Attn DMOZ Editors :Why my site is not getting listed in DMOZ

The problem is that Adult is a very small part of DMOZ, about 1% of listings and editors. It has guidelines and practices out of line with the rest of DMOZ, and it is not in any way representative of DMOZ. Yet those problems are continually referred to as being general DMOZ ones. Even in Adult they do have rules and procedures they do follow, just that those rules and procedure IMO are in conflict with the general ones and, I understand, an Admin is trying to do something about that right now, to her great credit.

Then sacrifice another account and raise it internally. I think your logic is flawed and dangerous. You have proposed changes in the past that would fundamentally change the nature of DMOZ, and metas already accept as many new editors as they feel able to do so based on the applications. But make your case where it can be debated by those able to make changes happen.

 

Does passive conversation ever win any followers?

Does your classification of things as an overstatement, automatically mean there is no truth in them?

That is a very lame way of trying to deflect an argument.

 

The problem will not be solved with one post, it is necessary to be able to participate in the discussion.

Why is change so bad? What is there to lose? The "good" reputation that DMOZ enjoys in Internet community? Has anyone asked, why 90% of people who have joined this organization as volunteer have left? Where are the routines for quality control of the listings? Who is benefiting from the siege mentality and mistrust atmosphere in DMOZ? Is it those webmasters who want a fair consideration of the quality of their web sites or is it the editors that want to keep the present situation as it is? Why is it simple solutions that can improve DMOZ image in public eye are not being implanted?

Unfortunately, there is no clear organizational procedures for making changes in DMOZ, so the only solution is to try to gain support for changes in the forums that are not censored.

 

Fair enough. If you'll show a good faith effort I'll meet you part way. Go ahead and post your message with one of your accounts and IF you lose that account I will continue posting your part of the discussion on your behalf. You gotta start it though, I'm not going to be your tool.

I don't happen to believe you'd lose an account just for posting your point of view, but I can understand your concern.

 

Depends on the change. I recall your proposals and they focused on submission processing and some form of assignment to submissions at random. That isn't anything whatsoever to do with the objective or concepts of the project. What is to lose are all the existing editors but that wouldn't happen because no-one would agree to such a change.

Frequently, to myself. I think the answer is highly complex and made up of a huge number of variables. I think it is worth surveying those who have left to find out why and what might be done to (a) retain them and (b) tempt them back. I think that retention of new editors and consistency of standards might be improved by a structured induction rather than a variety of opt-ins, and maybe some online tests accompanied by certificates to post on the profile.

But survey me and ask me why I left and you would get the answer that structured inductions and a glossary of standard terms and a couple of other ideas like site self-assessment at submission and a major clarification of misleading guidelines are not the sort of things management has prioritised and nor are they the sort of thing they would support a volunteer kicking off. My major gripe is that editors like myself would happily have done all the work but certainly my strong impression was that if it was not on the Admins' list of things they collectively wanted to do then forget it, and you end up feeling like a spare part. I strongly believe that many of the senior / experienced editors who have left over the last 12 months have done so for the same reason - left feeling like spare parts with no challenges left to meet. The answer would be to get involved in some of the projects that were set up but I looked at them and saw nothing that remotely appealed to me. Result - bored rigid. I did do some time at RZ and found that interesting and challenging until it clamped down on virtually all discussion under censorship the PR China would be proud of. Actually I find the discussion here quite stimulating so I'm happy at the moment.

 

But we won't know that until there is a structured procedure on how to give suggestion for changes and mechanism for excepting or rejecting such suggestion by the community, do we?
Why is there no structure for suggesting changes and decision making?

After what you have posted and you were an editall which has more possibilities than a new editor, is there really any need for me to explain about why change is necessary or why people leave?

 

There is a huge difference - you want change that is so far reaching that it entirely alters the nature of the directory and of editing and is contrary to basic concepts, which is why it is a dead cert to get zero support. I wouldn't ever have wanted to be a part of that and I guarantee 99% of editors would feel the same way. The changes I would like to see build on existing procedures, clarifying and strengthening them, and are wholly consistent with the basic concepts.

A new editor has a lot of challenges - learning how to edit and follow guidelines for a start. The change you want - into a submission processing service - is absolutely not necessary and the fact that it isn't a submission processing service does not make people leave. In fact it would make editing tedious to an extreme. I do believe that some change is needed for survival but evolutionary not revolutionary. Some of that necessary change I know is already in the minds of some Admins but the wheels turn far too slowly and there is an element of ivory tower syndrome.

They are called internal forums... you can open a thread any time on any subject. Whether is is worth the keystrokes is another matter.

Note my comment on censorship refers to RZ not internal forums. Only once in 3 years have I seen an internal post moderated. You can say whatever you like. There might be a price in terms of virtual beatings but the post will stay there forever.

 

This is still what you think. Why not have an open and democratic organization that have procedures for discussing different suggestions and let the community decide about it? Don't you think an organization that volunteers feel part of is better than the one that every decision is made by only few people?

The change in submission is only small part of overall changes needed. Nothing exists in vacuum, the problem with submissions brings about the problem with abuse. The problem with abuse makes it more difficult to recruit new editors, new editors can not get new categories because of the problem with abuse, this in turn cause lower productivity in number of web sites listed and also causes the new editors get tired and leave. The lack of productivity brings about the abuse and bad PR for directory, I think you got the idea by now.
All these questions have to be discussed and plus and minus points of every suggestion looked at and decisions be made if it is evolutionary or revolutionary changes are needed. These type of changes usually have to be initiated by a community and very seldom will come from the ivory tower.

 

You only have to be brave and risk an account to open the discussion. Then sit back and watch the comments from another of your accounts. Annie has already offered you a deal to keep in the discussion. What's the problem? You aren't keeping multiple accounts for corrupt reasons are you? (Note before I get flamed by editors - yes multiple accounts are heinous crimes of abuse and in no way should be condoned but abuse does not always equal corruption, only 99.9% is there a connection). If your suggestion gets overwhelming internal support from the community then the management has to take note and if it ignores overwhelming internal support from the community then you can post about it for years to come!

You are kidding me. Your proposal on submission would be a total change in practices and concepts and it is only a small part? Seriously you would be better off starting your own directory using DMOZ data as the initial content then invite editors across if they believed your way to be better. If you are correct in assuming that editors would support your vision of things then DMOZ would collapse overnight as editors flock to your concept. Data users would soon follow. But I think you will find zero support for fundamental and conceptual changes... but prove me wrong.

 

Just figured I'd jump into this since it kept me amused for a solid hour reading through it..
I've never had a site listed in DMOZ. Well, at least that I've known about. I've even submitted some years ago. I think I still do ok. I even think that I'm ok that my sites got shoved under the rug or were ignored or whatever. It's been said about a million times in this thread (well, maybe not a million..); DMOZ listings aren't what makes or breaks you. Spend your time elsewhere..

Edit:
Except for that child porn bit. Good friggen riddence, and kudos to the people that lead the charge against it. What ever the value of a DMOZ listing, the world doesn't need anywhere that leads to stuff like that. DMOZ included.
/edit