DMOZ is heavily biased

[mcfox]

I normally ignore all the usual complaints about dmoz and the editors, mostly because the complaints are often little more than a whinge about 'why isn't my site included ..' blah, blah.

However, I am currently working on a project which involves me pouring over some dmoz listings and to be honest, I am rather shocked at the level of bias, well, what I perceive as bias, within the content.

America has a population in the range of 300million, yet has a huge number of entries under than the category of webhosting compared to ... the rest of the world ... um, population in the region of 5.97billion.

Rather unsettling.

[Valtar]

I would have to agree, they do pass over a lot of websites.

I'm not complaining about dmoz... but I have been trying to get listed there for over a year now, I guess my site isn't good enough for them, Sad thing, is they turn you down but never contact you, or tell you what you are doing wrong, they could atleast point people to the correct path. :cool:

As it is now even if you follow there instructions to the T. there is a huge chance you will never appear in DMOZ. Heh, even with all that to get me down I still continue to try. :p

[anthonycea]

We have discussed this in many of the other threads here at DP and I always come to the same conclusion, they need to fire all of the editors.

After they fire all of the editors, they then can......

Install automation that communicates with webmasters about their submissions and allow users to vote sites up and down sort of like we do on the forum with reputation.

AOL will do something with this "database" soon and firing the editors and replacing them with automation is the only solution ;)

[sarahk]

Then again you look at cats like http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Designers/Full_Service/Z/ and it's laden with non-usa sites.

While the US is treated as a region it's a token gesture, most of the sites that are in the "international" section are still quite regional in their focus.

Sarah

[anthonycea]

They claim they are fair and just, read this and tell me where they are failing folks :o

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/

Just because they never communicate with any one does not mean they are not working their asses off on your behalf :o

[sarahk]

I'm not complaining about dmoz... but I have been trying to get listed there for over a year now, I guess my site isn't good enough for them

Hi Valtar

You might like to ask for a site review from the Digitalpoint members.
Some things I noticed
* plenty of typos
* had to scroll horizontally because the page got pushed out
* personally, I wasn't mad about your colour scheme
* you've got that javascript in place to disable right mouse clicks which means I can't open a link in a new tab or window and I don't hang around sites which won't let me navigate my way

just some thoughts

Sarah

[anthonycea]

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html

The above page will settle this issue once and for all, there is no conflict of interest by editors at DMOZ :cool: :)

[hurricane_sh]

I normally ignore all the usual complaints about dmoz and the editors, mostly because the complaints are often little more than a whinge about 'why isn't my site included ..' blah, blah.

Many people think this way until they have problems to have their own sites included.

DMOZ is a joke IMO.

[mcfox]

Many people think this way until they have problems to have their own sites included.
DMOZ is a joke IMO.
I can see how that could happen. The thing is, I am not trying to get a particular site included. It is an observation entirely independent of seeking inclusion.

When dmoz kicked off, it had high ideals about quality and human edited listings which would help define the web by removing a lot of junk sites. To a great degree this has occurred, however, either the swing towards filtration has gone to far or, more likely, the dmoz editorial fraternity has been infiltrated by the very people dmoz sought to exclude.

Seems like competition is being suppressed by this new breed and the listings are now spamdered -- instead of having to spam directories with lots of useless sites, another philosophy could be to simply squash the opposition a.l.a. M$ -- spamdered.

[minstrel]

Just because they never communicate with any one does not mean they are not working their asses off on your behalf
It doesn't mean they are, either -- they may be working their asses off (well... some of them) but don't count on it being on anyone's behalf except their own.

[minstrel]

I am not trying to get a particular site included. It is an observation entirely independent of seeking inclusion.
Ditto.

Indeed, that's one of the things I dislike about DMOZ editors (at least or especially the Resourceless Zone variety): They attribute any criticism to sour grapes -- either "you're saying that because your site was rejected" or "you're saying that because you were rejected as an editor" -- apparently "you're saying that because it's true or you sincerely believe it to be true" just isn't one of the offical options for DMOZ.

[anthonycea]

But with the links I provided we have an open and shut case, they are open to submissions and are doing their jobs just fine.

That is what the pages say that I linked to Minstrel.....Are we being a bit hard on DMOZ for some odd reason today :confused:

[mcfox]

Intentionally concealing affiliations for the purposes of conducting deceptive, unfair and abusive editing will result in removal of editing privileges. oooohhh, scary! ;)

[minstrel]

But with the links I provided we have an open and shut case, they are open to submissions and are doing their jobs just fine. That is what the pages say that I linked to
Oh yeah... why, yes... yes, they ARE doing a bang up job. I see it all clearly now. How could we all have been so wrong all this time? :rolleyes:

Minstrel.....Are we being a bit hard on DMOZ for some odd reason today
No more than any other day. I say, "Nuke DMOZ!" :D

[mcfox]

... apparently "you're saying that because it's true or you sincerely believe it to be true" just isn't one of the offical options for DMOZ.So it seems judging from all of the threads that exist complaining about the shortcomings within the dmoz system.

[anthonycea]

Yes Gentleman, but since Digital Point is an open forum both points of view must be presented here, we must give the other side a chance to explain their views fairly.

So when those who wish to defend DMOZ come into this thread please be gracious and let them present their arguments without attacking them.

[minstrel]

To add to the reading material supplied by Anthony, try these:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=9680

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=8327

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=10043

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=3462

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=3455

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=2742

...this is just a sample and only from DigitalPoint: search further here or go to any other forum and you'll find hundreds.

Oh, but I forgot... according to the Resourceless Zone, all those hundreds of people are wrong.

My mistake. Please ignore this post and refer to the propoganda... I mean wisdom of the Resourceless Zone editors instead.

[minstrel]

Yes Gentleman, but since Digital Point is an open forum both points of view must be presented here, we must give the other side a chance to explain their views fairly.

So when those who wish to defend DMOZ come into this thread please be gracious and let them present their arguments without attacking them.
Oh... you mean the way they do it at the Resourceless Zone? :eek:

[anthonycea]

Well they have a right to come here to argue their case and you know that Minstrel, maybe one day they will and I hope we have a fair debate when they do :o

[minstrel]

Well they have a right to come here to argue their case and you know that Minstrel, maybe one day they will and I hope we have a fair debate when they do
Nonsense. We already have a forum for fair DMOZ debate -- they call it the Resourceless Zone :rolleyes:

If they try that stuff here, we'll cut their balls off :D

[Valtar]

Well they have a right to come here to argue their case and you know that Minstrel, maybe one day they will and I hope we have a fair debate when they do :o

I would love to see that debate, but I don't think they will, because they are to busy working their asses off asanthonycea said. :p


Just because they never communicate with any one does not mean they are not working their asses off on your behalf

[anthonycea]

Sure, that is what makes a great thread, both sides must have an opportunity to speak, when that is cut off it makes the forum look bad.

[minstrel]

Sure, that is what makes a great thread, both sides must have an opportunity to speak, when that is cut off it makes the forum look bad.
You mean like at the Resourceless Zone, right?

Live by the sword, die by the sword, AC.

[anthonycea]

They never told me not to speak, they just said don't ask again for 3 months or something after you make your next submission :o

[minstrel]

They never told me not to speak, they just said don't ask again for 3 months or something after you make your next submission
You mean SIX months. Wait a couple of weeks and the new rule will be 6 years.

And I'm not telling anyone not to speak either. I'm just saying if your one of those Resourceless Zone people, we'll cut your balls off. While you're speaking.

[nevetS]

I think the DMOZ program has its problems, but that's the nature of the beast. For every good category, there is a bad one and vice versa. Sometimes sites don't fit within the confines of their directory structure. Sometimes they have biased editors, and sometimes they have editors who don't pay attention to submissions as much as they look for sites on their own.

I've volunteered to help out a couple of times, but have been denied. What can you do? Use it and get a listing if you can. Otherwise don't pay attention to it. That's my current philosophy. Paying attention to it just makes you bitter.

[anthonycea]

When I asked if they could check the submission that I submitted twice they said I would have to have the exact URL of the section that I submitted to.

I told them I did not know and they told me to start all over again and submit that URL to them to follow up on but not before 30 days or something after the submission. :eek:

After that I just said to myself that I am wasting my time with this process :confused: :p :p

[minstrel]

bitter
I like bitter once in a while... my current new favorite is Harp Lager on tap, though... :D

[anthonycea]

Now they will use that against us, I can hear it now..... :eek:

Those guys over at DP are just a bunch of drunks :p :o :p

[davedx]

Um. Maybe there's more web hosting links in the USA category because most web hosting companies are in the US? I know I've always had trouble finding competitive hosting companies locally, both in the UK and in Australia, and as a consequence I've always used a US webhost (in one case I used a Canadian one). The value for money is usually better due to competition -- and where does the competition come from? All those web hosting companies! :D

Also, I think it really is the case that people think DMOZ has an automatic obligation to include their site in the kind of time frame it takes to get included on paid-inclusion sites, and whenever they don't get listed the typical response is to find some web design forums like these or resource zone and kick up a fuss.

The biggest problem is when people start thinking about resources like Google and DMOZ as if they're paid services -- "My business is doomed if I don't get put on DMOZ and get #1 rank on Google - therefore it's their fault when I don't get these things!" One thing people really need to keep in mind is webmasters aren't paying G or DMOZ, and they have no obligation to put people's sites where the webmasters think they should be (number 1 spot of course - just like everyone else...)

[mcfox]

Um. Maybe there's more web hosting links in the USA category because most web hosting companies are in the US?Obviously, the first question I asked myself. Even allowing for this, the discrepancy is a huge one indeed.

Also, I think it really is the case that people think DMOZ has an automatic obligation to include their site in the kind of time frame it takes to get included on paid-inclusion sites, and whenever they don't get listed the typical response is to find some web design forums like these or resource zone and kick up a fuss.Agreed -- in some instances. I have seen posts from people who are disgruntled, however, in light of my recent observations I am now inclined to be a bit more sympathetic towards their complaints.

Which is why I made the point that it was an observation I had made and not a complaint because I didn't get a site included. I simply found the heavily biased slant a bit unsettling, perhaps because of my previous 'stop whinging' attitude whenever I came across one of the plethora of anti-dmoz threads in the forums.

The biggest problem is when people start thinking about resources like Google and DMOZ as if they're paid services -- "My business is doomed if I don't get put on DMOZ and get #1 rank on Google - I think the Florida-update put paid to the belief that people could use Google as their guaranteed source of free revenue.

As far as I know, people are waiting months and months for a dmoz listing - hardly what you would expect for a paid service. I don't think many people are under any illusions that way.

[anthonycea]

It has nothing to do with if it is a paid or non-paid database, it has to do with the quality of the listings in the database and if it is truly an open directory as in the "spirit of open source" :o

I would rather look at a paid database of vendors or websites if it is more relevant to what I am looking for versus a directory with all kinds of spam that is nothing more than a link farm and an email harvesting tool.

[vord]

It's a nice idea - having a place where they only list useful sites and not spammy sites. I think that sort of human edited stuff can be of great value.

DMOZ doesn't have enough editors to do that job. They'd only get enough editors if they paid money for people to edit. Why not have a $10 submission fee? Not the crazy $300 of Yahoo. Have affiliate editors and boot them out if they are naughty. After all - how long does it take to tell a well meaning site from a spammy one.

They seem to reject a whole load of editors, and the way things work when you get in are baffling. I'd have been happy to edit some other categories while I was an editor, but the whole process was confusing to me. My 10 site category didn't get enough submissions to stop me from timing out as an editor.

The number of useful websites on the web is growing all the time. I seem to launch a couple a year myself. I've never had one accepted by DMOZ - largely because of a lack of editors.

DMOZ needs a rethink in my view.