This is the first time I've looked at this SubForum, but judging from the titles of the threads, a lot of people here are claiming that you have to secretly pay an editor to get listed in DMOZ. That is TOTALLY UNTRUE. In 2005 I created my first website. When I submitted it to DMOZ, it was approved about 3 months later. In 2006 I created my second website. When I submitted it to DMOZ, it was approved about 7 months later. I don't know any editors at DMOZ, never had any discussions with any editors at DMOZ, and never paid any editors at DMOZ. That is proof that you don't have to secretly pay anyone to get listed. What you do need to do is to create a site that contains something of value, such as original and useful content.
You are correct, most editors do not accept payment because they are there for the good of the internet community. I know, that's why I was there... Though in many cases, a good site is simply not enough, not when there are not enough editors to maintain a healthy balance. You waited 7 months on one of your sites, and to some, 7 months would be a blessing to wait. Sometimes it not a matter of "quality" its a matter of numbers, too many sites, not enough editors. If you submit to some back woods category, it could literally take YEARS for someone with privilege's to make it in and approve/reject a site.
And an other way to wait less time is to help those editors to list websites in those categories where nobody never check the websites waiting in unreview. By helping, I mean becoming editor.
Sometimes weird things happen too. In 2005 I submitted a site(It was not even a quality site....was on a redirected url service(.coz.in) ) - still got accepted. But a year later, I submitted a good content site in the same category, even after 1 year, not listed. So in this case, we can't even say what roles are editor playing now? Dmoz is definitely going down for past 1-1.5 years.
Yes and no, before I even become editor in 2004, I managed to get 9 deeplinks to my little 2252 pages multilanguage multitopic website but after that listing any website is almost impossible and to make matters worse there is no longer a single editor which understands Croatian and can make edits in World/Hrvatski so that category is effectively dead (with exception of few subcategories which are buried deep inside) so even if you wanted to you can't bribe editor to get listed since there isn't one!
Only problem is that DMOZ doesn't want help - they are removing editors faster then new ones are applying.
Editors are removed because they don't respect written guidelines. They don't remove editors only because they don't like their face.
Do you have evidence to support that claim? I really don't think you do, the reasons for dismissal are kept hidden, and any claims for the reason of removal are speculative at best. All anyone from the outside can do is judge character, and there are many editors (other then the ones here, lol) that have outstanding character, yet are gone due to various reasons that are hidden from the likes of you or I. The way the current rules are within the project, it only takes the word of one Meta, and a SMALL handful of other Meta to back up that one claim, even if said claim is false. Once that happens, the first meta can then "claim" they sent an email warning (as the official dashboard warning is OPTIONAL) and the remaining Meta to take their word for it... then the editor in question can just be OUSTED. And yes, this can happen just because they don't like your face. These procedures are documented within the ODP guidelines, I just gave a possible scenario within those guidelines. There are no official checks, and there certainly are no balances...and if you want proof, too bad, you can't have any.
Yeah right, editors are getting removed as soon as some meta starts to dislikes them, to make whole thing look legal they fake any kind of evidence they can manufacture and accused editor has zero chance of defense since whole thing is top secret done inside meta forum and editor simply kicked out without ever knowing the real reason, seeing so-called evidence gathered against him/her or given a chance to defended. When one day they remove you you will know who was right...
The problem with dmoz is mostly that most of the editors thinks that it's useless to communicate with the public. For a lot of points, it's true. But for some, the result is your point of view Qryztufre. When removed, editors are really often frustrated. And they say whatever they can to discredit the directory. Yep, editors without meta or catmod rights can't know why others editors are removed. And maybe there are some abuses. Like everywhere ! But 99% of the metas are there only because they want to be part of the project, and it's their way to do so. After that, I don't think I'll answer to that thread again. Anyway, I'm not going to change your point of view. Think the way you want. Just know that you only see the emerged part of the iceberg.
I would not mind the secrecy, if they let their own in. As it stands, the scenario I gave is a possible one, that has seemingly happened several times. Without some form of checks and balances, or without some type of transparency, these "corruption" claims will continue without end. It's one thing to keep things from the public, it's another to keep things from their fellow editors...it removes the "community" aspect of the place. Worse still, many of the claims to "discredit" are little more then editors that lost their log in without word or warning...they just stopped being able to log in, and then they are told they are not allowed to be told why. Kind of odd isn't it? Please keep in mind, that you too are only seeming the tip of the iceberg, and that we are looking at the same ice, just from different angles. I would LOVE for you to be correct, I really would, but for that to happen, the Meta community needs to be held accountable for their actions, they need more uniformity in those actions, and they need to stop assuming that Webmaster == Troll. I have no doubt there are good meta, and I know there are many good editors... but those "good" members need to stand up and get their voices heard before they too fall victim to the "guidelines".
Such arrogance has already destroyed community inside DMOZ leaving only those bowing to meta oligarchy. DMOZ is doing all discrediting itself, all you need to do is pull out head out of sand and take a look. So there maybe meta abuse but who cares about it? Problem is that many of them have become obsessed with whole thing that they are seeing enemies and corruption everywhere and think that without them DMOZ is doomed and since they don't answer anyone for their actions mistakes are pilling up and nobody cares if entire system has become flawed. When you get removed you will join us again... and at the current removal rate that won't be long.
No, look back, Q, and see how much of the debate about Annie got posted on here, page after page of internal ODP forums. So how do we give information to the editing community and not have it posted on here for ex-editors with twisted minds trying to dissect what was said to suit their own ends? Get some reality and pack up the smears and innuendos. You quit, stop trying fruitlessly to destroy, it just makes you look more and more like the bitter booted editors and the webmasters who can't get their spammy sites listed.
"Want to Get Listed in DMOZ? Create a Good Site" Like this site listed here? What are the url's of you sites by the way?
You reap what you've sow rings a bell? Instead of openness like wikipedia, DMOZ took route of paranoid secrecy in which everyone is guilty by default all that is need is any kind of evidence to remove them permanently no matter what crime they've committed, all your hard work is completely irrelevant - imagine if courts had only one sentence life without possibility of parole like DMOZ, even for traffic tickets? But then in court at lest you have possibility to defended yourself and explain your action, see evidence against you... at DMOZ your found guilty and that is it! Again entire Internet against DMOZ conspiracy theory and you guys don't think your being paranoid?? In your place I would schedule few sessions with minstrel ASAP.
And perhaps the Soviet Union, secrets deep inside Kremlin, agents looking. God, I've read too many of your twisted ludicrous posts. You admit seeking for revenge, what a childish way to behave. Still it takes all sorts.
Thanks, I can read the General internal forum, but goes to prove my point when Q says that we can inform our own. Unfortunately there are some editors who want to use the internal forums for their own use on external sites.
Maybe DMOZ was set up by KGB, who knows... but it would explain a lot, especially all the secrecy. I admitted it from day one just read my posts after removal, I'm from Balkans, revenge is programed into my gens but I have evolved since in Montenegro they are still practicing blood feuds.
I'm really a far cry from a webmaster, you should see my sites. One a vB forum, two with wordpress, and one manual HTML with many many flaws. I'm more of a WebAcolyte (in training). Two of my sites have a "webmaster" and all of them are actually owned by someone else. yeah, my home page is a bit spammy isn't it. I thought I'd test increasing my ad count because the AdSense reports said one per page wasn't enough. I just haven't gotten around to remove the added ones yet. I'm also not bitter, as I have much love for many aspects of the ODP, and have a few friends that are editors. I do try to give positive words here when I can... look around, you'll find some. I'm certainly not a booted editor, though I'm sorry if I sound like one. But by rights, what do you think you are sounding like? Can't you be nice anymore...you started that way here, remember? Add us to your ignore list, and help the people that actually need it. You are getting consumed by the ex-eds here, and it's making you a changed man. I mean it...look for yourself. I'm not trying to belittle you here, I'm not trying to make you out to be some kind of ass (I'll save that for other posts ) I'm seriously wanting you to look at what you are becoming. I'm I am partly to blame for that, I am sorry... but don't worry about what I think, worry about what you are thinking.