DMOZ Submission Reward - $1K

[rbfallon]

I will pay any person who can get my site listed in DMOZ within 60 days $1,000 via paypal, check, or credit card.

PM me for site details.

rbfallon

[T0PS3O]

Keep us posted on the results of this please! Should be interesting to see if there are any DMOZ editor takers...

Might be cheaper to buy a site already in there and 301 it.

[mcfox]

Just PM me the site details and I'll submit it for you, no problem. Not that I'm a dmoz editor but for $1000 I'll give it a shot. :D

[nullbit]

I will pay any person who can get my site listed in DMOZ within 60 days $1,000 via paypal, check, or credit card.
Seriously, you're just looking to find a corrupt editor, aren't you?

[rbfallon]

No, I'm just trying to get my site listed.

[dejaone]

dmoz = dinosaur :)

[Will.Spencer]

Seriously, you're just looking to find a corrupt editor, aren't you?

That might be easier than finding a Chin in Chinatown.

The trick is to find one who is corrupt AND who you can trust AND who actually goes to the effort of approving submissions.

Damn... I should create a few hundred e-mail aliases and have them all apply as DMOZ editors.

With one hundred applications, at least one is certain to be randomly selected.

I just made my first visit to the Resource-Zone in about nine months. My mood has swung from "bored" to "homicidal."

[digitalpoint]

{lol} What category are you trying to get into anyway?

[Test-ok]

$ 1000.00 damn, if you would have asked a year ago, I might have been able to help ya. I think it's at $ 2000.00 now, but the good news is it's with-in 30 days not 60.
Day late...dollar short. :)

[mizt]

LOL, my site got listed within 3 days. Hmm guess it depends on the editor.

[EyesCoffee]

Don't give your details to too many people. Otherwise there will be 10 or so different submissions on behalf of your site. Not the best way to impress the editors!

[specop]

This kinda reminds me of GBShaw, about the price of a prostitute. No matter how low or high the price you’re still…….

[Will.Spencer]

LOL, my site got listed within 3 days. Hmm guess it depends on the editor.

Or lack thereof!

Volunteer to be rejected as an editor for this category.

[jimnoble]

The trick is to find one who is corrupt AND who you can trustI don't think I've ever met a trustworthy corrupt person :D .

[rbfallon]

Trying to get into this category:

http://www.dmoz.org/shopping/publications/magazines/

I've been waiting since last May and from what I can tell it is taking about 3 years for sites to get listed in this category. At least that is what other sites in this category waited. What a joke.

rbfallon


{lol} What category are you trying to get into anyway?

[egdcltd]

I don't think I've ever met a trustworthy corrupt person :D .
They say an honest politician is one who stays bought.

[Web Gazelle]

Shopping can take awhile. I might know of a trick that can help though. I got my site in by sending a message to the editor of the category.

[TheWebJunkie]

Shopping can take awhile. I might know of a trick that can help though. I got my site in by sending a message to the editor of the category.

share the secret with us :D

[Web Gazelle]

share the secret with us :D
I just did, I sent a message to the editor. In my case he was the only editor for that category and had not been on to check submissions for awhile. He went on and I was in within a few days.

[Solicitors Mortgages]

Trying to get into this category:

http://www.dmoz.org/blahblahblah



i think you just shot yourself in the foot.............

listing the category you want to get into.

i guess that category will be watched now, for a corrupt editor.

you may want to edit the thread before it becomes well known :cool:
(if you still can)

[anthonycea]

What a joke DMOZ has become :o :p :p :p

[minstrel]

Volunteer to be rejected as an editor for this category.
LMAO! If they had to comply with "truth in advertising", that's what it would read! :D

[anthonycea]

I would make one of the best editors for them but would not bother to apply :eek:

[Solicitors Mortgages]

I would make one of the best editors for them but would not bother to apply :eek:

not true....

they are all argumentative, stubborn and power crazy

whereas you..........

OK.....your right...you would make a great editor :D

[GTech]

I could just imagine Anthony applying to, and being accepted to the Republican section under Politics. The results would be catastrophic with every search for "republican" leading to a dmoz page with anchor text showing keywords such as: haliburton, oil, bush, cheney, nixon, etc. And not a single link to a UN oil scandal site. :D

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

[anthonycea]

I know good sites when I see them, GTech's, GEM's and Minstrel's would all be in my directory, in fact I am going to start one and blow their doors off.

If anyone wants to help let me know :o

[Blogmaster]

I agree ... even if the category has a corrupt editor, he will not list it ... at least not for a while.
i think you just shot yourself in the foot.............

listing the category you want to get into.

i guess that category will be watched now, for a corrupt editor.

you may want to edit the thread before it becomes well known :cool:
(if you still can)

[davedx]

Dude that's a PR 5 page with 48 links. Is it really worth that much cash?

Maybe for a PR 6 or 7...

[Blogmaster]

yeh but Diamonds are forever

[rickbender1940]

I just made my first visit to the Resource-Zone in about nine months. My mood has swung from "bored" to "homicidal."

hahahahha, I know what you mean man....

[egdcltd]

hahahahha, I know what you mean man....
Whilst I understand the editors are volunteers, and aren't getting paid for it, you'd think they could be a bit more helpful.

[egdcltd]

Dude that's a PR 5 page with 48 links. Is it really worth that much cash?

Maybe for a PR 6 or 7...

Thing is, with DMOZ, it's all the other links you will be getting from sites that use DMOZ data. IMO, that's what makes a DMOZ listing valuable.

It would be great to get your directory data open sourced out like DMOZ does; think of all the incoming links, which probably helps give DMOZ that high PR anyway. The webmaster of WOWDirectory posted once that he was planning on open sourcing his data at some point. I'd do it with my own directory, except (a) I doubt anyone would want a mere 1,100 links and (b) I have no idea how to do it.

[minstrel]

Whilst I understand the editors are volunteers, and aren't getting paid for it, you'd think they could be a bit more helpful.
At this point, I think most people would be satisfied with courteous.

[dfsweb]

rb: Wouldn't it be better if you just used the $1k to submit to 20 or so paid directories @ $50 each (approx.)?? Or, you could submit to Yahoo directory and 14 others. Just a thought!!

[Blogmaster]

I'm sure he is in all of those already :)

[dfsweb]

I'm sure he is in all of those already :)

He's in "ALL" paid directories??? :eek:

[ozband]

You would think with the large workload on these editors, they would employ more of the people applying for editors..

Am I wrong in saying this???

[Blogmaster]

He's in "ALL" paid directories??? :eek:
well, there are not that many that make a difference

[Web Gazelle]

How about I make 10 paid directories and you can pay me to get in all of them? ;)

[SEbasic]

I'd try the Corrupt DMOZ editor (http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com/) if I were you... :)

[Shoemoney]

if anyone seriously does know a dmoz editor pm me ill pay there lame corruption fee to get in the dmoz... I dont like it but I want to be listed.

[gworld]

if anyone seriously does know a dmoz editor pm me ill pay there lame corruption fee to get in the dmoz... I dont like it but I want to be listed.

read my posting in this section about getting a domain that is lited in dmoz in couple of days with very little cost.
You get the same effect as they listed your site with almost no cost. :D

[accountability]

Shoemoney - how much would it be worth?

[Blogmaster]

if it is real estate related, the value can be very high.

[longcall911]

read my posting in this section about getting a domain that is lited in dmoz in couple of days with very little cost.
You get the same effect as they listed your site with almost no cost. :D
But as soon as your competitor finds your new site and reports it, an editor will yank the listing within a day.

They're quick to clean cats.....

[ODPInsider]

Dear fools, er... friends. If you think there is the slightest chance of someone sending you an IM for more details on how to get your site in DMOZ from the back door, you are dreaming.

Im one of those "corrupted" editors. Well once upon a time i wasn't, but some day my account just stoppped functioning for no obvious reason. So i decided to join the club ;). But we are not so stupid to make deals like this. The only true way to go is word of mouth, that's why you wont see anywhere DMOZ submission forms or crap like that.

Keep waiting...

[dvduval]

Yes, I stopped wasting my time volunteering when I know that so many people above me were profiting from my free help. No more.

[Imran]

one of my site got listed in dmoz, I dont know how and who submitted it,..
But thanks to who ever it is one of my site is there { Produly }

[Web Gazelle]

I better become a DMOZ editor :D

[Blogmaster]

ODPInsider just inspired me to start a little poll :) :
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=23090

[solid7]

I don't think I've ever met a trustworthy corrupt person :D .

Hey, you're an editor, aren't you?

[DomainMagnate]

LOL for $1,000 you can just buy all the editors in the category and make remove all the sites except your form there :)

[Blogmaster]

I will pay any person who can get my site listed in DMOZ within 60 days $1,000 via paypal, check, or credit card.

PM me for site details.

rbfallon
Just curious: is your site in? :)

[Shoemoney]

just to update I got most of my sites in now and I never paid one editor.

I did get tips from a editor on how to submit better.

[minstrel]

Did that cost $1000.00, Shoe? :D

[Sunny]

LOL

It is not Reward, It is Bribe.

[Shoemoney]

Did that cost $1000.00, Shoe? :D

No honestly when I made that post here I had 2-3 people on DP contact me saying they would help me for free. I even offered them money once I was accepted and they would not take it.

I am not a very good writer (obviously) and my descriptions and stuff were pretty horid.

Thats the thing I hate about english... its so opinionated.

[Sunny]

No honestly when I made that post here I had 2-3 people on DP contact me saying they would help me for free. I even offered them money once I was accepted and they would not take it.

I am not a very good writer (obviously) and my descriptions and stuff were pretty horid.

Thats the thing I hate about english... its so opinionated.

Wow, That is great. Thi sis why I love DP.

Now, Can you please post some tips here for DMOZ submission.

[Shoemoney]

Wow, That is great. Thi sis why I love DP.

Now, Can you please post some tips here for DMOZ submission.

If you post in the dmoz section I am sure people could help you.

[minstrel]

If you post in the dmoz section I am sure people could help you.
That would have been funnier if you'd said, "If you post in the Resource Zone I am sure people could help you."... :D

[Shoemoney]

That would have been funnier if you'd said, "If you post in the Resource Zone I am sure people could help you."... :D

hahah indeed!

[bradley]

oo, good posts minstrel, bravo! amusing to see you demanding more courtesy from people that actually do something worthwhile, voluntary and generous, whilst you make that demand amongst a blaze of useless one-liner sniping posts.

the $1000 would have been much better spent improving the site. People's priorities are so messed up.

[seoindia]

I can bid upto $1500, Along with monthly allowances. Looks like dmoz editorship worth more than any other high paid salary in the world.

[minstrel]

oo, good posts minstrel, bravo! amusing to see you demanding more courtesy from people that actually do something worthwhile, voluntary and generous, whilst you make that demand amongst a blaze of useless one-liner sniping posts.
Interesting. This is the third little "sniping post" from Bradley this morning, two of them aimed at me personally. Interesting that they all reveal him to exemplify the very things about most DMOZ editors that all those "sniping posts" from me and others have been about.

Do you really expect people to believe that your motivation is altruistic and noble? Look at your avatar -- that pretty much says it all.

Did my posts strike a nerve somewhere, Lord Bradley? :rolleyes:

[bradley]

Not really, I've only been editing for a few days now - there's no 'nerve' (yet?) there to hit since DMOZ hasn't got a place in my heart. I just find it a bit silly to see you wasting your time - and others' - with contentless, abusive posts about something you appear to have little understanding of. They're offensive to a good-natured, impressive project that people have devoted countless hours to in a truly altruistic effort to improve. It's so easy to be outside pissing in, isn't it?

I became an editor because I use ODP fairly often and was annoyed a category was going unedited. I did that, instead of going around forums preaching how bad it is just because there's already a big crowd of people to agree with the slightest criticism - well founded or not - because they haven't had their spam-filled scraper site or ten-member hundred-post forum included. I run forums as a hobby, not a business, so adding rivals really doesn't bother me - people should be given the freedom of choice, so I want to make sure that every site that meets the standards for that category is in it. Being an editor is a hell of a lot of work, I can understand that for people who make money from sites there may be a motivation to edit from purely selfish motives. No doubt it happens, but if you suspect it, report it! That kind of behaviour runs counter to the foundations of the ODP's aims and aspirations, and I can't imagine it being tolerated too kindly! It's a more mature and helpful thing to do.

Re. the whole 'power trip' thing, that's pseudopsychology - at best. As for reading into my personality from my avatar, i suggest you do less of that in future if you care about correctly interpreting the tone and content of people's posts. Especially when you fail to spot obvious jokes.

As with any project, there are plenty of flaws. That doesn't mean attitudes like 'dmoz is dead' etc are at all fair, well-informed or true! Firefox just went through a spate of security flaws, and yet it remains a better alternative to Internet Explorer. Should people go around on forums posting 'firefox is rubbish, don't use it, the developers (unpaid) have put security holes in it'?? No, of course not. Open your eyes to what is a very good and impressive resource, and a great example of altruistic hard work, to present a better alternative to other methods of finding sites than directories you have to pay to be in, or automatically accept submissions, or search engines that return listings that include countless pages of spam. DMOZ is hugely undervalued. Certainly, criticising it with the rabid fervour you display is highly irrational, and fairly petty, too.

[minstrel]

Thank you for your comments, Lord Bradley.

On reflection, however, I have elected to ignore both your opinion and your advice. I'm sure you will understand my reasons for this.

Have a nice, if probably pointless, day. :)

[plmerlin]

You would think with the large workload on these editors, they would employ more of the people applying for editors..

Am I wrong in saying this???

I really wonder... My wife applied as volunteer for this section: http://dmoz.org/Regional/Africa/Travel_and_Tourism/Travel_Services/Travel_Agencies/

Her background:
PHD in education - native language English
Travel Agent since 1982 (23 years)
We owned several travel agencies in Africa and we organized tons of tours, safaris.. we spent over 10years there (we loved it)

Reply from DMOZ (not exactly the words but the meaning is there)
- bad spelling / poor English
- not enough background in Travel services
- not enough background about Africa

Honestly, I really wonder :)

[bradley]

that's a real pity, looks like DMOZ could use a person like her! are you sure that's what the reply was? Because it seems unnecessarily demanding for a small category like that. Sounds odd. There are plenty of other directories to edit for though, if the motives really are altruistic then it shouldn't matter who it's for. Try JoeAnt, for example.

[Dan]

I submitted about 10 sites over a year ago in various categories... Got one in after about 6 months... Still waiting on the others!?!?!?!

[bulsworth]

I would have to agree with plmerlin. I applied to be an editor for a las vegas travel section of dmoz and was rejected. It was a small section too with less than 100 listings. I think around 40. It was some generic bs rejection email.

As for my background, I worked for an las vegas travel website for almost 2 years doing product merchandising, online marketing and so-on. I have lived in las vegas for almost 3 years. I am no longer with that company, but have an very detailed knowledge of this city.

[Will.Spencer]

I believe that competency and subject matter expertise are both disqualifiers.

[plmerlin]

I believe that competency and subject matter expertise are both disqualifiers.

Do you mean that for the African travel section my dear wife should make the following request:

I'm a used car sell woman and never left my apartment building and since this morning I had no ideas that Africa was a continent so I'm really interested by editing this Dmoz section.

darn... I for got the badd spellyn.

[pagode]

Reply from DMOZ (not exactly the words but the meaning is there)
- bad spelling / poor English
- not enough background in Travel services
- not enough background about Africa
If these were the reasons given I would like to ask you to file an abuse report as 2 out of them should not be a reason for rejection (poor English is a valid reason, don't know if it was for this application).
But maybe you have misunderstood the reasons given. What were the exact words?

[Will.Spencer]

I got a red for my last post in this topic.

U just can't resist UR snide little comments, can U? If U don't have sumthing constructive 2 say, don't post.

This is funny to me, because it shows the incredibly pathetic English skills of DMOZ editors.

UR? U? sumthing? What language is this person speaking?

Wow. :cool:

[Blogmaster]

LOL, explains some of the misspells in the listings ;)

[minstrel]

Actually, misspells (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o6=&o1=1&o5=&o4=&o3=&s=misspell) is a verb, not a noun. Did you mean to search for misspellings (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-35,GGLG:en&q=define%3Amisspellings)?

[Blogmaster]

Thank you Minnie, if it wasn't for you ...

edit: I actually mean that, but it's not like I'm the only one who misspells by using that particular misspelling.

[Alucard]

Minstrel, you crack me up!

[Alucard]

What language is this person speaking? Looks like some version of SMS Slang to me.

[debunked]

Minstrel is actually a closet editor. He is just to embarrassed to come out of the closet yet.

[Blogmaster]

Maybe he edits the "Urban Hip Hop Discussion Forums" category!Looks like some version of SMS Slang to me.

[minstrel]

I'm an out of the closet editor... just not for DMOZ.

[Shoemoney]

I'm an out of the closet editor... just not for DMOZ.

minnie ever filled out the "become a editor" thingie?

BE HONEST!

[minstrel]

Several years ago, yes. Probably circa 1997 maybe? I wasn't accepted.

One oddity, though: I think sometime last year I received a rejection email for an editor application. Either this was my original application being rejected (I can't honestly recall whether I ever got anything back from my first application) or somebody else submitted me - I know I didn't apply so it was rather bizarre to get the email to say the least. By that point, I was anti-DMOZ on principle so I assumed the latter - somebody having fun with me.

I think I posted something about it at the BoG at the time...

[Blogmaster]

I think everyone here has applied to become an editor at some point.

[egdcltd]

I think everyone here has applied to become an editor at some point.

I haven't. Read the application form and decided I couldn't be bothered filling it in.

[Will.Spencer]

I haven't. Read the application form and decided I couldn't be bothered filling it in.

I think this means that you are smarter than I am.

[debunked]

I have thought about it a couple of times, but I just would hate to be wasting my time filling out anything for a dinasour on the internet. Dmoz will be going, if they aren't gone already???

I have a concept that needs a programmer that has to do with replacing search engines and directories as we know them today (which all seem to just suck, and we get decent rankings)

[dondor]

It all depends on the category - Remember to choose the correct language and sub categories - in less crowded categories you are more likely to be accept sooner.
Ofcourse there are many DMOZ editors which had joined only to help their own websites promotions and never took a look at all other reauests so...... be patient cause these editors are being replaced if their category managers see they are useless.

[Alucard]

Those editors tend to time out, rather than being replaced.

As there are a whole load of editors who could edit any category, often they will do some editing in a category even if it has a "named" editor, especially if it's obvious that category hasn't had anything done to it in a while.

[minstrel]

It's better to time out
than to fade away

~ Lyric paraphrased in several rock songs in the past 2 or 3 decades.

[wrmineo]

Editor rejection is one of my few contentions with DMOZ.

I've applied and rejected. Although the "form letter" is not specific, I gathered it was for what they considered a conflict of interest / self-promotion.

But why would I volunteer to edit a category that I have no knowledge or interest in.

I actually applied a second time for a category to wit I already had a listing thinking this would mitigate the "self-promotion" aspect - same rejection.

I like DMOZ for the most part, but this is honestly one aspect I do not like: continue to beg for editors and then reject those willing to help, be mentored, and make the ODP better.

Okay, my rant for the day ... deep breath; I feel better.

[Alucard]

It's better to time out
than to fade away
...or go down in a Blaze of Glory

unfortunately I've seen a few of those, and they are UGLY!

(I can't believe I just quoted Bon Jovi!!!!!)

[Alucard]

Editor rejection is one of my few contentions with DMOZ.

I've applied and rejected. Although the "form letter" is not specific, I gathered it was for what they considered a conflict of interest / self-promotion. This is something I have heard a few times. And here is the usual advice I give.

If your only purpose of becoming an ODP editor is promoting your own sites, then please don't bother - that's not what the ODP is about. I am assuming, based on what you have said, that that isn't the case with you.... so the rest of this applies:

You know more than you think you do. Don't underestimate your knowledge.

Do you have a hobby? Chances are there is an ODP category for that.

Do you live somewhere? There is almost definitely a category which deals with the area where you live. You probably get exposed to websites for local businesses all the time. You know who is legit and who are the shysters.

Editing a locality category (or a part of one, if the locality where you live is big) is a great way to start showing what you can do as an ODP editor. Often these categories are small, and in need of some TLC, and there are LOTS of them. If you enjoy editing, then you can look at getting named to categories that are larger.

[minstrel]

I've applied and rejected. Although the "form letter" is not specific, I gathered it was for what they considered a conflict of interest / self-promotion.

But why would I volunteer to edit a category that I have no knowledge or interest in.
There is an inconsistency there that's also frustrating. As we have seen, DMOZ policy is that it is OK to add one's own sites as long as the affiliation is declared and as long as those are not the only sites being added. So clearly, when that policy is being defended, the issue of conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest is dicounted. Why then should it be a reason for rejecting a potential new editor? Is there one rule for existing editors and another for applicants?

It may make sense to those on the inside in DMOZ but there is no rhyme or reason for it, as with many other things about DMOZ, to outsiders looking in. As I've suggested previously, the lack of apparent consistency and the existence of apparent closed-door secrecy is one of the major reasons for the almost universal hatred of DMOZ.

[wrmineo]

This is something I have heard a few times. And here is the usual advice I give.

If your only purpose of becoming an ODP editor is promoting your own sites, then please don't bother - that's not what the ODP is about. I am assuming, based on what you have said, that that isn't the case with you.... so the rest of this applies:

You know more than you think you do. Don't underestimate your knowledge.

Do you have a hobby? Chances are there is an ODP category for that.

Do you live somewhere? There is almost definitely a category which deals with the area where you live. You probably get exposed to websites for local businesses all the time. You know who is legit and who are the shysters.

Editing a locality category (or a part of one, if the locality where you live is big) is a great way to start showing what you can do as an ODP editor. Often these categories are small, and in need of some TLC, and there are LOTS of them. If you enjoy editing, then you can look at getting named to categories that are larger.

Solid points and advice for sure Alucard, but there in lies more problems for me.

I live in Vine Grove Kentucky - population of about 5500, including the cemetary - not too many websites except those crap ones (IMO) from yellowpages, superpages, etc.

I live near Elizabethtown KY - but I have a site in that "locality".

Hobbies? Sure, but let's keep the discussion clean :D

Interest? History - very poplulated, well represented and finding sites that are "worthy" to list three is hours of frustrating research.

Again, it's not that I don't appreciate your advice and comments, but I've heard these before. I may apply again in the near future, but I'm having plenty of fun playing in forums in the mean time :rolleyes:

Thanks Alucard - more power to you and the ODP (Or, as Minstrel might say, OPC - other people's children :eek: ).

[Alucard]

I live in Vine Grove Kentucky - population of about 5500, including the cemetary - not too many websites except those crap ones (IMO) from yellowpages, superpages, etc. Ah but you would be surprised. I, too, live in a very small community and was highly surprised to find out just how many little businesses are there, and which have websites.

Do you get a local community newspaper? They often have websites for local businesses shown in ads.

Currently http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Kentucky/Localities/V/Vine_Grove/ has 12 listings.

Are there more than 2 churches in the community? I see 2 listed.
Is there just the one school?
Is there a chamber of commerce?
Does the fire department have their own website?
Hotels? Car dealer?

I'm sure you get the idea. Finding sites that rae not in Google or the search engines is one of the more positive things the ODP does, I believe, especially to promote local businesses.

Not telling you what to do, just trying to give you (and others, maybe) inspiration.

[wrmineo]

Thanks Alucard, your suggestions and comments aren't falling on deaf ears, and I certainly appreciate you taking the time to care.

I also have http://www.vinegroveinfo.com but have NOT submitted it to the ODP as I don't feel it's necessarily worthy or ready yet - how would I disclose that and still not be rejected?

Thanks.

[Alucard]

There is an inconsistency there that's also frustrating.Yes, now you put it this way I see what you mean.

As we have seen, DMOZ policy is that it is OK to add one's own sites as long as the affiliation is declared and as long as those are not the only sites being added. Yes, that's right.
So clearly, when that policy is being defended, the issue of conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest is dicounted. Sort of, yes.
Why then should it be a reason for rejecting a potential new editor? Is there one rule for existing editors and another for applicants? No, far from it. What there is about applicants is a lack of concrete knowledge on behalf of the metas that approve applications (I am not one of them, nor do I play one on TV)

It may make sense to those on the inside in DMOZ but there is no rhyme or reason for it, as with many other things about DMOZ, to outsiders looking in. As I've suggested previously, the lack of apparent consistency and the existence of apparent closed-door secrecy is one of the major reasons for the almost universal hatred of DMOZ. Then let me make at least an attempt to lift the clouds of obscurity a little.

There is a big difference between someone who will add their own sites, along with loads of others, and someone that will only add their own sites, and then again, the other extreme of someone who will add their own sites and remove those of their competitors.

Obviously, the ODP wants the first type big-time. Is semi-ok with the second type, but would possibly rather not, and obviously doesn't want the third.

Trouble is, how on earth do you divine from an application which category a new applicant is likely to fall in? You may be able to do some web searches to find out more about the person, but often the application is all you know.

So often it's gut-feel, I'm afraid, which of course is horribly inconsistent. Also, some metas are more willing to approve someone and then "keep an eye on them" in their early days as editor, to make sure they don't do any damage, others are less inclined to take that risk.

The trick is to try to make your application as open and "unable to misinterpret" as possible.

[Alucard]

Thanks Alucard, your suggestions and comments aren't falling on deaf ears, and I certainly appreciate you taking the time to care.

I also have http://www.vinegroveinfo.com but have NOT submitted it to the ODP as I don't feel it's necessarily worthy or ready yet - how would I disclose that and still not be rejected?

Thanks.Well, I don't have a magic wand, so can't give you the magic formula, of course.

But if you don't think it's ready to be listed yet, don't have it as one of the three example sites, but declare it as an affiliation.

I know there are some SEOs that are really good editors. They were SEOs when they applied and I don't believe they made any secret of it. That, in and of itself, does not preclude anyone from becoming an editor.

[debunked]

how many active editors are there in DMOZ?

I am talking about those who do something at least once a week and have been for say at least 6 months?

[minstrel]

how many active editors are there in DMOZ?
At this precise moment, 4.

Of course, some of them are still sleeping... and 7 or 8 are having a shower.

[Alucard]

how many active editors are there in DMOZ?

I am talking about those who do something at least once a week and have been for say at least 6 months? I don't believe that that number is available anywhere, internally or externally. Sorry.

[minstrel]

I don't believe that that number is available anywhere, internally or externally. Sorry.
It is now -- post #102 :D

[Web Gazelle]

Only 4? Did one of them die?:eek:

[minstrel]

No... statutory holiday in her part of the world, Gazelle...

[Web Gazelle]

Oh.. I want a holiday. Maybe I will move to that part of the world. ;)

[debunked]

anyone get this guy listed and recieve their $1000 yet?

[minstrel]

I believe Bradley did - he hasn't been back in a while :D

[Birdie]

anyone get this guy listed
the opposite is more likely to have happened.

[macdesign]

If any editor tries to list his site they will almost certainly be terminated.

[minstrel]

Ah. Feel the love. Feel the objectivity.

[bradley]

I believe Bradley did - he hasn't been back in a while :D

you sure? says here I've posted on digitalpoint every day this week except the 19th where I was away

[Blogmaster]

If any editor tries to list his site they will almost certainly be terminated.
Really, that is the first I've ever heard of that one. Didn't you guys tell me before that it's ok for an editor to list his/her own site?

[minstrel]

:rolleyes:

macdesign didn't mean "his site" as in "the editor's site"... he meant "his site" as in "the original poster's site".

[Blogmaster]

:rolleyes:

macdesign didn't mean "his site" as in "the editor's site"... he meant "his site" as in "the original poster's site".
Oh, that should be self explanatory of course.

[minstrel]

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

[Blogmaster]

It should be self explanatory that an editor listing a site that has offered a reward to get listed, would be fired for doing so, yes.

[macdesign]

My original post was open to misinterpretation, thanks for the correction.

An editor can list his own site, provided it's objectively done, and not favoured over other sites. New editors have been known to mark their own sites cool, which is absolutely forbidden - [even if the site really is cool] but it's usually a newbie mistake. A lot of new editors mark sites [not their own] as cool and have to be corrected.

It's considered a good idea for an editor to ask another editor to review site descriptions for sites they own, in order to get an unbiased opinion.

I have several sites listed in ODP, all but one was added before I became an editor - they are all in categories I cannot edit. The one that was added after I became an editor and is in a category that I can edit was added by another editor.

All sites I own or have any financial connection with, even if they are not listed in ODP have been registered in an internal database. Failure to do this may be grounds for removal of an editor. I doubt any editor being paid to list a site will be using that database.

Someone offering to pay a bribe for getting listed, will in many cases have their site permanently banned.

[bradley]

Failure to do this may be grounds for removal of an editor. It certainly ought to be if those undeclared sites are then listed by him, or rival sites have their descriptions edited by him.

I should imagine it's fairly hard to detect though. An undeclared affiliation is precisely that, one DMOZ isn't aware of. You would have to look at every site that editor adds to his category and investigate any affiliation, with WHOIS lookups and a thorough sifting through the contents of that site, etc - a Herculean task!

Odd behaviour must be easier to spot though, e.g. an editor editing a lot of site descriptions (keeping descriptions up to date and within the guidelines is one of an editor's tasks, sure, but not a priority compared to filtering out links or sites gone bad, and reviewing new sites)

Someone offering to pay a bribe for getting listed, will in many cases have their site permanently banned.It's certainly a sign of dishonesty on their part, but what if it's just someone who's site is genuinely good enough, but has been sitting in the unreviewed sack for ages, frustrating him to the point where he'd do this? No doubt he reckons a DMOZ listing would be worth $1000 to his site/business, but to what extent should the financial benefit to the owner come into consideration in the editor's mind?

I suppose once the site is accepted, there will be a strong suspicion the bribe was involved - DMOZ can't check bank records so there'd be no way of knowing. Should innocent until proven guilty apply here?

[macdesign]

If you listen to the news, you often hear about criminals who get though through their own stupid mistakes of from some public tip. The same applies here. It's surprising also how many editors on the internal forums end up getting into some discussion where they give away clues to their biased editing. Most abusers are low level editors who are too stupid to be good at being corrupt. Now I admit ther might be a few smart ones out there, but to make any real money at being corrupt, you have to edit at a high level, and be able to access many categories, and have a track record of good editing. That represents a lot of work, that really does not justify the potential rewards.

The most likely scenario of severe abuse would be a good editor at a senior level who after some time, had a change of mind and lost his morality and became slightly insane. I have seen that happen to a low-level editor, who managed to hide some minor abuse for a couple of years - he was just tweaking his site and his friends site descriptions - I doubt he ever took any money. Suddenly one day, he started making all descriptions total nonsense. He was terminated within a few hours. Subsequent investigation found he had been an edditor previously several years earlier, under a different id, and had been terminated before.

Sometimes it's just random checks and supspicions that lead to catching problems. I once checked out a complaint in an SEO forum that an editor was stopping a site getting listed. Now 99.99% of these complaints are pure nonsense, but in this case I was able to see that an editor had not only listed his own site, and was very slack in reviewing other sites, but in fact he had approved tow of hi site in the same categiry. I raised an abuse complaint, and he and his sites left. The person who complained got his site listed a month later.

One time I unreviewed a site whose site owner was annoying me with continual update requests. I meant to refer the site to a senior editor to decide what to do. Wihin a day, another editor making random checks, found what I had done, put the site back up and I received a rebuke for unreviewing it without good reason. Someone is alwyas watching.

[minstrel]

It's certainly a sign of dishonesty on their part, but what if it's just someone who's site is genuinely good enough, but has been sitting in the unreviewed sack for ages, frustrating him to the point where he'd do this? No doubt he reckons a DMOZ listing would be worth $1000 to his site/business, but to what extent should the financial benefit to the owner come into consideration in the editor's mind?

I suppose once the site is accepted, there will be a strong suspicion the bribe was involved - DMOZ can't check bank records so there'd be no way of knowing. Should innocent until proven guilty apply here?
An editor for just over a week and already trying to figure our how you can conceal the perks of the position? :rolleyes:

[Alucard]

If you can characterise fraudulent money exchange as a "perk" (implying that it's ok), and you apply that characterisation to government and corporate bribery, then maybe that is accurate.

I just have never seen that sort of thing described as a "perk" before.

Perk: "an incidental benefit awarded for certain types of employment (especially if it is regarded as a right)"

I don't think any editor would see it as that. It's bribery, plain and simple. Not a right in any way, and not right in any way either.

I think that if it were a perk, we wouldn't see editors getting canned for doing it....

[minstrel]

It was sarcasm, Alucard. It certainly does seem to be applicable to government and politicians - I doubt that anyone outside of Canada cares but we have a LOT of that going on up here at all levels of government :mad:

[Alucard]

Ohhhh - sorry, I missed the meta-tags. The humor-challenged may have taken you seriously.... ;)

[bradley]

An editor for just over a week and already trying to figure our how you can conceal the perks of the position? Curses! Caught in flagrante delicto! You win this time, Minstrelman, but perhaps next time there won't be a superhero such as yourself to save the 'Net from sociopathic evildoers such as I! MUAHAHAHAHAHA

[/sarcasm]

[Will.Spencer]

I doubt that anyone outside of Canada cares but we have a LOT of that going on up here at all levels of government :mad:

Canadian politics are fun to watch. :)

[Shoemoney]

I don't meant to be captain obvious here but c mon... you guys know there is corruption in the dmoz. I cant believe people are even arguing the point. When you get power like the dmoz has its so .... corruptive.

Whats the famous quote - Absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Anything with that much power has some level of corruption. Don't be so surprised. Well course cept for shawn (namedrop) I think he is uncorruptable ;)

imo a dmoz entry is worth at least $2,000.00 and soon once google makes the dmoz there business listing directory and charges 500$ a year for entry that will seem pretty reasonable.

[Blogmaster]

I'm also surprised how surprised so many people act over that. Especially with such a large amount of editors. They say everyone has a price, but I believe some people are very hard to corrupt. The question is how to manage an organization so that things don't get out of hand and the problem is that there is nobody really in charge.

[Will.Spencer]

During the cold war, the KGB's planning numbers were that one out of every three people could be convinced to betray their country.

Are there more than two DMOZ editors?

[minstrel]

Canadian politics are fun to watch.
Not if you live here :mad:

In Canada, we like to watch British politics to make fun of the Royals and US politics to make fun of the Democrats :D

One of my favorite commentaries on US politics came from The Simpsons. Bart and Lisa use Grampa Simpson's name to get their Itchy and Scratchy scripts published. When they finally tell him about it, Bart asks, "Didn't you wonder when all those checques suddenl;y started arriving?", and Grampa says, "I just figured the Democrats were in power again."

[Alucard]

I don't meant to be captain obvious here but c mon... you guys know there is corruption in the dmoz. Yes, there is. I don't think you will find many editors who would try to claim that there is NONE. The difference seems to be that the anti-ODP posters seem to imply that the whole directory is corrupt, and that the ODP tolerates it and tries to do nothing to deal with it - it's a "perk" - nothing could be further from the truth.

There are corrupt people in government, business, the army - all walks of life. I don't see reasonable people claiming that because of this, the whole thing is irrelevant and should be shut down. But that same measure seems to imply that the ODP should be. Just doesn't track, in my opinion.

[joeychgo]

There are corrupt people in government, business, the army - all walks of life. I don't see reasonable people claiming that because of this, the whole thing is irrelevant and should be shut down. But that same measure seems to imply that the ODP should be. Just doesn't track, in my opinion.


I dont think thats why people say that - I think its because so many catagories appear to be ignored, as do submitted sites seem to often be ignored. It also seems as if most editorsare more interested in defending DMOZ then accepting sincere criticism and making changes.

Notice I used the word 'seem'.

[Alucard]

joeychgo - I have seen many threads on this forum which goes from finding one corrupt editor to "the ODP is corrupt". So I think that logic chain has definitely been used.

Yes, categories appear to be ignored, I agree. There aren't enough good editors to go around. (notice I use the word 'good'). I would love it if it could be different and if the ODP could find an interested, non-corrupt, unbiased, team-player who would tend some of those categories.

I would love it if the ODP listed every quality site out there - not just those that have been submitted, but those which haven't as well.

As for making changes - an internal ODP document was leaked by one of the "corrupt editors" a few months ago which talked about the efforts to change and renew the ODP. One of the solutions to the problem is to get more good editors. There are plans to try some new ways of doing that - still a work in progress, that one. There are also efforts underway to try to reduce the editor workload caused by the so-called "spam submittals" - but I am obviously not going to go into any details about that.

Sincere, altruistic criticism (as opposed to self-interested) is listened to. Ideas are taken on-board all the time from posters in fora. Just because an idea isn't implemented doesn't mean it was ignored.

Unlike Google, for example, ODP editors regularly post to fora in order to explain how the directory works, set expectations, and to try to engage in serious conversation with those who are interested. Everyone has their own style of how to do this, of course, so results will differ.

[Alucard]

ok, now why on earth did I get red-repped (with no comment) for the previous post?

[Blogmaster]

ok, now why on earth did I get red-repped (with no comment) for the previous post?
Who knows, people are pissed at DMOZ, Google, seochat, you name it. Anytime you are taking someone's side, you may get hit.

[brizzie]

I think its because so many catagories appear to be ignored, as do submitted sites seem to often be ignored. It also seems as if most editorsare more interested in defending DMOZ then accepting sincere criticism and making changes.

Our volume - capability to add new sites - runs at about 250,000 net (after removals of dead and sub-standard) a year. There are 500,000+ categories. Therefore on average, a category can expect the addition of 1 new site every 2 years. But that isn't the way it works. Editors work on whatever categories appeal to them personally and because editors are a cross-section of web surfers the categories that get most attention are the ones that are currently of interest to surfing society in general. I might be looking for a new car online and in doing so add any missing car dealerships and manufacturers I come across in my part of the world.

We receive between 5,000 and 10,000 suggestions a day. Over 2.5 million a year. Maybe only 5% of them will make it through into the Directory. The balance of additions will come from editors going out and finding new sites to add themselves which is proven to be a far more effective method of finding unique sites likely to be of interest to our users. What happens to the remaining 95%? The vast bulk are spam - unlistable sites, duplicate submissions, deeplinks, affiliates, and so on. Editors have to process those too. So in a typical year, editors between them will process 3 million+ suggestions, deletions, updates, and independent adds.

When you understand that background you can see that editors are far from inactive or ignoring categories. It is an iceberg with the bulk of activity never reaching the public pages.

Are submitted sites ignored? There is some truth in that and editors have not made any secret of it. Submission pools are by far the least likely source of listable sites and therefore experienced editors tend to give them the lowest priority when building a category. A random Google search or a local or specialist directory is going to yield far better results. So the best way to get listed quickly is to gain a reputation elsewhere for having a great site.

Editors do defend DMOZ because most of the critics have no idea of the concepts or the background. Most of the critics want to turn us into a commercial listing service. That would not work because 99% of editors would leave and start DMOZ over again based on the original principles. Any change has to carry consensus of those who donate their free time to the project, the editors. So outsiders suggesting changes that are intended to benefit themselves, usually from a profit motive, will be dismissed out of hand by editors. In the same way they would dismiss out of hand any suggestions I made to them as to how they could better spend their spare time to better profit me.

Lets face it, it is not logical, reasonable, or socially acceptable to seek to dictate how others should spend their free time so you can make some money out of it.

The real complaint is not what DMOZ is or does or how it does it but with the commercial effect it has. This was never part of the concept and it is something editors cannot control. Our data is made available free of charge and whosoever want to can pick it up and use it as long as they follow the T&C. So quit complaining about DMOZ and focus on those who dish out the commercial effect. I presume Google. Tell 'em their business and to stop putting weight on DMOZ data. No doubt you'll get the answer - you pay nothing to have Google list you so it in turn owes you nothing.

The whole anti-DMOZ thing stinks really. The complainants are generally trying to manipulate Internet search results to benefit themselves financially and disadvantage their competition. Why should DMOZ, or Google either, be party to that. It has nothing to do with providing the best products or services and everything to do with how good you are at key words, key phrases, smoke mirrors and gateways, and link exchanges. Marketing. DMOZ is about information - in commercial terms unique products and services and have zero interest in marketing. That is what upsets the detractors - their web equivalent of their junk mail gets binned.

Those with legitimate excellent quality sites stuffed full of unique content and which aren't listed. Look to the purveyors of spam and mirrors and gateways and affiliates, and other junk websites for why you have not been listed. If they did not clog up submission pools with their crap they might be a more reliable source of listable sites. If they did not submit at all then editors would not be spending tens of thousands of man hours clearing them out of the way and would be adding twice the number of new sites at least. Start a campaign against them not us.

It has not been discussed seriously by editors and is only a personal opinion but I think there will come a time when the ability to suggest sites to DMOZ in commercial categories will be closed entirely. Abuse something once too many times and lose it.

[minstrel]

The whole anti-DMOZ thing stinks really. The complainants are generally trying to manipulate Internet search results to benefit themselves financially and disadvantage their competition. ... That is what upsets the detractors - their web equivalent of their junk mail gets binned.
This is one of the things that I find upsetting about the forum responses of many DMOZ editors - you cannot dismiss the criticisms of the directory by assuming that anyone who is a "detractor" is a scheming manipulator or even someone who has been denied a DMOZ listing. That is insulting, incorrect, and close-minded. That is Resource Zone rhetoric. It doesn't belong anywhere else but in that sorry excuse for a public platform.

[brizzie]

This is one of the things that I find upsetting about the forum responses of many DMOZ editors - you cannot dismiss the criticisms of the directory by assuming that anyone who is a "detractor" is a scheming manipulator or even someone who has been denied a DMOZ listing.
You will notice that in my post I used "most" and "generally" not "all" (deliberately because it would be insulting etc to the minority). I'm afraid that is because 99% of the detractors fall into that bracket - note how 99% of the threads start and who starts them. I am aware there is a 1% who are detractors for other reasons. And some of those may have been the unwitting victim of an ODP error - it happens with something edited by humans. Error includes being the victim of a corrupt editor - when they are caught the rest of us do our best to clear up any mess they caused but things can get missed. If you, as a detractor, do not fall into the 99% then the statements don't apply to you and there is no reason to be upset.

Criticisms of DMOZ and suggestions for change generally fall into one of several categories and there aren't that many of them, they tend to be mostly recycled.

Most suggestions for change stem from a belief that:

1) DMOZ is a listing service. It isn't.
2) Submissions are not dealt with fast enough. We don't exist to process submissions.
3) Editors are corrupt/self-serving. They aren't with the exception of a small minority who are ejected when proven guilty.
4) DMOZ is secretive. In some areas it is and for good reason - we have enough problems with spammers, we don't want them to learn our defences.
5) DMOZ should accept paid listings. It can't.

All suggestions for change founded on any of the above are doomed to instant dismissal. Sorry and all but it's a fact. If the assumptions on which the suggestion is based are invalid, so is the suggestion most of the time.

There is a great deal of change going on within the ODP currently aimed at improving things from our perspective. To get a change to go through effectively requires editor consensus and consensus in any field is very difficult to achieve. It is founded on listening to editors with their knowledge of the problems experienced and their understanding of why they are editors and the principles of the project. Are we going to share our weapons of mass spam destruction. No. Are we going to share improvements to guidelines. Yes.

That is Resource Zone rhetoric. It doesn't belong anywhere else but in that sorry excuse for a public platform.
Well the Resource Zone is a place where editors tend to hang out and can access records relating to the questioner. They either put up with a questioner's lies and misleading statements or they give as good as they get. Once or twice an innocent can get caught in the crossfire or be wrongly tarred and that is regrettable. But it is a rare occurence. In a typical case the questioner will start by saying their site has been waiting a couple of years and it is disgraceful blah blah blah. Then you find that the site they are referring to is a mirror they have spammed over many categories and one version of the site is already listed anyway.

Whatever the platform, whether it is Resource Zone where an innocent questioner is flamed because they have got themselves bundled in with the spammers, or here where editors get flamed because they have been bundled in with the tiny number of editors who have abused their position, it is something to be regretted.

[minstrel]

You will notice that in my post I used "most" and "generally" not "all" (deliberately because it would be insulting etc to the minority).
Granted...

I'm afraid that is because 99% of the detractors fall into that bracket - note how 99% of the threads start and who starts them. I am aware there is a 1% who are detractors for other reasons.
I think you are missing or dismissing a lot of valid criticism if you think the proportion is that small.

Criticisms of DMOZ and suggestions for change generally fall into one of several categories and there aren't that many of them, they tend to be mostly recycled.
But perhaps not as often as the rationalizations used as responses to those criticisms.

Well the Resource Zone is a place where editors tend to hang out and can access records relating to the questioner. They either put up with a questioner's lies and misleading statements or they give as good as they get. Once or twice an innocent can get caught in the crossfire or be wrongly tarred and that is regrettable. But it is a rare occurence.
Either you need to do more reading at the Resource Zone or you are being deliberately disingenuous or you have tunnel vision - sadly, the gratuitous and condescending put downs are far from a rare occurrence at RZ.

[brizzie]

Perhaps you are unaware of how few of the seemingly innocent in the Resource Zone really are that innocent. Without being able to examine a questioner's submission history in detail you might get the impression that many people are unfairly treated. Indeed numerous times I have thought a comment to be more than a little harsh. Then when you did deeper you are actually dealing with someone who makes Richard Nixon appear the most honest man that ever walked the planet. :rolleyes:

[Will.Spencer]

Alternatively, my experience in RZ is that every new poster is immediately accused of heinous crimes against humanity and the Internet as a whole.

The DMOZ editors act like mentally deranged prison guards whose wives beat them at home and then they come to DMOZ to take their frustrations out on innocent webmasters.

[Blogmaster]

Perhaps you are unaware of how few of the seemingly innocent in the Resource Zone really are that innocent. Without being able to examine a questioner's submission history in detail you might get the impression that many people are unfairly treated. Indeed numerous times I have thought a comment to be more than a little harsh. Then when you did deeper you are actually dealing with someone who makes Richard Nixon appear the most honest man that ever walked the planet. :rolleyes:
I don't think 2 wrongs make a right.

[minstrel]

The DMOZ editors act like mentally deranged prison guards whose wives beat them at home and then they come to DMOZ to take their frustrations out on innocent webmasters.
I'm reminded of Roger Waters' song in The Wall...

[brizzie]

Alternatively you come here and people use the rep system to deliver childish personal abuse covertly. Sweet. And to that person I would say "apologist" suggests there is something to apologise for. I'm very proud of the DMOZ project, what it has and continues to achieve, what it stands for, and how it refuses to bow to commercial webmaster pressure. So call me any other names you like, I have a thick skin and it is water off a duck's back, but apologist I object to.

I don't think 2 wrongs make a right.
When someone is taking the piss and trying to make editors seem like lazy corrupt self-serving s.o.b.s do you just let them get away with it? Sometimes you bite your tongue, othertimes they get what they deserve frankly. I say again you don't see everything out in the public forums. Someone who gets their head snapped off who appears to be quite reasonable may just have offered a bribe via private message. You just can't tell what is behind it unless you have the full story.

The thing is that most of the editors in the Resource Zone, and those who visit further afield, are happy to answer questions they are able to answer, they are proud of what they have achieved. But most editors willing to answer questions get regularly beaten up on external forums and so have given up. There are no answers we can give that will satisfy some. Nevertheless some editors will still try for the benefit of those willing to listen but you need that rhino hide. MikeDammann - I've had discussions with you on Resource Zone (both of us under different names) and they have been constructive. If all such discussions could take similar paths then things might be different. But then you are willing to listen. Sorry to destroy some of your street credibility! :)

[Will.Spencer]

I have a thick skin and it is water off a duck's back, but apologist I object to.

Think skin, thick head, whatever. :cool:


I say again you don't see everything out in the public forums. Someone who gets their head snapped off who appears to be quite reasonable may just have offered a bribe via private message. You just can't tell what is behind it unless you have the full story.

Well, as one of the people who joined the RZ only to be assailed with verbal abuse and all sorts of nasty accusations, derogatory comments, and general mistreatment... I would say that I definitively have the full story on myself.

Your story doesn't hold up under the harsh light of reality.

[minstrel]

No it doesn't - I think you need to take a closer look at some of the piling-on threads at DMOZ before you blame it all on the "outsiders" who have gone there seeking information.

Ultimately, if you really give a damn about the public perception of DMOZ, and presumably if you're here defending it you should, I suggest you stop trying to tell us why we're wrong and start doing what Alucard to his credit has done, which is to explore WHY the public perception is so universally negative (DMOZ editors and sycophants trying to suck up to editors in the hopes of getting a site listed excluded).

[brizzie]

I did say that there are rare occasions where the innocent do get caught in crossfire and it is regrettable. If you were innocent and treated unfairly then it should not have happened. But it is not the norm for someone to appear to be mistreated without cause. When someone has dealt with queries from 20 spammers in a row and you are the 21st it is unfortunate if you get tarred with the same brush. It might be wrong but it is understandable how it might happen. You say you have the definitive story on your own individual case but no-one is able to verify that apart from you either, so it proves nothing. Though I am sorry you had a bad experience if you did not deserve it. It is a shame your reality and mine are different but hey, that's life.

[minstrel]

brizzie, you don't need a personal story - all you have to do is read a few threads there at random - they are everywhere.

Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder whether this isn't less a matter of different realities and more a matter of blinkered vision...

[Blogmaster]

But it is not the norm for someone to appear to be mistreated without cause.
Brizzie, let me ask you this:

please identify a few causes for me that justify talking down to people, making fun of them, not giving them the answers they are looking for and ignoring their questions that they came in there for. You have a problem with people calling you names in the reputation? How do you think it feels to go into the RZ with one question and getting insulted but 10 different editors because you have submitted your site 10 times over the last 4 years. So please give me a few examples, so I know what to measure the justifications by.


I suggest that the next time you're in the RZ, you look at the regular threads with an open mind and not just talk behind the regular posters' back in the editor only section.

There is a thing like ethics, and some lines should never be crossed. Some of the editor behaviour is outright shameful. I do understand that it is a small percentage of ODP editors who resorts to that, but please don't come in here trying to tell us that black is white.

[brizzie]

Ultimately, if you really give a damn about the public perception of DMOZ, and presumably if you're here defending it you should, I suggest you stop trying to tell us why we're wrong and start doing what Alucard to his credit has done, which is to explore WHY the public perception is so universally negative (DMOZ editors and sycophants trying to suck up to editors in the hopes of getting a site listed excluded).
I am not defending DMOZ as I don't think there is anything to defend. And I don't think I have any opinion one way or another on how DMOZ is perceived by its avowed enemies which cannot be in any way described as the public or as universal. I'm not an evangelist looking to convert anyone. What I am interested in is in correcting misconceptions which are touted around. Because those who are interested in getting their sites listed in DMOZ, rather than those who just want to destroy it, might find that more useful than negativity.

[Blogmaster]

I am not defending DMOZ as I don't think there is anything to defend. And I don't think I have any opinion one way or another on how DMOZ is perceived by its avowed enemies which cannot be in any way described as the public or as universal. I'm not an evangelist looking to convert anyone. What I am interested in is in correcting misconceptions which are touted around. Because those who are interested in getting their sites listed in DMOZ, rather than those who just want to destroy it, might find that more useful than negativity.
I don't think that anyone wants to really destroy DMOZ. I think that everyone wants a piece of the action. I don't think this is as much about DMOZ, but rather professional conduct which has not been used in the Resource Zone. I know that there is a difference between the average editor who puts a few hours a week into editing or whatever, and the life-less ones who enjoy waiting for new webmasters to bash. If you are not one of them, great!, but please don't try to tell us that they don't exits.

[minstrel]

I am not defending DMOZ as I don't think there is anything to defend.
That tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you and the position you have chosen to take, I think: There is nothing wrong with DMOZ - it's the rest of the world that has a problem.

I'll give you and DMOZ more suggestion and then I'm done here: Try to recruit more Alucards and a lot fewer blind men and power mongers and you might, just might, salvage a little bit of goodwill in the world beyond the delusional walls of DMOZ. It won't save DMOZ but at least it may allow it to fade out with a little dignity.

[brizzie]

MikeDammann - loaded questions and I feel like I'm walking into a series of traps here designed to get me to say something that can be incorrectly interpreted so forgive me if I am careful.

A large proportion of questioners in Resource Zone do not tell the truth. They know they are not telling the truth. We know they are not telling the truth. Observers don't and just see a bizarre exchange. Stopping the status requests has ended most of that. You also get a reasonable number of known spammers trying to extract information to aid in their activities. They know they are spammers, we know they are spammers. Observers don't and just see a bizarre exchange. They still stop by. Then you get those who want to accuse editors of being lazy, corrupt, self-serving etc, etc, and they tend not to garner a warm welcome.

There are others who visit Resource Zone, ask a question that is answered fully and professionally, and leave wiser than when they arrived.

Finally there are a small number who are given a hard time unjustly. That is wrong and editors regret that it sometimes happens as much as anyone else. Being treated unjustly on a forum isn't something confined to Resource Zone though. It shouldn't happen anywhere but it does. Unfortunately.

not just talk behind the regular posters' back in the editor only section.
Strange though it might seem, it is extremely rare that private talk goes on in the editor only section. We report a need for a moderator and discuss anything related to how we can improve things - whether a stock answer might be misleading for example. It is incredibly boring.

please don't come in here trying to tell us that black is white.
Forgive me but I have been very careful throughout not to say anything as an absolute. In a forum such as this the negatives are bound to be highlighted and the positives dismissed. Of course injustices happen, no-one denies that though we can disagree with the frequency, no-one is perfect 100% of the time. But painting things primarily black when IMO they are primarily white shouldn't be left unanswered. And I can understand why they might appear blacker than they are because observers can't see the full picture of what is going on.

But the focus of the Resource Zone has changed - editor application status questions, and quality control reporting, that is about it. Virtually all other questions are now in the FAQs on the site. The opportunities for people to be treated or appear to be treated unjustly are substantially reduced. Positive change? Apparently most webmasters disagree but most editors agree.

You have a problem with people calling you names in the reputation?
Not really. I just think it is strange behaviour for adults and quite laughable, pathetic even.

[Blogmaster]

Brizzie, no one is out to get you. I don't know who at DMOZ is trying to put this in people's heads, but I don't try to get anyone. I know that many webmasters lie. But treating everyone without the benefit of the doubt, is IMO a very bad practice. People make mistakes. Sure, you need to pick out the a-holes, but simply labelling everyone as such as not beneficial to anyone.

Same if we assumed you were in the same state of mental health as Mr. Hutcheson over there.


It really all comes down to who you are as a person and who you want to associate yourself with. There are many good editors, but the ones who are the loudest and representing DMOZ in the RZ ... sorry, not good :(!

MikeDammann - loaded questions and I feel like I'm walking into a series of traps here designed to get me to say something that can be incorrectly interpreted so forgive me if I am careful.

[brizzie]

There is nothing wrong with DMOZ - it's the rest of the world that has a problem.
I believe in the concepts and principles of DMOZ as do tens of thousands of other past and present editors. The rest of the world don't have a problem with a bunch of people getting together to take part in a volunteer project, a hobby, and sharing their work freely with others. I see a small and frankly irrelevant band of ardent detractors who have the problem and for most their motivation is mainly financial and as such most of them are looking in the wrong direction - DMOZ has no control over how downstream data users use the data. Editors don't edit to gain the goodwill of anyone least of all desperate webmasters. They edit because they share a belief in the original concepts and principles. And they will continue to edit and build the directory for as long as there are people who believe in it. In terms of the need for an alternative to search engines manipulated by SEO, and directories based on ability to pay, that need remains stronger than ever before. And it has outlived numerous premature obituaries that have circulated from its inception to this day.

[brizzie]

I don't try to get anyone
No Mike, but you do ask loaded questions!

But treating everyone without the benefit of the doubt, is IMO a very bad practice.
Of course it is. But I don't think people quite realise just how many posters at Resource Zone are not on the level. And most editors, most of the time, give most questioners the benefit of the doubt until they see evidence to the contrary.

There are many good editors, but the ones who are the loudest and representing DMOZ in the RZ ... sorry, not good
You know I'm not going to comment on anyone specifically. The bulk of the editors who post on Resource Zone are there to genuinely help non-editors with genuine questions and actively try to be as clear as they can be in their answers.

[Blogmaster]

It's not that big of a deal to me since I haven't been on the RZ in ages. I prefer taking advice from editors in here if I have a question. This seems to be the only forum where there is true communication between DMOZ editors and webmasters. But I do wonder about how you guys feel when you see some of the abuse at the RZ. Do you think that it's good, smart, helpful to use the kinds of tactics displayed?

[Will.Spencer]

Editors don't edit to gain the goodwill of anyone ...

And they do an impressive job of not gaining goodwill! Bravo! :D

[minstrel]

I see a small and frankly irrelevant band of ardent detractors
That's a big part of the problem - that you see criticisms of DMOZ as irrelevant.

for most their motivation is mainly financial
That's the official DMOZ line, I know. It's propaganda. But if it makes you feel better :rolleyes:

Editors don't edit to gain the goodwill of anyone least of all desperate webmasters. They edit because they share a belief in the original concepts and principles.
Yes... too often, those involve closed door politics and promoting their own sites...

[Will.Spencer]

Look at the amazing success of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has almost the exact opposite management philosophy of DMOZ -- and Wikipedia is thriving.

In fact, Wikipedia is thriving so well it is threatening to put me out of business. But still, that sort of success is an amazing story. :D

Wikipedia is doing things the smart way; DMOZ is doing things the other way.

[Blogmaster]

What amazes me is when some little editors from some little category, happy in their little world come in here and try to re-explain the rules to us.

[Blogmaster]

btw Brizzie, I forgot to sign it, but the last red you've gotten with a detailed explanation was from me. I don't appreciate being talked down to or talked at instead of being talked to. Do you understand the difference? Having reread your answers to my questions, I have realized that you have not only avoided answering, you have wasted my time explaining things to me that I've read in many places before.

If you don't have anything to add in here, I suggest you post somewhere where you actually can benefit somewhat.

If you don't understand what I'm saying: re-read my questions and then read your own answers.

If you still don't get it by then, well .. then there is no sense in talking to you period.

[Shoemoney]

What amazes me is people still keep bumping up this thread ;)

[brizzie]

Mike - you asked me loaded questions designed to get me to appear to criticise something I don't believe warrants criticism. The answers were as diplomatic as I could manage. But I appreciate that coming into this forum as a believer in the ODP is somewhat dangerous. And I have got the "be gone" message as expected. Though given the criticism of how people are treated in RZ it is a tad hypocritical. What you have got from me is that it is regrettable when innocent questioners get flak in the Resource Zone. We may disagree on what proportion are innocent but we can agree it is wrong when someone gets flamed for no good reason.

The thing is that I am sure editors would be happy to work with the webmaster community and help and advise. But on our terms - it is our project, our labours, etc. We can show people how to comply with the Guidelines to mutual benefit. Some people don't want to do that, they want to change things to suit themselves and that is futile. Ultimately editors withdraw completely and leave disgruntled webmasters to vent and fume on their own to zero effect. That isn't being closed minded. You want someone to do something for your benefit at their cost not yours. It is only fair to accept their conditions. You and others want DMOZ to listen to you but few are willing to listen back. However, I know from first hand that you personally will listen to advice given by editors and hopefully it has helped.

Wikipedia has almost the exact opposite management philosophy of DMOZ
Wikipedia is brilliant and a lot of DMOZ editors work there too. It doesn't have the same spam and abuse potential as a directory that includes travel agencies, real estate agencies, etc. and doesn't have a Google effect so despised by SEOs. Different situations call for different management techniques. DMOZ is also thriving but to understand that you have to understand our objectives - we are thriving to meet those. Others have their own objectives for us and those we cannot meet because we don't recognise them. It is down to understanding what we are about.

Yes... too often, those involve closed door politics and promoting their own sites...
You are making the same errors you accuse editors of. You reckon editors too often class detractors as being financially motivated - propaganda. I personally believe that misunderstanding is a large factor and that covers those with and without financial motivation. Then you reckon editors are about promoting their own sites. The numbers of edits and the number of editors don't stack up to make that anywhere near a feasible assumption. Most editors who add the bulk of sites are schoolteachers, librarians, stay-at-home parents, ministers and priests, retirees, students, postal workers, civil servants, and so on. Most have little or no concept of professional web services. There are maybe a handful who are full-time professionals in web design and marketing and they hang those hats at the door. They do. Really. Because it isn't tolerated by the teachers, librarians, etc. Perhaps that is an important element in why you guys can't get your message across - you are talking about your needs as website promoters to people whose primary experience of website promotion is receiving spam they don't want and who are motivated by a desire to create something completely spam-free.

You may have heard all that before. Probably. But if there is a genuine desire to work with editors then you have to understand what makes them tick. Sniping and insulting is what makes them withdraw and ignore you as irritating background noise. But I have heard all this before too and since there is no effort I can see to try and work with editors my conclusion is that there are those whose primary aim is to destroy something they cannot manipulate. Put that down to propaganda too. Your loss not mine because there are opportunities to have constructive discussions that will be wasted.

[crypto]

The DMOZ is a scam. Those of you trying to get in there are just scamming on keywords, and google placement. Consider the fact that you are just trying to get free advertising from the DMOZ. Why are your expectations high, when you've paid nothing for the service?

[Blogmaster]

Mike - you asked me loaded questions designed to get me to appear to criticise something I don't believe warrants criticism. Wrong, they were simple yes or no or easy to answer in 1 sentence questions which you have avoided. You are the one who has volunteered to come in here. Your posts are not different than if someone came on here spamming a site since you didn't contribute anything at all

The answers were as diplomatic as I could manage. They were also fake answers. Smoke screens. Those were not answers. Diplomacy was pretty much they only thing you have exercised. I would have preferred honesty over diplomacy, but hey: silly me for raising my expectations so high, right?But I appreciate that coming into this forum as a believer in the ODP is somewhat dangerous. I believe in DMOZ as well, I have stated in another thread the other day what great results some of the categories provide, including helping a friend of mine find invaluable resources for her studies which no other search engine or directory could provide as well as the one that we have stumbled upon in DMOZ.[/quote]And I have got the "be gone" message as expected. Though given the criticism of how people are treated in RZ it is a tad hypocritical. What you have got from me is that it is regrettable when innocent questioners get flak in the Resource Zone. We may disagree on what proportion are innocent but we can agree it is wrong when someone gets flamed for no good reason.
Good, finally a good answer. I would green you if I could heh
The thing is that I am sure editors would be happy to work with the webmaster community and help and advise. But on our terms - it is our project, our labours, etc. We can show people how to comply with the Guidelines to mutual benefit. Some people don't want to do that, they want to change things to suit themselves and that is futile. Ultimately editors withdraw completely and leave disgruntled webmasters to vent and fume on their own to zero effect. That isn't being closed minded. You want someone to do something for your benefit at their cost not yours. It is only fair to accept their conditions. You and others want DMOZ to listen to you but few are willing to listen back. However, I know from first hand that you personally will listen to advice given by editors and hopefully it has helped.

I don't want them to listen, I want some real answers so webmasters know where they're at in order to prevent extra work for you guys and added frustrations to those who don't understand the system and how it works.

[brizzie]

Wrong, they were simple yes or no or easy to answer in 1 sentence questions which you have avoided.
You invited me to slam fellow editors and I avoided that. Unjust treatment is wrong wherever it occurs. Including here in rep comments which are far more insulting than any language I've seen on Resource Zone.

I don't want them to listen, I want some real answers so webmasters know where they're at in order to prevent extra work for you guys and added frustrations to those who don't understand the system and how it works.
Real answers to what questions? I came into this thread on post 137 and I think there is a fair amount of straight answers in that one. Maybe not answers people like but hey you want the facts of life not theories. In 139 I pointed out that suggestions based on blah blah blah were never realistic expectations and why. There follows an exchange about RZ treatment where we don't have any disagreement on it being wrong to unjustly treat the innocent.

Your posts are not different than if someone came on here spamming a site since you didn't contribute anything at all
Go read all the posts I have made on this forum. There aren't many. You can't find anything there that might help someone understand DMOZ processes and the reality of how editors do their work? Fine if you can't but these wretched rep things suggest others can.

I'm upset now, you've always had good things to say about me in the past Mike :( [Not really that upset, it doesn't do one's editorial street credibility much good to be a good guy on Digital Point :D ]

[Blogmaster]

I have just written a huge response and when it came time to post, the forum logged me out. So here is a couple sentences from it:

Now that I know who you are, I know that you mean well. But here on DP people are too smart not to see the similarities in DMOZ answers and we are tired of them. Hutcheson himself happens to contact editors to change their posts in forums if he doesn't like them and that I know for a fact. We respect true feelings and opinions as well as open discussions here. We don't need to hear something we have heard before and if you really want to, look thru some of the DMOZ threads in here. It's all been said, discussed and done, and here we all are once again.

One thing I have learned in business is this:

The success of a company is being determined by the work of its good employees regardless of rank within the company.

But if the bad ones have so much power, the good work gets over shadowed and only gets seen once in a while.

I think that it's a shame that after so many years and so much work, DMOZ is getting such bad publicity. But when you defend them, ask yourself first what you yourself would do in the position of those who are leaders at DMOZ. Do you agree with how your work is being represented? I'm not sure if I could be a good DMOZ editor and be patient and serious enough to do a good job on an ongoing basis, but I know that there is no excuse for some people to take advantage of their position and that includes the amount of adult sites owned by a few editors who benefit from the work that countless good editors have done.

So seriously: I believe a lot of you guys have been brainwashed or don't see things for what they are in a broader scheme of things. DMOZ is great in many ways, but I think until there is an internal make over, this will continue to be bad. You guys feel obviously underappreciated while some assholes in DMOZ are laughing their way to the bank. So do spam webmasters, the kind that leaves 35 "comments" on my blog, the kind that cloaks itself to the top, the kind that submits to my directory with duplicate content and different urls, the type that comes into Digitalpoint and spams in the first post.

We have similar enemies, yet fight each others. I really wished you guys were not so watched when you comment in DP, I bet most of you would have a lot more good and productive things to express :)

Mike

[debunked]

This thread just won't die - kind of like dmoz itself. It serves very little real purpose anymore..............

[brizzie]

Mike

I wish it were possible for you to join us as an editor. Even for a day, and see what things are really like behind the scenes and have a chance to chat to the editors, read our internal forums, and see that 99.9% of the myths are just that, myths. There was a time before I joined when it was said that DMOZ contained a lot of bullies amongst the metas. If that was true once it hasn't been during my time. Tell a lie, once I've seen it and it was stamped on hard from the top. I think some of the assumptions about how DMOZ is today stem back to those times and they are way out of date.

I must admit I never venture into the Adult section of the directory except to send a misplaced site. I have heard accusations of abuse there but have never come across it myself. If you or anyone else has evidence that it is still going on then please report it. Either using the Report Abuse link or via a meta you trust in the Resource Zone. I would trust every one of them to take such a report seriously. But bear in mind that any abusive editors may already have been taken care of, or the investigation found no case to answer. Many is the time I have looked at an area where someone has alleged abuse publically and there was no case to answer - x controls this category and is stopping his competition getting in and you check and 20 different editors have rejected the complainant's site. And you know a teacher from France has no vested interest in real estate in New Brunswick.

I believe a lot of you guys have been brainwashed or don't see things for what they are in a broader scheme of things.
I have a feeling that lots of outsiders don't appreciate how seriously editors themselves take the issue of editor abuse. That is what damages us and an editor who is corrupt is lower than pondscum to other editors. You think RZ is harsh sometimes - that is nothing to what they would do to an abusive editor if they could. There are hundreds of editors on the lookout for abusive practices every day and they get caught and dealt with. If systematic abuse existed on any scale you can bet that DMOZ would face a mass walkout of editors. There is no way, given the character of some of the current meta and editall editors that it could happen and be swept under the carpet. I have reported abusive self-serving editors and watched them leave the building pronto.

I have also known and exchanged emails with a large number of current meta editors over the years, and with some of the Admins too. It is inconceivable they would be tolerant of ongoing malpractice at a high level. Again maybe this assumption is based on the distant past - high level editors have been ejected for abuse but it hasn't happened in a very long time.

The bad publicity stems from, I believe, a lot of misconceptions and a frustration that it is impossible to manipulate DMOZ listings. You can cite other causes too from a different perspective. But bad publicity is something editors have lived with for years and virtually no-one cares about. It has been factored out of anyone's concerns. I know that might sound odd but it is true - it is so persistent it is just background noise and not recognisable from the inside. Editors do care about how relevant we are to our users (specifically excluding webmasters) and the latest stats I've seen suggest a 17% increase in users over the last 3 months. Whilst others are writing the obituaries. The conclusion is that bad publicity or not our popularity with those editors feel are important is on a steep upward curve. So we're doing things right!

until there is an internal make over
I think the things you might be most concerned about have long since been resolved if they ever existed. I don't know if they did, I have no experience of things pre 2002. But the confidentiality of DMOZ processes, which are a defence against spammers and abusers, mean that getting the message out is difficult. And ODP is undergoing a huge and I mean huge raft of changes internally. Because the world is changing and we need to keep up.

There is a good blog out there that came to my notice today. By a DMOZ sceptic (at first): becoming-a-odp-editor.blogspot.com

[shygirl]

kind of like dmoz itself. It serves very little real purpose anymore

You guys here are kind of making me feel that way as an editor, I do agree.

What amazes me is when some little editors from some little category, happy in their little world come in here and try to re-explain the rules to us.

Yes I am happy there, and if you are no way part of DMOZ then isn't it only logical that those within it do attempt to explain the rules ? Or do you know something I don't ? :confused: I felt I was pretty well versed in them myself, but I see now apparently not. But I'm still learning.

Would you mind awfully explaining exactly what I've been missing ?

1) I applied and was accepted as an editor first time. Non-profit category in health related area.

2) I was in no way shape or form let loose on even that small category. I had someone check in on me every few days or so and things explained to me in a friendly manner, time and time again in order to get things right. So, stands to reason the bigger categories are watched even more closely.

As in, are the sites, suitable ? Is the description grammatically correct (spellchecker available), not overly repetitive and looking at a site objectively. A simple observation in fact, of what a site is all about. What it does, and, what is contained within it. Nothing more.

3) Standards are strict because they are exactly that ! Standards. Spelling, grammar and simple observational skills. Nothing more.

4) I can look at sites in my submission pool, or I can go out and find them myself. I do both. Thats what I signed up to do. I enjoy both. Simple.

5) If a site doesn't quite meet the standard of a good and clean site then I leave it for a bit. I check on them every week or so to see if they've changed. If they are blatantly not destined for my category, I send them to the right one, with a grammatically correct description, and an observation of what the site is about and what it contains.

6) If a site blantantly does not meet the guidelines or is already listed numerous times elsewhere then I delete it. I've deleted about 4 so far in 4 months.

These rules apply to each and every editor from the highest to the lowest newbie. So tell me again what rules I'm not following. I'm all ears ? :eek:

[Blogmaster]

You guys here are kind of making me feel that way as an editor, I do agree.
that is not my intent.

These rules apply to each and every editor from the highest to the lowest newbie. So tell me again what rules I'm not following. I'm all ears ? :eek:
They don't seem to be followed by many. Once again: every company or organization of power harbors corruption. The problem many of us have is when we feel like we're being lectured while others are getting away with abusing DMOZ on a much higher level.

[lsblogs]

Dont get me started on Dmoz, anyone only needs to look at how the dmoz staff behave online to realise what a joke it all is.

As for the site (didnt read the whole thread, so apologies if it was posted), surely instead of paying someone 1000 dollars, you would be better of spending that money making the site worthwile to visit.

A good site should get picked up by dmoz, not all do, but most do, and even if they dont, dmoz is not the be all and end all, you can get far better results from having links from lots of other sites, than from one single dmoz link.

[bradley]

They don't seem to be followed by many. Once again: every company or organization of power harbors corruption. The problem many of us have is when we feel like we're being lectured while others are getting away with abusing DMOZ on a much higher level.Though this feeling is repeated ad nauseam, as is the reply of what you can do to fight it and what DMOZ actively does every day about it, people continue to make these claims, though unable to provide any evidence of it. It's a feeling, but until people start providing rational proof of this widespread corruption, rather than vague feelings, it's hard for the people you address these feelings to to take them any more seriously than a psychic detective's assertions of guilt.

If things are to improve - and believe me, I agree with you that they do, though perhaps not in the same areas or on possible solutions - the whole discussion, on both sides of the debate, needs to reach a greater level of rationality and maturity. Too many wild accusations are being made on one side, whilst there is a tendency to roll out the pret-a-porter answers from the other - neither approach is constructive.

[brizzie]

It is difficult for editors to counter the accusations of widespread abuse when the answers rely on "trust me, I'm an editor, I know the accusations are false". The only thing we can do is highlight that the real life professions of most editors and other statistical data show that widespread abuse is not a credible claim. To which the response is "you would say that, you're an editor". Therefore, unable to disprove the false allegations to the accusers' satisfaction, whilst acknowledging pockets of wrongdoing that are addressed whenever evidence presented proves such wrongdoing, the attitude of editors is generally to ignore them totally. Move on, it's boring.

What if myself and hundreds of the editalls and metas I have worked with for years and trust are indeed oblivious of some secret activities that amount to high level corruption, and assume also that AOL Time Warner are similarly oblivious despite them providing legal services to the project and staff to oversee things? What can you do about it? The accusations have been flying around for years, editors themselves have looked into it with the benefit of inside knowledge, nothing to find. Are the perps so clever hundreds of us have missed the telltale signs? And if they have hidden their tracks that well (which would involve access to and falsification of logs) can they actually be doing anything that has any real effect.

[minstrel]

It depends on part upon what you consider to be "widespread abuse". It's not necessarily abuse, for example, if an editor adds his own site, as long as he adds other competitive sites within the same category. But if I were an editor and wanted to target my PRIMARY competitor, and I added my site and several lesser competitive sites, how would the primary competitor feel?

Do you really not think that numerous editors would leave if one of the conditions were that they could not have their own sites listed in a category over which they had any editorial control?

[lmocr]

I can't answer the question of editors leaving if they can't have their site listed but, maybe I can shed some light on why it would be impractical to have that rule.

I added my site - and then I added about 40 of my direct competitors (in the same state/category). Then I went on to add about 500 or so more throughout the US. Then I added about 1000 indirect competitors throughout the world. During this time I became the editor of a category that is four categories higher than the one I started in. There are over 6000 listings in that category. I have one site - in all those listings. I only have one site on the entire internet - but that's beside the point. :) My primary purpose in joining the ODP wasn't to list my site - otherwise I wouldn't be where I am now. I happen to enjoy the areas where I edit - and being able to look for new information with a purpose is a delightful experience - even if my kids say I spend too much time online (BTW they're complaining just because they want to use my computer :-) )

What if my listing wasn't under my editorial control at this particular point in time and then I received additional privileges that put it under my editorial control - would I have to delist my site? How would that help anyone? Does that mean the ODP would have to lose the sites that belong to all the Admins, Metas, and Editalls - as well as those belonging to the typical editor who happens to edit the category that contains their site? Some of those sites contain a wealth of information not available elsewhere - what would be the benefit in that?

[loki]

this might sound way crazy but...

you can spend your time moaning about dmoz, or you could volunteer and actually help out.

[minstrel]

you can spend your time moaning about dmoz, or you could volunteer and actually help out
:D :D :D

Good one, loki...

[brizzie]

It's not necessarily abuse, for example, if an editor adds his own site, as long as he adds other competitive sites within the same category.
Those are the rules, it isn't abuse. Most sites are added to the directory by experienced editors with thousands, up to hundreds of thousands, of edits to their name - maybe 95% of sites are handled by these people. And the vast majority have nothing to do with web services. If they have their own site it is likely to be a hobby site. If they have added their own site(s) in the process they have more than complied.

Do you really not think that numerous editors would leave if one of the conditions were that they could not have their own sites listed in a category over which they had any editorial control?
I think it likely that there would be a lot less editors. A large number come across the invitation to edit when trying to suggest their own site. They usually submit their own site as one of the examples. When a meta checks them they will ensure that this personally-owned site is listable and listable in that category. The new editor is also obliged to declare any affiliated sites and checks are made to make sure they are being honest about that. Any hint of an omission and there will be a rejection. The new editor is then monitored regularly by metas and editalls to see what they are up to. Any hint of self-promotion and they are out on their ear. But many of those who join and list their own site get caught by the editing bug and stay and add thousands upon thousands.

But if I were an editor and wanted to target my PRIMARY competitor, and I added my site and several lesser competitive sites, how would the primary competitor feel?
I am sure it happens. I know it happens because I have come across it a maybe 5 times. This is no secret and is the reason for the Report Abuse link. Always in small and obscure categories so the damage overall is minimal. The process is to report the miscreant, though often they have left the building (and won't be allowed to return). You then tidy up any damage that has been done including removing any sites added that are not up to standard. The point is that wherever abuse of this nature occurs, whether it is spotted by another editor or by an outsider, it will be found sometimes sooner and sometimes later. And is then dealt with quite severely. It is a real pain in the butt - the last thing I want to do is to go into a category I am not interested in and fix it - so there is no sympathy.

But there is something else in that quote - competitors - DMOZ doesn't care about who competes with who (unless it suggests abusive editing). The primary player in a particular field may not have the most definitive site and it is the site being judged not the owner. Take real estate. I have listed 3 sites in a town's category then opened the 4th. Nothing except a request for my email address and they will get back to me. Not a chance in hell. Or let me see their listings. Not a chance in hell. Yet they may be by far the biggest real estate agency in town. Do I care? No. They may have the best selection but because I can't see it I can't judge. I'm not, but suppose I was also a real estate agent in that town. That big player might lodge a complaint against me but there is no case to answer. So every case is treated on its merits.

There is a potential risk with the 5% of sites handled by less experienced/known editors. But only a low risk because they will all have been checked out quite thoroughly. And the risk is primarily on the less commercial categories newer editors are allowed rights to. As I say the monitoring generally catches the worse offenders but some do slip through and by keeping a low profile avoid detection for longer. But they all get caught in the end.

In my own experience when a report has been made by me it has been handled within days - needed because a metas need to gather and review the evidence. Sometimes cases take longer because getting the evidence together can be time-consuming. In one case I know of it took about 18 months to nail the guy - eventually he showed his hand and was kicked out. Editors are often the subject of spurious abuse reports or those founded on misunderstanding of a situation - it is right that the evidence they are abusive is very carefully considered because the consequences are complete and total ostracisation.

[Blogmaster]

this might sound way crazy but...

you can spend your time moaning about dmoz, or you could volunteer and actually help out.
True, but if people spent more time listening than talking, then people wouldn't have to post the same things again and again trying to get thru. That goes for people on both sides of the fence actually.

[Will.Spencer]

True, but if people spent more time listening than talking, then people wouldn't have to post the same things again and again trying to get thru. That goes for people on both sides of the fence actually.

Why should I listen to you? You're not an editor. You don't know what goes on it the super-secret editors playground. Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah! :cool:

[Blogmaster]

True, but if people spent more time listening than talking, then people wouldn't have to post the same things again and again trying to get thru. That goes for people on both sides of the fence actually.
my post
Grow up
The rep I've received.


Please explain! :confused:

(I'm not complaining about the rep, was only 1 point which means nothing, but the principal and the message which makes no sense to me. If I don't see eye to eye with DMOZ, does that make me less of a grown-up?)

[shygirl]

I've just got one too....from the other side of the coin. So don't feel you're being victimized.

I take it red is not good ??? How terribly lame and the message was not particularly polite either.

Whoever it was, in the best of grammatically correct british language, "Up yours pal".

Glad I got that off my chest and at least I'm not hiding anon about it.

As you were chaps and chappesses. I've got some listing to do.

Shygirl xxx

[lmocr]

My red is for Ridiculous self-serving reasoning

Sure - whatever. :p