Please tell me if any of the following allegations/opinions/views on DMOZ is true..... 1) DMOZ grades .info domains lower to .com/net/org 2) Too much bias of region, race and religion.. Sites from some countries are not approved.. most sites about religions often get rejected depending on the editor's mood.. 3) Some of the content-less and suspicious sites also have got listed on DMOZ. I think DMOZ should allot 3 ro 4 editors for each listing request rather than a single editor for reviewing and approving the listings... Please tell me..
No it doesn't. Oft times, the editor won't even notice the TDL. Your other assertions have been discussed often enough already so I won't bother to comment. a) None of us are assigned to do anything - we're volunteers. b) I'm unclear how tripling/quadrupling the volunteers' workload will improve things
It would likely do wonders for QUALITY. However, 3 or 4 editors per listing is likely overkill. I think setting a more realistic goal would be more reasonable... like one editor per category.
ROFLMAO. That would mean increasing editors by a factor of about 100. Not 100%, 100. Volunteers just aren't coming forward at that rate, still less acceptable ones.
What i meant to say was, if a website is not approved or is approved, it must be approved or rejected by at least 2 or more editors... For Eg: I submit my site under a category. The Editor for that category will review my site and approve or reject.. This would be better if 2 Editors review each listing request..
Do you realise that some listings wait several years before they are reviwed. What do you think it would be if someone had to check every listing that editors do? There is a system for new editors to learn the ropes in another category by becoming what we call "Greenbusters" so they work on suggestions (greens) and because they are not familiar with the category the site does not go live in the directory until an editor with privileges for that category has checked what has been done. But I think what you ignore is that every category has got hundreds of editors and so many editors can 'wander' into a category and add, de-list or change any site listed there. No one editor has sole responsibility for anything that is listed.
And that way for organizing the job is for the corruption's sake. No body is responsible, no one is to be blamed, corruption is here to stay. DMOZ editors refuse by all their means any change proposed for improve directory quality. No matter whether it is a good, a bad or a really wonderful idea. It's refused right away because any change could affect the corruption behind. You could take this idea and work over it to make it plausible. Put it into practice and let the directory quality to benefit from it. And the reason for not doing so. And refusing this or any other idea is protecting your own personal benefit.