I think that would invite arguement, "He said this, and it's not, it's this, I'm going to file an abuse form because I disagree with his assessment!" Not to mention the man hours it would take, which we don't have enough of now, and the fact that we're editors, not website content builders. That's the webmasters job. All of the reasons for rejection are contained in our Guidelines, I think, or most of them. I could see maybe explaining what "unique content" is and giving site owners a better idea of why we look for it. We've tried to do that here. Though, the long and the short of it is that we don't want every site, we build categories, and we want sites that add value to a category for the web surfers benefit. The fact that there might 1,000 sites available for a category, doesn't mean we want to list them all, we want the 300 that have something a little different to offer the web surfer (unique content), that the other 700 don't have. Why would we want to suggest that the web surfer look through the other 700, when they all have the same thing, but just different owners. We owe nothing to those 700, we don't serve them, we serve the people looking for the information, . For us to guide the 700 and suggest the kind of unique content they should put on their site, which would have to be different than the 300 we listed, is their job, not ours. And, only those people know their topic well enough to provide unique content, which really isn't all that difficult to come up with. I sympathize with your view though, Anonymously, none of us want to keep sites out, why should we? We just don't want 700 copies of the same information sitting there for a web surfer to wade through, it's an unneccessary waste of their time, . And, we don't want junk sites that are nothing more than link farms, duplicates, affiliate sites, business card sites, or anything else that doesn't provide meaningful information or that is some kind of scheme. Not all editors might agree, but that's my take on it and how I understand it, but various views and opinions are always good for any enterprise, and lead to improvements, .
The downside is the issues with webmasters who will never take "no" for an answer. They will argue, as you have seen here, that in such and such a cat, such and such a site is listed and that breaks all the rules etc etc and then expect the rules will be broken for them. In another thread gworld and also Ivan have quoted sites which do not meet up to our guidelines or the description is against guidelines. I can show them far more, I spend a lot of time correcting poor descriptions and I know of loads of sites that we as editors admit that we would not now list. Many seeded the directory in its infancy, but after a balanced debate many are still left, despite as I have said, that we would not list them now if they were offered. So saying that similar sites are listed does not mean that we want to continue listing that type of site. But webmasters don't want to hear that. Also sometimes we probably get less flack when we quietly do not list a site, because telling people they have been delisted for such and such a reason can just fuel the fires of ODP haters on boards like this one.
The difference there is that now they are not told so they come in here and say DMOZ SUX and there are very few editors willing to say why it was not listed. IN such a system was set up it would not take much to say, "well, you were told it was from dead links" or something...and if such links still exist, then the fault is pushed back to the webmaster, where now, its just making the ODP look bad. And if there are sites listed that break the rules, maybe there is something wrong. If the rules are broken for one site, and that is OK, then that IS favoritism. If it's not, then why can't the other site be let in?
It seems there was no problem with removing a site belonging to a member here just because it had 404 for couple of hours while other sites stay for years despite having a wrong description, no content, misleading links and titles that are keyword stuffed. Why don't you delete the sites that you are aware of or I and Ivan mentioned? Is it because some sites are protected and on the other ones, you are aware that a new site with the same one page will be listed as soon as the original site is removed?
Perhaps someday, we'll have enough resources that we can have an automated site status check, Q, but right now those resources have to be used for more pressing matters. The Directory is quite large, so any changes or new features have to be integrated with what exists, and a Directory with 5 million sites, and 600,000 categories that are all linked together in a giant spiderweb, ain't small potatoes to deal with, .
Nope, we always treat a listed site differently, many times we have said that we would not now list a site, but because it has been listed that tips the balance. So we chose to keep sites the like of which we do not now list, sorry guys thats how it works. There is no way we could ever effectively check back when we , over time, change policy and if it aint fair it aint raining, as my mother used to say to me when I complained. Any editor finding a 404 should act to remove it. Q had been drawing attention to himself and his site and how it got listed and it was a 404 and got unreviewed. I notice you sort of failed to add that it was also returned when it returned. Do yer know not even a thank you for that, not to me, cos i didn't relist it. And I can assure you that if I delist a site and it is returned with the same issues it will be delisted again if it comes to my attention. But someone does act on some of the posts given here, but not I. I would follow up as far as my position allows an editor abuse report or a bribary attempt, but I aint chasing sites cos you guys want to post them, I can find plenty myself to deal with. But thanks anyway.
You are so powerful but you just decide not to act because well you chose not to. I think everyone can draw their own conclusion from my question and your answer.
All i have to say is on no because " Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (2 members and 0 guests) paidhosting, Ivan Bajlo" Ivan is browsing this thread, yikes....!!
But why are you expecting me to act when you say that you are an editall. You can do it all yourself, unless ofcourse there is just a tincy bit of lying happening.
If I made that post, I'd of posted anonymously as well... Thank you for saying that the ODP is NOT fair, and yet some editors still can get ousted for favoritism.
Who said we have to be fair? If a site gets listed or remains listed, it's to meet the current needs of the Directory, and the current needs of the Directory are to provide meaningful, useful information to the web surfer (in our opinion), not to please the site suggester who hasn't been listed yet. Sites that don't meet that qualification will eventually be discovered and dealt with appropriately at that time, but it's our call, no one elses, .
Why do I seriously doubt it is possible to just demote a meta without giving them a chance to defended themselves and see the evidence brought up against them like it is the case with all other editors. As long as reasons are valid the one who would get flamed would be crappy webmaster instead of DMOZ, as it is now DMOZ acts as judge, jury and executioner without releasing a single information about the crime for which punishment was given, it should be mandatory for all DMOZ editors to read Kafka's The Trial so they start thinking how would if it feel if they got punished without possibility of ever knowing WHY!
Favoritism guidelines? Saying that editors do not need to be fair, kind of throws such a notion of the ODP being fair, kind of out the window does it not? And if the ODP is not fair, then what is it? A bunch of editors showing favoritism?
Yep, I often open several tabs and leave my PC on so anyone checking will always get spooked seeing me all over the place.
Yep, works pretty good too. We edit at the pleasure of the Directory, if they no longer need our services, we'll find other hobbies. , we have to be unbiased in our editing, not fair. Fair is a subjective term which could mean what an editor deems is fair, or what a submitter deems is fair, depending on which you are. Unbiased editing is something that can be seen and proven in black and white, fairness is more of an opinion.
LoL The definition of fair fits the guidelines better overall. marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism But I guess being honest is not a hallmark of DMOZ, and I know that showing self-interest is certainly an editor trait So yeah, don't be fair...now I have a post to point to when I need to back up my "false claims". DMOZ is UNFAIR!