DMOZ is dead or is it? Please post if you got approved lately!

Again, define evidence... evidence HAS been given for MANY of the things Gworld has accused DMOZ of, and in every instance Editors have refuted the evidence by saying "we still need proof" so come on, what constitutes proof?

Maybe it's in Gworld's wording... maybe he needs to stop saying ALL senior editors. Would have help?

 

Thats not true in my opinion.
Nothing to do with site quality.

My own opinion is that DMOZ let that the categories are managed by people that owns sites in those categories (that i not ethic at all) and then, many of those people don't let any other software to get there.

As an example looks at this:
http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Shareware/Windows/Multimedia/Music_and_Audio/Converters/

The first link drives to a malware related software (but the link suppoused to be an audio converter!!)
In the list (just 10 sites listed) ONE PRODUCT has TWO links... that are both dead at the moment.
Etc, etc.

So, i can't get one of my pages ( http://www.mp3doctor.com ) there FROM YEARS (7 years to be clear), and no "quality" explanation can be used.

Onje frend explain it by this way to me:

"DMOZ was divided, and the people that review sites, acts as if they OWN Dmoz and do whatever they want, using it more for they personal benefit and not for community"

I guess he is right.

Thats why DMOZ is almost dead, no real importance today.

Im not sure if its right (ethic) to let that a people that has personal interests edit a category.
The problem is not only adding the editor sites, but BLOCKING other sites to be listed.

Thats why everywhere we can find people claiming to wait years and don't get listed never.

It so obvious that the editors blocks some sites... at the time they happily add their owns, even twice in same category.

 

Personally I think it's good that editors can add their own sites, as it does show they have an interest in the topic at hand and have a higher chance of picking and choosing higher quality additions to that category. MOST editors that add their own sites ARE decent and fair when adding other sites. A few bad apples can spoil the bushel, but that does not mean the entire bushel is bad when a bad apple is found.

When and if you do see unfair treatment, feel free to report it... not sure if anything will be done (I've never seen evidence of anything being done). Or better yet, publicly call out any editor you see acting that way... though, heh, when you do that the proof is needed on your end, and trust me... as far as editors are concerned there is never enough proof.

 

I submitted mine few month ago, no reply yet!

 

You'll NEVER get a reply either... they simply do not do that. They consider it a waste of time to communicate with the public, especially when that public is a webmaster

You'll simply have to check back now and again to see if it's listed, and in the mean time keep building your site. Chances are an editor will stumble across your site through some other means then the queue anyway and will add it that way... assuming it's up to their standards or fits within that editors whim.

 

You would be exactly right. Not quality, which would be a very subjective opinion, but unique content which is objective, it's either there or it isn't. That's not based on opinion, but fact.

That would be false. First of all, many hundreds of editors can and do edit in any and all categories, not just one editor. When you see an editor named in a category, it means he has editing permissions there and in every category below that category. There are hundreds of editors who edit in higher categories, and everything beneath them.

Secondly, I edit in thousands of categories, yet I do not own any site, nor am I afilliated with any.

Well, as volunteers, we do edit when we want to, and wherever we have editing permissions to edit, that's true, but no editor "owns" any category, many other editors can also edit there.

If you suspect an editor of abuse, please do us a big favor and file an abuse report, we hate them more than you ever will, but not listing your site is not abuse. Your site may not have the unique content we're looking for, and we may just not want it at all, or perhaps there are just no editors interested in editing that category.

Actually, it's perfectly ok for an editor to add his own site, and it's his responsibility to add it, if it has the unique quality we want for the category, as long as the site gets no preferential treatment than any other site does. Editors are encouraged to add good sites, no matter where they find them. Other editors could remove the site, if it doesn't have what we're looking for.

As far as blocking sites goes, that is a big no no, and would be cause for a very strong warning, or possible removal of editing privleges so if you suspect that, then file an abuse report.

The reason people may wait for years is because we either don't want the site at all, there just aren't any editors who are interested enough in the topic to work in that area, or there are just so many suggestions that they aren't needed or can't be kept up with. Editors are under no obligation to look at site suggestions at all, we can find them on our own using a variety of methods.

 

Mmm... that is not what we see if we check many DMOZ categories.
I point on in my post, that, from 10 sites have 2 to be to the same product!!
If we talk about facts, the example says something opposite.

Mmm... i feel that this "quality" and "unique" arguments has been bad used by many editors to hide what they are REALLY doing.
I always submit sites about software i coded my self, so they are obviously unique (because 100% of the text are about my product and was writed for the site).
I know many, many coders that find the same situation: the editor never add sites and AT THE SAME TIME, have THEIR OWN SITES almost alone in categories.

And always the excuse i talking about some subjective words as quality, etc

Maybe the approach was wrong from the beggining. What the editor must check is if the site is legit. I mean a real site with real info about something. Use another strange arguments to keep many sites out is just a trcik in most cases.

????

What YOU are looking for????????
What????
A open directory should list legit sites, real sites. Only avoid stuff that has no real content that was made only for bringing traffic.
But real and legit sites must be listed... or change the name from Open Directory to "my personal opinion directory".
Don't get me wrong, but i don't think that you or any editor has any right to "decide" that strange thinks like "if it doesn't have what we're looking for".

I am not saying that you are a bad editor, i don't know you and im not making this discussion something personal.

But if you see how much people complain about DMOZ, is because SOMETHING REALLY STRANGE is going on there.

Then its not a serious directory, as many people feels.

I understand that editor have no obligation to spend X number of hours in DMOZ.
But the time they devote to DMOZ they must follow some rules, like checking the url siggested by webmasters.
If any editor of some category does not do that BUT use its time to use his own methods to find sites (when is have $$ interests on that category!!), this is not an ethic editor.. or change the name from Open Directory, again to "my own and personal opinion directory".

If you REALLY think that the editor can do what they want... that explains why DMOZ has no real value today and why people have many
doubts about the transparency they use. or maybe i am understanding something wrong.

No adding a site without clear rules many times shows AN ABUSE, yes.
I don't know if you are the owner of DMOZ, otherwise be carefull saying "we may just not want it at all". You may not have the rights to decide such a subjective things, without clear rules.

And YES, that is the real problem. That the editor with out any ethic feels like he can want or not some sites at all... when he list his own sites. Thats why i said that many inethic editors feels like thay can do whatever they want Thanks for pointing exactly the problem. All we know which was the only real reason, behind words and words of excuses, to not add his competitors site to the directory.

Again, im not talking about you. But about many editors hidden by not clear rules to do whatever they eant, like add their own sites and keep out his competitors.

 

Look, a friends is a CatEditall and it's not dead...

 

So many people wonder why DMOZ doesn't accept their website, maybe they should take a look at what websites DMOZ actually lists.

If you have a site with a good blog, or product, then there will be NO problems with getting it listed. If you are running an SEO project or anything which you are not introducing quality content or relevant information in, you will not be listed.

I have submitted various websites to DMOZ, some have been accpeted, others have not, it's about quality in my mind.

 

LOL, very interesting concept, but totally wrong.

Editors don't provide you with a listing service, we are not your servants, no matter how badly you want us to be.

What editors do is build categories for information seekers, not for site suggesters or site owners or site builders.

What I, personally, look for depends on what category I'm editing in. I didn't say "unique sites", I said "unique content" on a site is what we look for. Unique content compared to what other sites in that category already have on them.

The information seeker does not need to see ten sites with the exact same information on them. One site with that information is enough, why would they want to see it ten times? What we want is ten sites that each have something a little different to offer, which is what we call "unique content".

Unique content varies from category to category, what it is in a Water Garden category will be different than it would be for a Sports category.

In a Water Gargen category, photos of a one of a kind water garden designed and built by the site owner would be "unique content". A dialogue about how he built it and the problems he had would also be "unique content". There may be similar water gardens, but none that are exactly like this one.

I've been an editor for 8 years, so I'm trying to explain to you how it really is on the inside, after listening to your misguided and incorrect view of the editing community. Which of us do you think has more credibility?

 

Just quoted again because you are quite right to point out many fundamental problems in DMOZ but you will never get crowbar to agree with you since he is a typical DMOZ "yes sir" man.

 

It's not dead..........

 

So are you saying that a site will be disqualified if the webmaster voices critiques about the directory ?

 

That not a right answer.
A directory that tried to be an OPEN DIRECTORY, should try to list as most legit (no spammy) sites as possible.
When someone feels like the owner of DMOZ and says he have the right to decide (with no clear rules) if he want a site to be or not to be listed, and even IGNORE webmasters (DMOZ exists because webmasters develope sites)... something is going badly wrong.

Lets the facts talk:

Then explain me WHY the DMOZ editors refuse to list many converters and only find like they want to add 10.

http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Shareware/Windows/Multimedia/Music_and_Audio/Converters/

BUT those 10 sites includes 2 SITES that talks about THE SAME, and are VERY similar, just look at this:

# Audio Converter - Convert audio files directly to Windows Media audio, features MP3 quality at half the size, MP3, AIFF, or Wave format. Copy tracks from an audio CD to hard disk and burn audio CDs. [Windows 95/98/Me/NT/2000]
# Audio Converter - Convert audio files directly to Windows Media audio, MP3, AIFF, or Wave formats. Also will copy tracks from an audio CD to hard disk and burn audio CDs. Product overview, screenshots, FAQs, and downloads. [Windows 95/98/Me/NT/2000/XP]

Click on both links and you will get to the same site at the end of the road (both are sites that was used to sell the same software and both sites have the same owner!)

Look at those sites in 2005 (according to archive org):

Site 1 (of 10 listed, all the rest was rejected)

http://web.archive.org/web/20050103085543/http://www.audconv.com/

Site 2 (of 10 listed, the rest was rejected and we can read your explanation about unique content)

http://web.archive.org/web/20050110040154/http://www.audioconverter.info/

---------------------------

Now, lets REALLY face the truth.
This is a AWESOME EXAMPLE of how bad can DMOZ works sometimes and explain WHY many people (like me) feel VERY dissapointed about DMOZ.

Don't tell me that i want you to be servants.
I just want ethics and honestly.
DMOZ has rejected many competitors of this software, but the editor decide to list it TWICE and reject the other because "maybe the don't want it at all".

Lets face the truth about DMOZ.

 

In the few categories that i search (each one with a surprising low amount of sites listed! Music playes only 13 and converters only 10) we can find a lot of sites that have more than one listing (at the same time others can't get into DMOZ... and the explanation we receive here talks about "being unique"!!!)

Again, lets facts talk:



Lets face the truth about DMOZ. It deserves the bad image that many of us have about the way its being managed internally and the REAL reason to reject most submitions (Looks like editors list their own sites, even twice, and reject their competitors sites).

 

What editor owns this site? the last time I checked it wasn't a violation for having a site linked more then once or having a site linked in more then one cat

 

Another YES MAN.

Some people just get lucky and have multiple listings, like a site that gets 100s links to affiliates doorway pages in the same domain while others get none. Just pure luck, no corruption.

 

DMOZ is not a listing service.There is no point being vindictive for not getting listed if your site is only created for affiliate marketing, SEO or other purposes not providing unique value and/ or experience to the visitor. In Order to earn your place on DMOZ you should really come up with a product or service that is your own. Then the whole listing thing will be a piece of cake

 

Absolutely true. Who said a site can't be listed twice? In some cases, though it's rare, an editor might decide that a site has enough variety of unique content that it would be of value to information seekers to list it in two similar categories.

We build categories, as I've said, but we do have the editor discretion within our guidelines to use common sense.

Many, many sites are double listed, usually if they qualify to be listed once in a Topical category, and once in a Regional category.

10 to 13 sites? Excellent! Who said a category had to be large in order to be of value to an information seeker? There may be many other sites that qualify to be listed there, but there may not be any editors that are interested in working on that specific category right now.

Why do I get the feeling that you are a competitor of your example sites, and you are really furious that you haven't been listed? Making false allegations isn't helpful to anyone. If you really think there's something wrong, just file an abuse report so it can be investigated and documented, but I'm telling you right now that not getting your particular site listed is not abuse.

 

If you CAN'T see that DMOZ is almost dead because all this unethic behavior of many editors, then its because you don't want to see it.
The bad point is that some editors, use false arguments to manage the Open Directory like it was their own and they can use their own modest opinion to get advantage for their own sites.

However, beyond any arguments, the real thing is that DMOZ is in fadeout, loosing the place it has once. That is a fact.
And after reading all this atempts to don't recognize a very clear problem, i think DMOZ deserves getting into nothing, like its happening.