I am a DMOZ editor, I am giving up....

Reading the total drivel and self-interest on this thread, it is no wonder that DMOZ has become irrelevant for anything but Google PageRank. I don't know anybody who actually uses it as a web directoy, because that it is certainly not!

It's full of people whose main interest is themselves and their own websites, and stuff the rest of us. I couldn't even get an intelligent answer to my contribution to this thread. It was ignored except by one respondee, and even that response as turned back by others to self-interest very rapidly.

I'm not surprised DMOZ decided to stop giving progress reports - it was through sheer embarrassment, and it has even been suggested here that editors seek their own new sites rather than bother with those that have been suggested. How self-centered is that! I think I might publish that particular post on my website.

Nah, DMOZ is rapidly dying. It could have been good, but has had so much bad press now, and too many accusations of corruption and self-interest, and the posts here only serve to substantiate these claims. I don't use it because there is so little choice. It will go the way of all web directories and end up having to charge.

 

Why do we prefer to seek our own sites?
Because in some sections of the directory all we get submitted is spam and spider food. I have just deleted 4 submissions of the same rubbish submitted to different categories. Yours may be a good site but, unfortunately, it has to stand in the Q with all the rubbish.
Also why should our directory be only driven by those webmasters who want to get listed? What happens to those sites who know nothing of or care nothing for ODP? But we want sites that our surfers are interested in and if we think that demands we find and list those that do not submit, should you be able to say otherwise?
Should not webmasters be grateful that we allow sites to be suggested and that many of us do spend time looking at the junk and listing the good? Or is teh right attitude that "my site has not been listed so they must be *****"? You tell me?
And the strange thing is that for all we get called names that does not debar any webmaster from a listing, some of the ODP haters on here quite happily have their sites listed with us. There are some reasons for being bared and the main one is trying to or succeeding in bribing an editor, not calling us names.

 

I feel your pain man...but to be honest most of the haters and people that don't like DMOZ are the ones that spam us...or their site has been turned down.

some people just don't get it....WE WILL NOT APPROVE ALL THE SUBMISSIONS, easy as that...the submitted site has to live up to DMOZ standards...It has to be unique, fresh and something that worth seeing...
thanks for sharing your opinion...
good luck...

 

Which categories are you responsible of?Can you approve links in regional categories?I am submitting my link to odp's regional/turkey/agriculture category but the editor of the category that I submit is from a rival company.He keeps rejecting our submissions.Even everything is perfect!There are ordinary sloppy websites which were approved but our professionally designed agriculture website doesn't get approved

 

sorry man, i am in the gaming category...

anyway the category you are trying to submit your site to sounds like small cat, you should write a good letter and try to apply for it....remeber when applying be creative and make sure your grammer, spelling and etc...is perfect.

if you need more help let us know...

 

No such category and we don't have an Agriculture cat within Turkey.

Did you mean Regional/Middle_East/Turkey/Business_and_Economy?

In any case, why do you believe that your listing suggestions were declined? It would be very unusual for an editor to send an email saying so.

 

I was watching an episode of Sponge Bob yesterday with my grandson. The one where Mr. Squarepants and Patrick take on the roles of Merman and Barnacle Boy. Sponge Bob got into the invisible car/boat/thing and said "I can't drive, I don't have a license" to which Patrick handed him an invisible one saying "For an invisible car, you need an invisible license".

Maybe you do, but you just can't see it! That would also explain the email...

 

I mean this one: http://www.dmoz.org/World/Türkçe/Ekonomi_ve_İş_Dünyası/Tarım_ve_Hayvancılık/
I submitted 10 times here.Everything was perfect.The description, title, grammer...everything.But still getting no response.One we got a response that our directory was approved and we need to reply to the e-mail.We replied but our website still didn't get listed.Odd.

 

Odd...we very rarely contact submitters via email, and we dont ask for response when we approving sites...do you keep this email?

 

So in summary; Aside from the fact that submitting 10 times might hamper entry...

• You got an acceptance letter we don't send
• asking for a return email we don't require
• announcing acceptance to a category we don't have?

OK, I'll admit that's unusual.

Seriously, are you certain you have the correct directory?

 

We do initiate email confirmation transactions - but only for editor applications. Is that what you were thinking of?

 

Probably true Anonymously,

But it's the way that many perceive DMOZ to be. Perhaps if Google didn't place such emphasis on it nobody would bother wanting listed since I don't use it for the reasons I have detailed. However we are told we must be listed for a high Google listing.

I personally don't believe that to be true since the home page of my two main sites are at #1 and #4 for their principal keyword without having to be listed in DMOZ. At one time I thought differently, and applied to be an editor of DMOZ. However I was told that one of the sites I suggested was in the wrong category. As an expert on childhood diseases I consider myself more qualified to categorize a measles site than most. I can't see it being classified as anything other than a viral infectious disease.

However I was told it was wrong - try again. I refused because I was correct. What am I supposed to do - misclassify a classic viral infectious disease?

That put me off a bit, and then when none of my expert sites were included and I was not allowed to ask why, I started to think bad thoughts about DMOZ which I still have.

I fully understand your point, but if this is meant to be open then at least one should be able to enquire. In any case, who is to decide what is spam? The ignorant person who believed that I was misclassifying an infectious disease? Absolutely not. I also feel that sites that are submitted should be examined, and not ignored because 'they might be spam', and editors therfore seek out their own sites and decide if it should be included whether the webmasters want it or not.

Additionally I have seen many sites on DMOZ with inaccurate information and giving the subject less rigorous treatment that they should. Many are downright bad, and belie the claim that you are seeking excellence. No, while I understand your point I cannot totally agree with you. You appear to think I am complaining because my sites have not been listed, but that is just part of the story.

It is the poor quality of many of the sites that are listed and the clumsy and careless way in which they treat their subject. In saying that however, being an editor is not easy and perhaps I have been unfair in my criticism. I accept that and apologise, and perhaps the way to improve things is to join you. however, I would probably be refused.

 

We, ofcourse cannot influence Google at all, there is a rumour that our new staff might be the reason Google updates more frequently, but who knows, except Google staff and they aint telling. Sometimes have thought the the powerful links with Google were a mixed blessing for us, but we are certainly not treated as favourably as we used to be when Google gave preference to ODP listings and descriptions.

Don't confuse not having sites listed with you saying that you were told you categorised one wrongly on application, the chances of the editor reviewing your editor application and one likely to list your sites being the same is not high, so it is not the same sort of root objection. My knowledge of measles goes back to me having them eons ago, so can't comment on any sort of appropriateness.

i was realy just trying to hedge the point often made on here about submissions and many webmasters believe that we rely entirely on what is submitted and that we should only deal with such, and I was trying to say that our focus and the reason teh directory was created was not to get sites luisted but to get quality sites classified for the surfer. Now what we mean by quality is also an issue which you begin to raise here

Quality does not mean we ensure that the sites are accurate in any sense, because we do not seek to make judgements, but to offer sites in a category for those seeking information in that area. We list builders but have no idea if they do good work or bad, we do not even require that they have well presented sites, if the site is complete, readable offers unique information we will list it. One does have to say that we hope editors with some experience in a subject will use their knowledge to list important sites in an area, but also ones that are less important or from wrong perspectives, if they offer unique content. Correct placing of a site is important and if, as an editor, one disagreed with where a site (unless say its clear its a business belonging in a business category and has been placed in arts!) or a clump of sites resided then we have discussions about that in our forums and move with consensus (have to say it can be a bit slow and tedious at times, but I think mostly we get to the right place).

As I said above, quality means slightly different than ensuring content is correct or right, so you might as an expert in a field see some problems, but we take the view that if it is someone's view, others might be interested. I have seen discussions were experts have disagreed on what something should be called or classified as, and sometimes we do get it wrong, but nothing is set in stone, it takes someone with knowledge to raise the issue but the editor also sometimes has to be detached. We sometimes, wrongly, mix up our own beliefs with our editing, there was a debate about creationism and if it should be religiously or scientifically listed and at times editors were showing their own strongly held beliefs, but we try to be detatched.

Don't apologise for criticising, I hope we can debate issues, but sometimes on here it feels like we just get popped at and that is different from you putting reasonable points and expecting reasonable answers. I hope you feel that I have done that; and we want editors, so why not try again? If a meta editor (this group would deal with new applications, out of my league) followed what we have as a structure and it aint right you need to get in and tell us But see what i am trying to say about what and how we include and exclude, and I can assure you that when i refer to spam its either someone who submits a site to every category in sight several times or its advertising and link pages, we don't refer to sites as spam because we believe their content is against our personal beliefs.

Hope that explains some things and encourages you to try again.

 

it is too bad and in our perspective we feel that we aren't approved even though we meet the criteria

 

We don't approve anything, but we do list sites which fit our criteria, but submitted sites can take from a few minutes to a few years to be reviewed. If you feel that is too slow then volunteer and help to get sites reviewed and suitable ones listed.

 

Could have left it right there...

No wait, doesn't that define "approve" on some level?

If you do not "approve" anything, then that kind of wait time would be a sign of the time it takes the average editor to find things on their own.

I don't know if it's too slow or not, but then, if nothing is ever approved, what is a would be editor to do

 

I had recently applied to be an editor for the directory and was denied. I thought I had spent enough time learning what I needed to do to properly fill out the application and the sites I suggested weren't already there and were a perfect fit for the category (at least I think so).

Ohhh well maybe I'll try again in a few months.

 

don't give up mate, i applied three times before they approved me...it's a fun hobby when you have free time and if you are in the right category ...
good luck mate...

 

Endorse what fuse-box said about not giving up. You don't have to wait for months to try again.

I have nothing at all to do with new applications, so my guess is probably about as good as yours if you read the guidelines.
But did you
Look at the descriptions in the category you were applying for to get an idea, but also cast a critical eye on them after looking at the guidelines. There are still some bad descriptions from my early days that I did (and probably some recent ones too!)
Ensure the title is correct
You said they were a perfect fit so that should be OK
Often people fall because they apply to too big a category, max number should be 75 sites listed, including sub cats (because editors can operate in categories below the level they are listed), and not less than 15 to offer a little scope.
And relook at why you want to edit there, expertise, interest etc.
Be honest about any affiliations.
Crowbar started a thread about applying, on here, it would be worth having a look at it.

Good luck.

 

Yeah I'll have to take a look. I thought the sites submitted were excellent but maybe I am wrong. I drilled way down until I found a category that only had about 15 entries in it so I thought "What a good place to start".

I will definitely search for that thread you mention and try again shortly. Maybe I can figure out what went wrong.

Thanks