Understood. You are looking for logic in it - that's the first problem - there is none. It's like trying to explain the english language in terms of logic. You will go mad trying. Here is a non-rhetorical question I would like an answer to: why? that I can definitely understand - those numbers of all those multiply-listed sites are pretty compelling until we get into discussions like this, to understand the "why" of it being done that way. ... and a lot that aren't. I think so, yes. I hope I am showing that in my responses. Yes, absolutely. I completely understand. It seems illogical and arbitrary, with no well-defined, well-followed rules. It's an odd beast, for sure. While it is frustrating as hell sometimes, it also has its charms. I can understand, though, that that is difficult to see from your perspective. And that is very good advice too - trying to get the organism that is DMOZ to do what you want it to do when you want it is a futile exercise. Because the organism has no desire to behave that way. And that is frustrating. Very.
Thanks, Alucard. One of the things I appreciate about discussing these issues with you (and hate discussing them with most DMOZ editors) is that at the end I at least feel understood and not insulted. We don't agree on many things, obviously, but being heard and acknowledged goes a long way toward acceptance of this differences -- and the alternative just generates more rage.
I agree. Alucards responses have actually been a pleasure to read. Much different than anyone else who has come to the defense of the ODP. Much appreciated.
Good Read.... got some points out of this discussion about DMOZ. 1. Since it is human operated dir., it depends editor to editor how he/she follows the guidlines. 2. there are good and bad editors in DMOZ as the same way ppl are everywhere else. 3. Guidlines for inclusion/listing in DMOZ varries for different categories. 4. My site is still unlisted in DMOZ :lol: thanks for having such a good discussion Alucard, your responses are very calm and patient. have a nice weekend everybody.
It is nice to see some actual intelligent banter about the DMOZ. I can't say that all of my experiences have been good. BUT then again, its a free service. Rules are only as good as the enforcement of them. I forget who said it, but you can't please all of the people all the time. That in a nutshell, is the DMOZ.
I realize the date of the last post, but I just discovered this and it is a relevant current event. Nuts - he's the guy who is now putting up two sentence postings on my law forums http://www.thelaw.com/forums and deciding to place TWO links in his signature to different parts of his site, using keywords for Free laywers, Free Advice, etc. Thanks to him, I've had to change my policies on a friendly place that has been around for a long time. I've been trying to figure out why my site never made it to DMOZ despite several applications. I'm not saying that there is a direct connection but I'd sure like to know why I can be preapproved for any credit card I want but I can't get into DMOZ. It's not like I went to his house and crapped on his lawn. I'm not retaliatory but perhaps it's about time how to determine how he deals with quid pro quo, a term he should understand.
But haven't you heard, slinky? What you are describing is impossible. It simply cannot occur at DMOZ. The guidelines don't allow it.
There are over a million sites waiting for review and the number of listings in English language categories has been on the decline for over a year. Not enough editors, that's the answer. Otherwise the guy who made the complaint was an editor for a long time, except he kept getting removed for corruption himself and coming back with a different name. He wasn't happy about getting caught again - I never came across a more crooked editor within DMOZ myself, but then he was a lawyer himself.
You could be right. But allow me the liberty of telling you the events of the last few days: My site was founded in 1995 and I've been the registered owner of thelaw.com since then. I've had forums up for years. He's never visited my site as far as I can tell. I applied to DMOZ within the last 2 weeks. Aaron just joined my forums just a few days ago and started dumping. Coincidence? Perhaps.
I don't know Aaron very well, I just worked with him over the removal of the editor that posted those comments. He (the accuser) also accused me of being a competitor (Canadian Immigration Lawyer), and I have only been to Canada once, on a day trip during my honeymoon to the US in 1988. And I certainly have no connections with any immigration lawyers. It could be coincidence but I've also come across sites when I was an editor that I was personally interested in and stuck on my favourites list. So it is possible he spotted the site that way. But it doesn't mean he reviewed it, rejected it, or accepted it, he could have been sifting for spam or any number of other maintenance jobs people do around the place without actually reviewing sites.
I was unaware of this when I was an editor. I scrupulously reviewed all sites in the queues until I saw "zero." Reviewing all sites in the queue is the only fair way to edit, in the order of your choice. If a senior editor would peek at the queues, and find that I leave all my competitors rotting there, I would have been, quite rightly, guilty of corruption, and I would have deserved to be booted out. But NooOOoO!!! That's IS NOT corruption! That's perfectly acceptable! A fair editing practice. Makes me want to pull my hair out.
Since that's around the same time your site was listed in http://dmoz.org/Society/Law/Legal_Information/Chats_and_Forums/ I'd guess that brizzie is right. I have no way of knowing for sure, but it looks like he saw your submission, listed your site and joined your forum. Am I missing something?
I did a search of dmoz for my site, thelaw.com and I didn't receive any results. It does not seem to appear on the public side yet. Now it would be optimal - coincidental of course - if you could have a whole bunch of links from a site that now appears in the directory with links back to your forum. I am not accusing, just trying to talk about the facts.
And in some cases editors will find that the sites in the queues are that much easier to deal with because an editall or meta has been in and de-spammed it. No its not! Editors are not submission processors, they are supposed to be building a catalogue of unique and useful sites and submissions are only one source, and a pretty useless source in many categories given the amount of spam splattered around. There are a hell of a lot of fantastic, useful sites out there not listed and never submitted, and a hell of a lot of dross that has been submitted. Who are you being fair to by ignoring the fantastic useful sites in favour of dross, just because they read some SEO forum that said submit the site to DMOZ? Fair to webmasters or fair to the users of the directory? Who were you there to be fair to? If you were listing your own affiliated sites and leaving competitors to rot that would be true. Best thing to do is not to edit where you might have competitors, makes it a lot easier. But de-spamming and other maintenance jobs, such as checking updates, robozilla reds, expired domains, etc. is legitimate priority work carried out by editalls and metas, including Aaron. In this case it looks like he was doing regular editing... Search is always behind, it is not realtime. Updated every couple of weeks or so but it has gone longer. It is listed on the public side in the category Annie gave a link to if you click it.