If editors can charge 50 bucks to review you within a year, I have to agree. And if webmasters are dumb enough to go for it, I can see how it gives many of them a big head.
That does not go against my point that such editors are not "category-builders" but more often than not, mere "submission-processorts." I knew of a fellow webmasters who didn't have a B&M site. He was listed in Regional. Did I make a fuss? No. Because he made it look on his website like it was a B&M site. I happen to know that he drives a truck for a living, and hasn't been active in the "craft" for over 10 years (that's what his own brother told me), but he's got a website, and hopes, and he's a slippery one. Yes, you can be an "expert" and be objective. Sometimes it means you have to pretend not to know certain things. Regardless. The ODP model WORKS AGAINST category building editors, and ACTIVELY PROMOTES submission processors. To answer the original question, YES, submissions are looked at, but the editors are literally drowning in them.
So no American, British, German etc. should be allowed to edit about his own history? As that link to book at Amazon I posted few weeks ago has show you don't have to be part of those cultures to become biased to point of writing total BS just to prove your point based on influence of somebody who is filled with hatred (justified or not). Using your standard only person allowed to edit would be somebody who never heard about that culture - Eskimos, Aborigines...
Well not according to the editor that resonded to my criticism of their practices on my my blog. FTR... I am a proponent of the DMOZ. Gworld can attest to that as we've butted heads on another forum. I've little doubt the DMOZ lacks editors. Why continue creating more negativity and ill will by continuing to accept submissions that editors are not required to review and can ignore at will when it's clearly published that an editor will review them. Why continue to offer a process when you lack the resources to administrate it. No, I do not automatically point the "finger of corruptiopn" at an editor that chooses to list sites they find on their own. And please don't suggest that the DMOZ doesn't care about the negativity aimed at it. Clearly enough of the editors do or they wouldn't be responding so vociferously to their critics. Dave
You can be but is there any reason for anyone else to trust your objectivity and expert knowledge. Given all the opportunities for editors blocking competitors the system says no. I can't see any easy answers that has checks and balances to allow the trust whilst being able to ensure against blocking. This allows crap that editors know to be crap into the directory. The UK used to have a system operated by the Consumers Association which accredited online shops but they eventually closed the scheme unfortunately, far too expensive to run. DMOZ doesn't care what people on this forum think, and is highly unlikely to change anything as a result of anything posted in external forums. Individual editors do care though, but they are let down by their top management. Because it would be a radical change and DMOZ doesn't do "radical". At current rates of productivity it would take many many years just to clear waiting submissions, most of which are ignored these days. Without submissions, only editor picks, the negativity about editor bias would simply escalate. But the relevance of DMOZ these days is marginal at best so webmasters would be better off forgetting about it and doing more productive things with their time.
I followed the link to an interesting read. Indeed, it is ironic that submissions rot for years in the queues, while editor applications are rejected within hours! I think that sums up the state of the Directory quite nicely. A further irony is that, as brizzie and others point out, editors that are actually interested and knowledgeable about some categories are viewed with suspicion. Serious suspicion. With that kind of attitude, where are you going to find the elusive "category-building editor?" If there is one, at best, he is using search engines to find a few sites here and there. I, on the other hand, being active in my field, would find out really good new sites that wouldn't register a blip in search engines, sometimes for a year. I would learn about new sites from my forum, my referrer logs, my friends, etc. After I was removed, I actually submitted other people's sites, but none of them ever got reviewed. People like me aren't welcome at the ODP. What they want are people that know nothing about the field, and are both uninterested and unqualified to "category-build." They rely on submissions queues all the way. As for that snooty editors that considers himself above processing submissions, he must be a hero at RZ. I wonder if that guy will still edit after Google severs all links with the ODP, or if the ODP opts for a "nofollow" attribute.
The solution is very simple, you will have multiple editors for each category, so different views are presented. The problem with this approach is that many of editors have their Small part of pie and they don't like competition or sharing it with someone else. I think, DMOZ is one of few organization in today's world that considers ignorance and stupidity as highly praised qualities.
So Wiki-fication or Zeal-ification, everyone can add/edit (almost) everywhere instead of assigning categories seems simplest solution, that way nobody would have monopoly and only few spam categories would be left for ishfish, annie and other dedicated editors to keep under watch and out of reach potential spammers.
I think it happens immediately when you turn the listed site into a copy of one of the editors' sites or simply create something that could be considered competition to his business.
Ah, gotcha... I would think that paying to delist a site would make an editor even more money. De-listing competitor sites. Could probably rank up there in the thousands of dollars for an "ASAP".
I don't doubt that individual editors do care. Yes, it would be a radical change if such an idea was deemed permanent. I do realize that many categories depend upon submissions in order to populate them at all. As far as bias is concerned, all websites a biased one way or another. Regardless of what the DMOZ does or doesn't do, there will always be some that cry bias. I don't see the escalation. Relevance aside, just as there are some editors that genuinely care, not all webmasters are strictly self interested. Some happen to believe that the DMOZ is a decent resource and offer constructive criticism for no other reason than to perhaps make it better. Dave
Editors being viewed with suspicion are only going to viewed as such by folks that believe that the DMOZ is more valuable than the 2 poor anchor text links it eventually provides. When it comes to SEO there are indeed more effective things to with ones' time. If that particular editor, and any others, are only there for the self promotional possibilities that their perceived value of a listing may have, then in all likelyhood a "no follow" attribute or Google severing ties would cause them to lose interest. It would also most likely chase away any interest webmasters with the same perception of value would have in their site being included. At any rate, if the DMOZ doesn't believe that their processes can be improved upon to make the directory better than it is, radical or otherwise, so be it. I don't think it's going to prevent genuinely good editors from bettering the directory. Has anyone seen my VIC-20? Dave
I remember it being useful once when my friend had to do some research for college and happened to find a category that wasn't too bad.
Definately not worth it.. It's weight is almost in it's PR which could be replaced by a hecky link exchange...
I saw some thread on DP that seemed to indicate that DMOZ might be a good place for people like John Mark Karr to frequent....
1. I wouldn't pay to be listed in any directory. (Maybe I'm just cheap!) 2. I would like to be listed in DMOZ just for PR. 3. Other than that I agree that DMOZ is not what it used to be. Actually DMOZ sucks! Dmoz just isn't evolving with the rest of the web.