I just wanted to put my two cents in on this DMOZ subject. Back in 2001 I was listed in DMOZ. The site was being served on a free hosting plan, and it wasn't even an actual site as I never updated it. It had nothing special to offer as it was a brag book on some work I was doing. A few years later I decided to expand my business and set out to buy a domain. The site began to do well, and I realized I had to update my information with DMOZ. They ask you to update your information if you have had any changes. I followed their instructions and simply alerted them to the fact that there has been some changes by answering their questions. My site ranks in the top 5 across the search engines for its main keywords/phrases, but according to some SEO experts (back then) it was a good thing to be listed in DMOZ so I decided to go for it. I waited it out and when I checked back with the DMOZ directory and it was then that I noticed my old site on the free host was no longer listed, and the new site was never added. I thought it would be a piece of cake because the site is useful, popular, and it is somewhat unique (compared to the others under that category) It has to be useful and decent according to my reviews. I was contacted by the editors/writers of the official magazine for the software my website is about and the software because they truly enjoyed my site. Later the magazine featured me and my website in their magazine, and has for the past two issues (Nov - Dec). They also included my content on their official CD's. I'm not talking about a home printed newsletter either, this is a magazine that is published in the USA, Canada, and in the UK. It is from a major publishing hub. My point is I'm good enough for a major software brand, but I'm not good enough for DMOZ? Makes me think twice about those running the show over there. I went to DMOZ and did some research. I was very curious to the category that I would be listed in. I found more than half of their directory in that category was full of dead old sites that haven't been updated in several years. Most of them are on free hosting, or the sites have said "under construction" for a few years. The best one was a site that still has "update coming in Jan 2000" ... what a joke! The category is popular, but their list is junk. It needs HELP! I'm not saying that the entire directory is full of dead junk links. What I am saying is that DMOZ needs to spend some more time cleaning out the junk. I also find it strange that they offer so many sites on free hosting and just how old their directory is. Do you want to know what I call DMOZ now? "DMOZ "The Way Way Way WAY Back then Directory" Sorry guys its just how I see it. Using DMOZ forums and their contact link is useless. Has anyone found a decent way to start a dialogue with them? This isn't a bashing on DMOZ this is just my true experiences with them and figured I would share them. Maybe someone else has had the same problem, or someone had luck? So if there any people out there that had some luck with them maybe you share your information with us? I just want to say it is not my goal to be listed in DMOZ at this time as their directory needs some TLC, but I'm more curious to hear what others have to say about DMOZ, their experiences, their ideas, and more.
What a long post to say: Its well known fact that we lack volunteers. We are trying to do our best with what we have. Looks like you are a person with specific knowledge about this topic - what if you push the button called "become an editor" ? Have a nice New Year!
There are automatic link checkers which continuously scan the directory for dead sites, so I'd be surprised if there were as many as you claim, but there is no doubt that some will be missed by tools. That's why "Humans Do It Better". So even if you do not want to help by applying to become a volunteer, you can help by telling editors about any dead sites you find, because we want to clear them out as much as you do. So please use one of the readily available means of reporting such problems: the Quality Control thread in the public forum, or the Update URL link in the category Thank you for your help!
Well it is obvious I had much more to say rather than "Dude, DMOZ didn't list my site" ... I at least try to explain things as to why I made my comment. As for becoming an editor ... That is not why I went to DMOZ ... I went to DMOZ for another agenda and it wasn't to work for them. I have no interest in becoming an editor at all.
No problem! We are all free to choose how we spend our leisure time. But if you are not interested in volunteering to help, and/or if you are not willing to advise of dead sites etc (using the links in my post), it's not really fair to criticise others for not doing enough, is it?
I dunno....when I go to the hospital and ask a volunteer to tell me what room my dying grandfather is in and they just sit there and stare at me, then yeah... I think it's pretty fair to say that Candy Stripers are not all they could be in this day and age The same could apply to DMOZ editors... Maybe there would be more editors if an actual warning system were put into place and they were given in an attempt to show the editor the errors in their ways rather then just saying that a warning was given via IM or Email... I mean, what is the use of an official dashboard warning system if that system is not used? Or maybe implement an appeals system for canned editors? I'm sure there would be more editors if such things existed
I'm sorry, but your perception is completely incorrect. Firstly, many volunteers spend a lot of time guiding, teaching, and assisting less experienced editors in all sorts of ways. Furthermore, every single editor has access to extensive resources, forums and personal feedback in order to learn more about the directory and to get help in understanding the requirements. And lastly, official "warnings" are never, ever given by IM, and email is used only to explain the situation, not to give an actual warning. So I think perhaps you are mis-remembering, or have been misinformed.
I can think of at least one example... I will gladly PM you the name and possible other details, as you can look it up yourself... but I'll not discuss it any further in public due to confidentiality issues. In fact, there is a thread someplace about on the internal forums about the issue where even the warning issuing person said it was through an alternate means then the dashboard system. So yeah, I must be mis-remembering or misinformed. Then again, heh, read the guidelines, warnings are OPTIONAL, so why would the method of deliverance be any different?
Having one example in support of your statement does not mean you can generalise to all warnings and all editors, although this is a common fallacy in arguments. However, I can see that this is a sore point with you, so I will not try to argue. As always, I have spoken the simple truth, based on many years of ODP experience, and I will continue to do my best to help and inform those who are willing to listen, whether they are editors or not.
You are right. Just because my neighbor killed his wife does not mean he'll kill all women Though I can most certainly say that he is a killer! just as I can say, that if the ODP allowed one instance of the such actions, they allow such actions So really, what is a fallacy in my statement? It happened, once...isn't that enough?
C'mon how can you even compare the two, between getting a link on dmoz and someone on their death bed. theirs no secret that dmoz needs more volunteers. suggesting a link to the Dmoz directory is just that, a suggestion a volunteer in a hospital isn't there for suggestions but rather the facts.
Don't be too critical and don't expose DMOZ too much, it seems such threads get locked. In regard to original poster, yes DMOZ is full of dead sites. The number of active editors is not more than few hundreds which are mostly interested in their own "special" interest. AOL has given up on this project which makes it perfect for those who are there.
They are both volunteer organizations in need of tremendous amounts of help and assistance. So the example still stands regardless of the difference between them... *shrug* Its odd that every time the ODP is compared to something someone comes along and says that it should not be compared to whatever it is. Does that make DMOZ incomparable? DMOZ has it's flaws just like any other organization...are they unique? Sure they are, but then, so are most things... Apples? Oranges? Sure... but keep in mind, both are fruit
To the Original Poster Not only dead sites you can find but I can assure you that there are certain editors with vested interests in a category provides preferential SEO'd Anchored text's for certain websites with no unique/orginal content or even outdated.
Yes I have tried to push the button. Nothing happened. If DMOZ is short of editor's, it's the current editors to blame.
Its common sense, just use facts and stay away from the wild claims with nothing to back them up. you'll find your posts/threads not closed
The strange thing is, he IS providing proof to many of his claims...However, many of his claims are exaggerated which is why the threads are getting locked. He HAS shown proof of completed transactions on sites like Scriptlance which have DMOZ listings for hire. He HAS shown proof of Editors listing their own sites for personal gain (thanks Skrenta) He HAS shown categories that have more dead sites then active ones (though they have since been cleaned out). He HAS shown that DMOZ's copyright claims are more then questionable. What is even stranger is that when he does provide proof, editors come in with nothing to back up their claims of him being a liar...