The Great Conspiracy at DMOZ

Many forum topics have said that there is conspiracy in DMOZ. Do you believe in this?

They say it's manipulated by the insiders: "Accept my site in your category and I'll accept your site."

Is this true?

 

huh........no idea about the conspiracy........is DMOZ still a no1 priority nowadays?...

has been trying hard to get into DMOZ directory yet without success.........

anyclue on how to get accepted?

 

I would also like to ask the same question.

 

According to who? If you find a blog that claims DMOZ is the end all of linkage, then you must ask them for their source. I'm willing that if you tracked it back it would be dated well into the 90's

Submit once to the best category. That is all that is needed. Anything more can do more harm then good. Then again, depending on the category, it may just not make a difference.

Unique content. According to some, that is ALL that is needed, even at the expense of the guidelines.

 

There are just as many conspiracies, as there are topics about them.

Why would they do that? They can submit their site as editors, and any site they are affiliated with has to be listed right on their dashboard. Not doing so is cause for removing editor privileges.

Many categories have no named resident editor to contact, so the editor would have to ask an editor with higher editing privs, and that type of editor has not only already shown his honesty, but would have access to most categories that his own site belonged in, and wouldn't need to do such a trade.

Not to mention the fact that any editor can most certainly add his own site to the Directory, legitimately, if he has editing privileges in that category, and his site belongs there and has the unique content we look for.

Now, if there was a scenario like that, between two editors, it would be very poor form to do such a thing, and it could very well be considered editor abuse and cause for removal.

On top of that, many other editors also have permission to edit in both of those categories, and if a site didn't qualify to be there, or the description stood out as maybe a little nicer than other descriptions, it could be re-reviewed and re-edited, and there is a permanent record of every edit any editor does.

Editor abuse is much easier to discover than you might think, and it's taken very seriously, and not tolerated. Any editor, from the smallest category editor to the meta levels, and anywhere in between, can discover such editor abuse on their own and file an abuse form.

That's why such conspiracy threads are so ridiculous. It could happen, but the chances of getting caught are very high, and the consequences are permanent, and would most likely include the sites themselves. It would probably depend on the value of the sites to the web surfer, which is the Directory first concern. I imagine they'd have to be exceptional sites though, and that's not likely.

No editor owns any category, they merely have permission to edit there, and that permission can be removed instantly. Further editing permissions in other categories, or at higher levels, are only given after a careful study of the editors editing history, and the condition of the category/categories he currently edits. That is why all new editors are limited to one small category until they've proven themselves. All editors, even Metas and Administrators start out the same way, in a small category, and have to earn their way to those higher positions by demonstrating their knowledge, ability, and trustworthiness. It takes years to become a meta, and a special type of devotion, involving a whole lot of work.

 

I'm just sad. Many webmasters are losing trust in DMOZ. How can we resurrect the confidence in dMOZ?

 

By being part of the solution instead of the biggest problem.

As experts in your field, it should be fairly easy to understand that a Real Estate office must be submitted to the locality (city) that the office is actually located in. If your client wants to be listed in a big city, where he might get more exposer, it's not going to happen (use the newspaper for that), so submitting there will only delay a review. We spend much of our time moving sites to where they really belong.

The next biggest time consumer is having to rewrite titles/descriptions. As pros, it shouldn't be too hard to send a title/description that looks similar to existng listings and to read our special Real Estate Guidelines.
http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/regional/realestate.html

Once you've learned them, it shouldn't be a problem to submit compliant ones. Webmasters send many sites. Each one of them that is ready to list, saves editors time, effort, and speeds things up for everyone.

Stop wasting our time, we'll find them, and place special notes on them, but it takes time and effort.

What better way to understand the Directory and how it operates, and to confirm that what I'm telling you is the truth? You may not have a lot of extra time to devote, but, any site you add will grow the Directory by that much, and you'll be part of a worldwide community.

The qualifications are easy, total honesty and integrity, and a desire to improve the Internet as much as you have time to. The application items may seem unimportant, but there are reasons for all of them. Just tell the truth without worrying about what you think they want to hear, you may be surprised. Meta editors are some of the most experienced, knowledgeable editors in the Directory, they are experts at ferreting out the truth, and reading people.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

Why to wrote this without being sure?

 

lol Well after 6 years of working with them, I think I know many of them well enough to be sure, some I knew before they were metas, and a few I nominated on my own as being people I'd like to see as meta. So, yes, I'm sure of these people and their integrity, sure enough to trust them with my checkbook or my wallet.

They are not just fat cats sitting at the top, it takes quite a bit of knowledge and experience to become a meta, and there's only one way to get that in the Directory, by doing the editing work.

They're not infallible, of course, but I trust their honesty and integrity 100%, until they show me otherwise.

I trust my wife, also, without being with her 24 hours a day, because I know her and the type of person she is.

 

hi crowbar , how are you ? Wow forums treating you good ?

As regards , context of DMOZ being till a good resource for SEO and promotion ... some of the primary hubs of search marketing - SeoMoz , TLA incorporates a DMOZ listing in their Tools for weighting your site's visibility .
SearchEngineLand and GoogleBlogspot writes about it from time to time ... in the past 6months to 1 year .
Q ... do you read or view any of those sites ?

Awaiting your "expert" comments .

 

Funny that. You wanting my opinion, only so you can tell me I am wrong.

Would you like me to quote Crowbars post above and tell him that his first two points are shaky? After all, it's something you seemingly agree with.

 

Omg.
What conspiracy? Conspiracy to do what???
And how needs DMoz these days??

 

Since I saw the way they wrote the warning they've sent me (by taking partial sentences as proof to their accusation with zero references to my editing logs) I have very low opinion of their honesty and integrity and later events removed what little was left.

 

It's all relative. For the time it takes to get a listing in DMOZ you have to ask yourself as a business owner - wouldn't your time be better spent elsewhere?

Submit it and forget it. If it gets listed great, if not you can't worry about it. For the hours you'd spend trying to get into Dmoz wouldn't your time and money be better spent at BOTW or Yahoo?

 

Love the game, websys. Heading for level 40 so I can get a warhorse. I've got 6 characters, what a great way to waste your time. My 17 year old said, "Don't play it, dad, it will ruin your life." lol

I do, however, still care about the Directory and it's editors. I guess when you invest so much time and effort into something, it becomes a part of you. Being on the outside, along with most of the posters here, but still knowing how the Directory works, does give you a good perspective of both sides and does take some of the edge off.

What the Directory and it's editors do is very misunderstood, and we've done a piss poor job of explaining it over the years, but I think we're starting to make a little progress.

There really is no reason to take up a defensive stance, though that's hard to do when you're constantly attacked, because there is nothing that needs to be defended, only explained.

There is a need among submitters for certain things that we just don't provide, mainly because we don't have the manpower and resources to provide it, and because it has nothing to do with our own goals in building the Directory.

On the other hand, it shouldn't be totally ignored either, and there ought to be some way to come together and use these outside resources to our benefit, and give them some of what they want in exchange for their help.

Unfortunately, editors are fairly powerless to make those changes, it has to be done at Staff level, so, I guess our roll is to use our knowledge of how things work in the Directory to come up with some doable ideas that we can suggest to Staff that don't require years to implement.

Let's face it, Staff are not editors with years of experience within the Directory, they are corporate people with the responsibility of paying the bills and using the financing that they have available in the best way possible, which includes the giant task of hardware maintenance and capacity.

Editors have to come up with the sensible ideas, and suggest them. Staff has to depend on our knowledge. You can't expect Staff people to learn in months, what it took most of us years to learn.

Some baby steps that can be implemented would at least show that we're listening and trying to respond.

I know that isn't easy to do, mainly because we've got a lot of ourselves invested in the Directory, and it's hard not to be, perhaps, a little over protective of our work, but the Directory has out grown us and we could use a little help.

 

If the whole shrinks is there more goodness for the remaining? Or does the goodness simply ebb away?

 

I think the quality of what you have, and what you're doing is more important than growing the numbers, but, most submitters would probably disagree with that, they just want to be in the phone book. That's their only concern. Once they're listed, the Directory is no longer of interest to them.

The whole thing is really about traffic and how to get more of it by using the Internet, rather than traditional means.

My own personal view is that a website should just be a tool to showcase what your company does and the services and products it can offer, not neccessarily a means to gather more customers, or too dependant on it for survival.

I buy many of my supplies over the Internet and I appreciate a company having a site to showcase what they have and give me the kind of information I need.

My mailbox is loaded each day with unwanted fishing trips by wannabe Internet millionaires, sitting in their homes hoping to get orders that they can pass on to the real companies, after they take their bite of the profits. They are totally dependant on traffic to their website. (because they have nothing else)

Hate to use the word, but legitimate companies already have a solid customer base and mailing lists, and other means of drawing customers to their sites. They aren't dependant on the Internet for their survival. A listing in the Directory is nice, but not neccessarily essential, so I question the relevance of a lot of these submitters who are so desperate to get listed.

Yes, I think a smaller, less inclusive Directory would be a much better Directory.

 

I don't pretend for a second to understand the inner workings of DMOZ, nor do I pass judgment on those who donate their time there. Still, the endless and legitimate complaints about DMOZ have merit.

As one who long ago gave up on getting listed there, I've no horse in this race...other than bragging rights, making it into DMOZ at this point wouldn't do me any good. But still, my impression is not positive...and the fix is so simple.

DMOZ does not operate in a transparent manner. Anyone should be able to see the site submission queue, and the fact that decisions are made and never announced is inexcusable. Reasonable people will understand if their site isn't listed, if the briefest of explanations is given. But sitting and wondering for years whether a submissions has even been looked at, is simply no way to treat folks.

Open up the process, and let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise, expect conspiracy theories to be the norm.

 

I think there are several reasons why that's not done. First, you have editors that are women, children, and retired older people, and they need to be protected from the kind of abuse and threats that many editors have experienced in the past. There are some very nasty people out there, and these are volunteers doing something out of the goodness of their hearts. Why should they be subjected to the kind of treatment that's been seen in here?

I'm not against letting you see the numbers that are waiting in the categories, in fact, I've suggested it. Though, the next thing we'd probably hear is "only 200 sites were listed, and 20 were deleted, you need to explain to us why that is." Along with, I imagine, comments about how productive editors are or are not. Hey, how many editors are working in that area, and why aren't they working faster?

Secondly, I personally, wouldn't want anyone looking over my shoulder and second guessing my activities as a volunteer, just as I wouldn't want to be offered a paycheck from AOL for editing. I have a job, my business, I don't need another one. Either of those circumstances would cause most of us to quit immediately.

Thirdly, there is the matter of security. You may not be concerned about it, but the Directory is. Why give the black hats a handy tool to try to work the system? It's as much for your protection as it is for the Directory.

Fourthly, and you really won't like this one, why and how would satisfying your curiousity and desire to know be of any concern whatsoever to the Directory and it's editors? What's in it for us? How would it help us, the Directory, or the web surfers we serve to divert limited resources to please the submitter? What do you have to do with building the Directory? Other than you want in?

Where did you ever get the idea that the Directory and its editors exist to serve you, and are accountable to you? What work have you done to build the Directory that makes you think you should have any say in it at all??

That always perplexes me.

When you submit a url, you are NOT submitting a site. You are suggesting a site for our consideration that you think might be a good idea in your opinion.

Here's the deal. The Directory is being built as a data base for all to freely use as long as they give attribution to the Directory.

The editors are all volunteers building it as a hobby out of the goodness of their hearts, nothing else. Not even a thank you.

Editors build categories by finding sites that will be useful with unique content for the web surfer looking for specific information about a topic or geographic location.

We do not want every single site on the Internet to be listed, no site (nada) has a right, promise, or guarantee to be listed, only selective sites get listed.

As a help to us in doing that, the public is allowed to suggest sites to us for our consideration in building these categories for the web surfer. We are pleased to have these suggestions available, but, they are by no means our only source for finding new sites, just one of the sources, and we are under no obligation to use them at all, and certainly not under any time frame, if we do use them.

They may sit there for years or be discovered and used within hours, there's no way to know. They are a bag full of marbles and an editor will often or only occassionally reach into the bag, pull one out, and either use it or discard it. No promises, no time frame. No line at the movies.