstrel]

Sorry to hear about yet another DMOZ success story, Jacob, but by now most of us have heard and seen enough of these and other DMOZ gaffes to know that this is just the way DMOZ works. In another thread, I described the directory as a set of bookmarks. The organization collecting those bookmarks, on the other hand, is like some sort of egomaniacal Secret Society of Grand Masons...

"The directory of the people, for the people, and by the..." -- No wait. Never mind. That isn't DMOZ...

[cbp]

I should have added, you may want to raise this here:
http://resource-zone.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=11
to see if it helps.

DMOZ always wants good editors, so removing an active editor without a good reason (even if you were not told) would just not happen (unless it was done in error). The reason will have been noted internally and other meta/senior editors (not me) would be able to see this, so it would not have been done for "the hell of it".

This is not meant to be directed at you, so please do not take it that way ... I have seen a number of posts from former editors in several different forums bashing DMOZ for the way they were treated ... senior editors who are privay to the reasons really have to "bite their tongue", as this information is confidential within DMOZ, so they can not post information about that former editor, except to say something like "there are 2 sides to every story".

If you have done as what you say, hopefully some senior editor over at resource zone can look at the reason(s) and tell you something.

CBP

[jacobwissler]

I don't think there was any malice, but by dismissing an editor without telling me the reason, and allowing a reply, leaves the system open to mistakes and misunderstandings. It would have been fair to tell me the charges, and allow me to respond.

Yes, site owners are not customers at ODP, and are not entitled to good treatment, but I did everything possible to help every person get a fast listing, if their site qualified. I responded to every submission within hours.

This is like getting a traffic ticket, but not being told what you are accused of, or allowed to respond.

[redcircle]

sorry.. what's ODP?

[cbp]

ODP = Open Directory Project = DMOZ = Directory Mozilla

CBP

[minstrel]

This is like getting a traffic ticket, but not being told what you are accused of, or allowed to respond.

No. It's far worse than that. You can't pay your fine and be reinstated and drive away happily. You are charged (but not told what the charge is or the source), convicted in absentia (no trial, no right to present a defense against any charges or claims made about you), and dismissed (with no right of appeal and no controls over those with the power to dismiss you).

I get that they aren't trying to be a business or a democracy, I guess. But however you slice it, the organization seems to be based on extremely unfair practices and hierarchical secrecy.

They don't serve anyone but themselves. They seem to take pride in that. They are an exclusive club with an explicit vow of silence and stonewalling. They seem to take pride in that. They have a mission based on a flawed premise and they seem to take pride in that.

A fascinating phenomenon in many respects but irritating and ultimately doomed, in my view.

The most surprising thing about all of this to me is how much attention this little club gets and how much (false) importance they and many webmasters place on this very misnamed "open directory".

One of my sites has been in the directory for a few years now. What does that give me? Other than the DMOZ link itself, a spot on a PR2 page in the Google directory with no inbound links. I am listed in several other directories on higher PR pages with multiple incoming links, and many other individual sites/pages with better PR, etc.

So how much worse would my ranking be without DMOZ? It's really hard for me to believe it makes any real difference at all.

A flawed concept. A flawed organization. A flawed business model. Webmasters everywhere stressing and wringing their hands.

For one more link?

[cbp]

A flawed concept. A flawed organization. A flawed business model

From who's perspective? I do not see those that run DMOZ say this. I have never seen a DMOZ customer (the ones that really count) say that. I have seen lots of webmasters say that, but most seem to be under the misunderstanding that DMOZ is a free listing service of some kind (I have no idea where they get that from).

DMOZ is by far the biggest and fastest growing directory out there (2000 sites a day get added and it just passed the 4.5 million mark). No other directory comes close. If it is so flawed how come it is achieving this growth and size? It is acheiving its objective (and that objective is not to give PR to sites, which a lot of webmasters seem to be under the misunderstanding that is what its for).

The DMOZ "business" model is the way it is.... the Yahoo Directory is a different buisness model ... Bluefind is a different one; etc - what is wrong with that? Whats the point of having a whole lot of directories all based on the same business model?

I agree on the value of the link for PR - I disagree on the value of the link for keyword(s) in anchor text if they match the site title (a DMOZ listing can get you 100's of anchor text links in all the clones)

DMOZ is achieving what it set out to achieve. Those who bash/whinge/grizzle want DMOZ to be something that it is not..... thats not the fault of DMOZ.

CBP

[minstrel]

A flawed concept. A flawed organization. A flawed business model

From who's perspective?

Mine. I'm stating my opinion. These opinions are not to be taken as representing those of anyone else at all. Especially not those of WPW. (Or of DMOZ.)

I do not see those that run DMOZ say this.

No and I don't guess you will any time soon, will you?

It is acheiving its objective (and that objective is not to give PR to sites, which a lot of webmasters seem to be under the misunderstanding that is what its for).

Fair enough. That's what is NOT the objective. And the objective is...???

The DMOZ "business" model is the way it is.... the Yahoo Directory is a different buisness model ... Bluefind is a different one; etc - what is wrong with that? Whats the point of having a whole lot of directories all based on the same business model?

Nothing wrong with having different types of directories - the "business model" to which I was referring was not a "directory model" but one of accountability and responsibility...

DMOZ is achieving what it set out to achieve.

And that is???

Those who bash/whinge/grizzle want DMOZ to be something that it is not..... thats not the fault of DMOZ.

I suppose not. And I am not bashing you, CBP, nor many of the other editors, although I do (obviously) think you are rather misguided and I have doubts that some of the editors are as principled as one would like. But I'm less interested in hearing what DMOZ is not than I am in hearing what DMOZ is, according to the DMOZ definition of itself.