Placement Fee for ODP

I assume that this notion had been discussed here before, but for the sake of discussion let me bring it back again.

With all the backlogs and the reactions that come with it both from volunteer editors and site submitters, maybe ODP administrators should start looking at the prospect of asking a placement fee for each site submitted. And to motivate editors to do more beyond one-site-edit per month or whatever the present quota is, give them a percentage cut from the placement fee.

Of course, site submission must still adhere to the ODP standard.

 

Sounds like a sensible idea, if ODP is still in fact going!

 

I am proposing to pay explanation fee. i.e. if a site has been rejected and submitter prepaid a fee he should receive explanation of rejection.
If site is listed the fee should be refund to submitter.

 

Usually, the problem isn't that the site has been rejected, but that it just hasn't been reviewed yet. If there are too few editors and too many site suggestions, paying editors wouldn't aleviate the problem.

Most editors have a job, they don't need another one, so changing their hobby into a job would most likely result in a mass exodus of editors, leaving you with fewer editors, and despite popular belief, , it does take time to train an editor, and time to become a trusted one.

If you want click-through editors, just automate and get rid of the humans. What would happen is that you would triple the listings in no time, and your sites would be buried in so much garbage that a Directory listing would be of no value at all.

I'm not too familiar with other directories, but most of them look pretty modest, size wise, and I'm not too sure about the quality of the listings.

Another thing is that a paid listing means that those with the bucks will get listed, perhaps multiple times, and those who don't won't get listed, and the only criteria would be money, not unique content, or even quality, so what kind of a Directory would it really be, and what kind of quality/value could it claim?

It might solve a submitters immediate problem of being listed, but, what would the listing be worth?

Watering down the wine might make more of it, but it would lose it's flavor, I think.

 

There are plenty of directories out there that offer the service you are talking about. ODP remains a no-pay zone. Yes it has problems, but I doubt you are going to find anyone there willing to change it such a fundamental way.

 

There is already a placement fee but it is not official and the advantage of it is that you can list any site since ODP doesn't have standard, only guidelines which always have exceptions for every rule.

 

could be a solution.

Something like express review - where you could have your submitted link reviewed in lets say 1 month max. This could be something. Good idea. They could keep it free as it is + this express option.

Someone mail them to suggest

 

It won't happen. It has been suggested many times before, both internally and externally. It's just not the way that the ODP wants to work. There are other directories that offer paid inclusion and paid reviews. ODP isn't one of them.

What gworld is talking about (and has been talking about pretty much incessantly on here, in between bans) is highly unofficial and, if discovered, will cause the listing to be removed and possibly banned - he usually conveniently forgets to mention that, of course. Not only that but it might be worth establishing whether the so-called "editor" really does have the ability to add the site. The number of people that have wasted their money on a scam like this... amazing.

 

You are kidding yourselves if you don't think the editors get paid!

 

Instead of spamming here, please feel free to use "Report Abuse" link here: http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/

Dont forget to provide some proofs

 

If the meta team are the editors that are suspect, then sending in reports to the meta team kind of make such reports futile...

Editors can get paid for their services, and that is not abuse according to the guidelines, so as long as it's done in the name of "professional link building" then all is good and swell anyway, and is not grounds for alarm or abuse reports.

 

Just to be very clear, editors, at whatever level, discovered to be favouring or giving listing priority or prominence to websites in return for money or value in kind are almost invariably removed.

Meta editors know abusive behaviour when they see it and are quite capable of dealing with it. Common sense rules during investigations and the spirit of the law takes precedence over the letter.

Q is quite adept at stringing together little snippets and even slips of the tongue to construct some kind of loophole. Trust me on this, his theories aren't in line with actuality. There are no get out of jail free cards.

Meta editors and senior editors aren't immune either and, if anything, they are held to higher standards. Sadly, they are human too and I can think of several who have been canned for abuse over the years.

 

Imagine the irony of this. Google recommends submitting to such directories as Dmoz and Yahoo in their webmaster guidelines. How ironic would it be if Dmoz became a paid-inclusion directory (much like Alive directory!!) and Google (or to be fair, Matt Cutts) didn't penalise it for indirectly selling links (as opposed to customers paying for editors review services).

Ah, please, please, please?

 

Q, dear, can bet that here are users, formers metas, which you can ask about.
Oh, I forgot. Every one at prison is innocent...

@Spider-Man - correct. Thats why we dont want to provide such a service. A lot of threads here about this. All of the editors I know will left the project, if it becomes payable directory. Including me.

 

I had several editors say that being paid is within the guidelines. Are you telling me that they are wrong? It's no wonder people are so confused and I keep getting slack... editors can not make up their minds as to what is and is not allowed

So yeah, blame me, but then, blame the rest of the editors that are the ones doing the actual misleading.

Do I need to point to the threads again? Do I need to quote from the guidelines? Why oh why must I keep bringing these things up to have half of the editors agree and the other half say I am wrong...its really no wonder so many of you guys say you are not spokesmen for the ODP, you are all saying different things!!!!

Are you saying that DMOZ is guilty? I'm just saying that there is no connection with the top from the outside and that if someone is questioning someone on the meta team, then pointing it out to other meta members is kind of moot....especially if the meta in question is the one that gets to the complaint first

 

@Q:

Be a barrack room lawyer as much as you like but I'm not the slightest bit interested in your little collection of out of context snippets from other threads and sources. Frankly, I doubt that many other people are either. The only person deliberately sowing the seeds of confusion around here on this matter appears to be you.

In the real world, abusive behaviour within ODP is dealt with when discovered - as many ex editors will confirm.

 

Read this thread. I seemingly took the guidelines out of context and was put back in line by an editor (actually more then one editor) that stated getting paid was OK: DMOZ as an SEO/Linkbuilding tool, as claimed by an editor!

Or maybe in this thread where I point out that following the rules is a good way to get a listing but was corrected by an editor saying that following the guidelines is shaky: There are no guidelines

Or maybe do a search on the ODP itself and see that a site (TOPIX) that was owned by an editor has thousands upon thousands of listing, many of which are little more then syndicated (DUPLICATE) content.

I'd point to the CNN links that had thousands of dead links, but finally someone actually took notice and that issue was corrected.

So yes, it's me, it's all me...

I gave the entire threads so you could keep the quotes IN CONTEXT.

I've been consistent in the things I've said, I've given sources for the things I've said have been... and the about the only thing I've seen from most editors has been personal attacks, or editors pointing to my own sites, or editors quoting from my edit counts... why is it I can be wrong time and time again... when I've said the same things that editors have said? It's odd you think that it's only wrong when *I* say it.

Like Annie?

 

Jim, you know I like you and respect you, but every time you (and other metas) post something like this I can't help but take it personally. It makes me feel like I should put my details "out there" and I have no problem doing it, but do we really want to go there? It would be such an embarrassment for several metas in particular and would look very bad for ODP in general.

I have chat logs, editing logs, medical records, emails, urls to forum posts... all kinds of stuff... all in one handy place. I thought with time ODP metas would stop hurting me. Sadly I was wrong. So where do we go from here? Will you stop saying this crap or should I show irrefutable evidence to the contrary?

 

Yeah right, serial killers who have confessed to dozen murders have better chances of being freed in court then innocent editor under meta investigation.

Editors under investigations have zero rights, no chance do defend themselves or even see the so-called evidence gathered against them or even know the reason of removal - since at DMOZ there is only one penalty removal - good thing legal system doesn't work like that and it actually has different penalties based on severity of the crime, not to mention you can actually defend yourself and prove you are innocent.

Isn't that favorite meta method of gathering evidence? It certainly was in my case!

 

Responding to Q first of all:

We are discussing whether or not paying editors to give favour to websites is OK. You seem convinced that it is and I'm telling you that it's abusive. The sad thing is that some gullible website owners or editors might believe you.

Why you dragged up the old CNN and Topix canards I can't imagine. If the directory owners (and I mean owners, not editors of whatever level) decide to do a deal with another organisation, that's their right. It certainly isn't any indication of editorial abuse. Any editor who objected could do the other thing - and some did.

The CNN listings are gone now. That too was a staff/Admin decision.

The Topix listings were added by robots with the active collusion of staff. Editors are quite at liberty to remove any that don't have significant content - and many have done so.

And now to Annie:

Annie, I love you too and my comments were not in the slightest aimed in your direction - as I'm sure you've already realised. It's a shame that Q though it was a good idea to drag your name into what had been a more focused discussion .