Anti Trust on DMOZ

Are you upset about something, from your post it looks like that the idea with IRS has hit a nerve for you.

If the editors are employee or not, is exactly the question that should be decided by IRS, you are just acting like typical editor, your logic is "I say it is not and therefore it is not". If AOL makes profit or not, got nothing to do with it, a company can have employees but not make any profit from the business.

What majority of editors have sites or not has got nothing to do with it either, even if they are paying one person, that person will be employee.

The implication that many senior editors are corrupt, is not offensive, just simple truth. I am sorry that you find truth, offensive.

 

But declared affiliations are optional. So basically you work on the honor system. If I am an editor, I can add my friend's sites and send him tons of traffic and not declare it. I could privately register 10 domains, not declare it, and add them all. How could DMOZ possibly tell if that is going on?

You can't. So it's ridiculous to come here and say "we'd take care of it in 5 minutes" or "I never see it, so it doesn't happen much" when you have absolutely no way of knowing what is going on.

So many DMOZ people here, why doesn't one pull all the sites that editors have added for themselves, I'll volunteer to go through and see which ones are generating money for them. =)

----

This is my main problem with DMOZ, I understand the wait now, Hutcheson has explained it to me, given the parameters and the way DMOZ is run, there is a wait. The problem with not giving rejection reasons, even a form letter, and not knowing who has their fingers in what site... is that no one knows
(1) if they are rejected
(2) if it was because their site sucked, or the editor just didn't want them taking their traffic
(3) the editor has a friend of a friend he's doing a favor for, or taking money for.

Just because someone volunteers to do something does not make their intentions pure, in fact, the opposite is more likely true. The MORE a person wants to do something, the more likely it is they have ulterior motives.

 

In DMOZ, for my own niche, there is no current editor; nor an editor up at least one category level. It is my understanding that without there being a current category editor one has slim-to-no chance of getting a Listing, even if the 'site mets other criteria. I submitted my site several months ago and have heard nothing back at all - and it certainly isn't listed in the Directory.

While very new at this, from studying this forum I think I have learned that getting listed on DMOZ is the nearest thing I'll ever find to a SERPs magic bullet, so that's unfortunate, to say the least.

A search in DMOZ on my main keywords produces all of 4 results: 1 personal homepage; 1 "geographical" result that is the product of fluke juxtposition of two words in the term; and 2 quasi-related sites, 1 of which is a "pump and dump"-type boiler house stock brokerage firm, and 1 genuinely useful result for the searcher. The words were searched 300 times in April per Overture, so you know on Google they are searched many, many, multiples of that number. Google has 4.8mm. pages of results for the term, so the keywords are not that obscure.

Apparently, according to what I read, Google weighs a DMOZ entry quite heavily when assessing how a site ranks for a search; so by extention, if you cannot get into DMOZ, and are a new site with useful, relevant, content, searchers for that topic on the dominant SE will never know it.

[IMO, Google's dominant SE position is an FTC action waiting to happen. I know there have been other brushes with the FTC in the past, but surely the "Sandbox" effect merits some FTC attention?]

The case for FTC action on DMOZ is more difficult, as damages suffered from exclusion, while real, are indirect. It would be quite dificult to prove that DMOZ Editors benefited, I'd say.

Of course, I could be accepted as an editor; and then you can all ....

(congratulate me.)

 

Gworld,

I think you probably have a better idea than these two. They seem to think the honor system is fool proof, so I'm more inclined to believe someone who is at least making (common) sense, as you are. Plus, you've got motive on your side and they don't.

 

You can ask on the resource zone (http://forums.dmoz.org/). And be told it's waiting, as you should be... forever. =)

 

I'm sorry but that is totally incorrect. I've added and reviewed thousands of sites, the majority of those sites were done in categories that have no named editor. The majority of edits done on the system are done by editors whose name appears on only a few categories.

New editors generally apply for bottom level categories and their name appears, they then apply for additional catagories and their name appears there also. As an editor gets experience he may apply for upper level categories, at which point his name appears only once at the upper level, but he might then be able to edit hundreds or even thousands of lower level catgories.

On one of my categories for which I am named, I have done maybe one edit in the last year, in the categories underneath I have done over 2000.

In another category, almost no sites are allowed to be added, so I have done very few, in the categories underneath I have done around 1600.

The correct statements would be:

1. If no editor is interested in reviewing sites in a category, there may be extended delays in getting reviewed - but you have no easy way of telling which categories that applies to.

2. In commercial categories that attract a great number of spam or submissions, there will be delays in getting reviewed, even if an editor reviews sites.

 

I know that not all editors are corrupt and they are trying to help but for the bad ones, there's no excuse.

Just a thought more related to the whole anti-trust subject, has anyone thought about sending a letter to their State Attorney General's office? I'm sure if enough people do it, it will get some attention.

 

Perhaps a petition to google as well =)

 

This and similar statements that eminate from this forum reflect to a great extent the mindset of the posters. This is the same mindset that is the subject of most SEO forums, how to twist the system to get site placement. The general point of most SEO work, is to play games with keywords, link exchanges, multiple sites, mirrors, redirects, and other assorted features to get sites ranking high in search engines ahead of the competition.

The winner is he who gets ranked number 1 in Google, even when from a truly moral point of view he does not deserve that position.

And I'm as amoral as the rest of you in playing that game, I have sites that rank in the first five positions of Google, not because those sites are the best, but because I played better tricks that the designers of the other web sites.

Therefore it is difficult for you all to comprehend that there is a system that works differently. The only thing that comes up is corruption, payoffs and other illegal activity. It is of course obvious that editors will join ODP with the intent of playing games and profiting from that experience, and that there are editors who have charged for listings sites. I know there are, because I've seen the past traces of the activity, and I have caught some of them. Most of them are pretty stupid and get caught very quickly. Are all of them gone? - of course not, and I'm sure there are a few smart enough to evade detection for some time.

But to assume that senior editors who have done hundreds of thousands of edits are in some kind of conspiracy to list sites and profit from ODP is mind boggling. Anyone who spends that amount of time and dedication is not doing it for money, it's because they are obsessed with editing as a hobby.

And the continual statements about editors blocking the competition are equally false, no editor own a category, an editor can either delay reviewing a sites or delete it. But there are always hundreds of editors who can edit any category, and will see if another editor is doing something weird, I routinely have other editors come through "my" categories and randomly take a site from unreviewed and add it.

Likewise I can go through sub-categories and see what an editor "below me" are doing. I have caught an editor deleting sites without reason, and he was terminated withon a few hours and all the sites put back in.

Next time you look in a mirror, don't think you are looking at a corrupt editor.

 

Thank you McD for correcting my misunderstanding. As I said, I am new to this, which is why I find these forums so helpful. Perhaps such an explanation of the named / anonymous editor procedure could be placed on DMOZ? It certainly wasn't obvious to me if it has been. Of course, not being blessed with an over-abundance of clue, I probably just overlooked it.

It gives me great heart that, with no named editor in the most relevant, and next most relevant categories, my submission will be reviewed by senior editors.

 

macdesign,

I see the logic now. DP members can only spot corruption because they are corrupt themselves. Not that the entire DMOZ system is flawed. I think dmoz should publically post all the sites that editors have added for themselves, so we can all see who is competing with who. (Of course that's an impossibility because they have no way of knowing.)

How would we know? Since there's no way for a person outside to know anything about why their site got rejected. Are there internal notes kept on why a site was rejected? With the "efficient" backlog at DMOZ, it would take you guys years to find a site that was incorrectly deleted or added, if ever.

 

Well said, nddb!

And why the hell are they optional? Why aren't they absolutely rigidly no-exceptions mandatory?

 

IMO, an anti-trust case against DMOZ would be difficult to win; but is it any wonder that people are thinking about one?

This was a DMOZ Forum - Site Submission - Business - Moderator's response posted today to some poor bloke (not me) who had been enquiring, at the stated 3 month intervals, about the status of his site's submission since March 2004:

"Sorry, this service is closing down. (You can come back in three months to check, per the old forum rules, at which time the forum will be closed and no status available per the new rules.)

When a decision is made, you'll see the site listed -- or if rejected, the same practical effect as if you hadn't submitted or were still waiting .... so there's no point in knowing which is the case."

[PM me for URL]

The arrogance and unhelpfulness of such a response may well be an isolated instance; but is surely part of the reason why I am learning DMOZ has such a terrible rap, and why people are thinking about doing something about it, ...possibly by way of law suits.

I am sure it is is not personal; there are plenty of arrogant people around, not just DMOZ editors. Obviously, it is strictly business - a DMOZ listing gets Google's attention, and Google dominates the SEs, drives the traffic, which generates the revenues. Lack of a DMOZ listing won't kill a business by itself, but it might help bring about its demise. It seems like DMOZ is answerable to no one. Perhaps it is time that changed? Perhaps law suits are the only things that can change DMOZ?

 

One edit in a year? So that's it for that entire category? You must be so proud...

And what the hell does this even mean? "no sites are allowed to be added"?

No kidding... and you don't see this as a problem?

As for your claim that DMOZ is squeaky clean and the only reason members of practically every forum in the world are critical of DMOZ is simply because those members are too corrupt to see honesty and goodness? That is ridiculous and offensive.

Read that again more carefully, tradefor. Not "will be reviewed by senior editors". make that "may be reviewed by senior editors, if the feel like, when they feel like getting around to it, if they feel like getting around to it... or maybe never".

Oh, and while you're waiting? ummmm... well... really just wait... there's nothing you can do and it annoys people when you ask what if anything is happening so don't ask... site submitters should be seen and not heard... except actually, DMOZ would rather you not be seen either...

 

I've very sorry - Minstrel - I appear to have confused you again - turns out I was wrong - I actually did 4 edits in that category this year.

Yes I'm very proud of that. In fact there are only 4 sites listed. That's pretty good work. Built the whole category up from zero.

Why I am I so proud, because the other 2000 sites I reviewed in that area don't belong in the category, they all belong in the subcategories, and I would have been totally incompetant to list them in the top level.

Someday, take a look at ODP, I know you hate to, but be brave, you can always take some diazepam afterwards. What you will find, is that a lot of categories specifically do not allow sites to be added, thery are there for organization only. So an editor on one of those categories will never actually edit sites in it, and sites will never get submitted to it.

I never ever said, you must be confusing me with someone else.

 

I'm sure you're right, macdesign. In DMOZ world, DMOZ editors are always right. Completely out of touch with reality, but always right.

 

The strange thing about DMOZ editors is that they can not even give a reasonable argument in the defense of DMOZ. The best they can do is to sing the spammer spammer song. How come none of editors is capable of presenting a defense that at least sounds reasonable?

Do they have a IQ test for editors in DMOZ and if they are above a certain level, they fail and DMOZ don't take them as editor?

 

Well, there goes your chance of being the 5th site in that category, gworld

 

Personally, I think the problem is probably with a (vocal) minority of DMOZ editors. Most are probably doing a decent enough job, but, like certain professions, I would reckon DMOZ attracts people who shouldn't be doing it.

Note I don't know this for sure, and am not affiliated with DMOZ, and indeed haven't got a site listed yet. It's just my opinion.

 

I think I missed that chance when I suggested that IRS will be a better alternative that law suit in this thread. One of the editors sounded quite upset, it seemed it hit a nerve.

Report to IRS