People do not read the guidelines when they apply. They don't title and describe their example sites properly, they don't make sure the sites are right for the category or even listable full stop, they don't reveal all their affiliations, they apply for categories that are too big or too spammy, they think their subject knowledge and passion is enough to carry them through. Becoming an editor, and getting every single extra category applied for once in is not rocket science, it just requires a bit of research and acceptance of the guidelines. If you do it right then there is virtually no chance of being rejected. People don't read the instructions on how to operate their coffee maker and they don't read the instructions on how to become a DMOZ editor. That's life.
Popotalk, you can try to give them pointers. Maybe you have the best darn pointers in the whole world. Sadly, most people will still ignore what you tell them and do it wrong. That's life.
Boy, is that the truth! I still have people contacting me to help them apply to become editors, even though I haven't edited in almost a year. And 99.9% of the time, they will not listen to one word I say. I have been exchanging mail with an editor wannabe from another country for a couple of weeks now, but I really doubt they will take heed, and most likely will be rejected straight away.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Come now gworld, are you saying you don't know exactly how to get an editor account or additional categories? With minimal effort? From your past musings you must have studied the guidelines and can put together a perfect application... do people listen to your methods? Obviously not because they still come here saying they have been rejected.
I know exactly how to get my applications accepted but it has got nothing to do with your previous post. The Golden Rule of DMOZ editor application is: Try to convince them that you are a moron.
I think I've still got a copy of the DMOZ application that got me approved - I'll sell to the highest bidder lol....
That may be your technique but I'll bet you still check your spelling, title and describe your examples properly and make sure they are listable, and apply for a non-spammy category of the right size... don't you.
You can do all the above but still if they feel that you know what you are doing and you are not a moron, your application most likely will be rejected. It is DMOZ semi-official policy that knowledgeable and smart people are not welcomed.
By the way the offer above was a joke... I got rejected on the sites I submitted the first time - as soon as they told me I re-edited the application straightaway & was accepted. Maybe if you just answer the questions they ask & read the rules you will be successful
Perhaps a combination would be most effective then... Being a moron who can't spell, pick a site, or read basic guidelines won't work on its own either.
Exactly. Don't forget also to state how wonderful the admins and metas are doing a great job at RZ. That would bring a much better weight.
IMO, you're just talking without actually knowing what you're talking about, Eskarina. The ODP is not the biggest Web directory just because AOL wanted it to be but merely because some 74,000 editors take time to daily/weekly/monthly edit some keyword-ladden/spammish sites about some crap seo services or real estate agency from Mudsville, Country_name, for example. Before you suggest your site for the ODP, you should probably know more about the concept of "unique content"; if your site has this "cool glowing thinghie called specific/distinct information" and has been developed, above all else, with no commercial interest, there should be no problem in having it added to the ODP database. On the other hand, if your site is commercial and it only delivers some info on silly "seo" services, you might have to wait a bit longer before having the site added to the Directory. You can take my word for it, even though this is my first post here: DMOZ editors are not corrupt (metas, admins and staff - plus the abuse report system - take care of that); DMOZ is not an idled community (people actually do log in to review, relocate and add sites); DMOZ does list your site, and DMOZ is where Web content is taken into analysis, evaluated, and properly classified. Before you suggest a site to the ODP, you might want to ask yourself the following: 1. Does my site has unique content? 2. Is there something new brought to this repository (called the Web) by my site? If the answers are "yes", then you're bound to have your site added in no time (show me an editor who doesn't enjoy reviewing and adding a one-of-a-kind Web site). Otherwise, open that WYSIWYG editor of yours and reconsider your site's content. Naturally, my post does not reflect the official AOL / ODP position on this issue; it only includes some personal recommendations from my part. I did, however, found it annoying that you're trying to mock (and eventually fail greatly at it ) the largest human-edited Web directory. I am acquainted with the ODP community (I have been an editor for about three years, now) and from what I can tell you, all of these messages are simple assumptions instead of real facts. If you want to get a glimpse of the real thing going on with the ODP, feel free to join DMOZ, get acquainted with the others, acquire some editing experience, and only afterwards rejoin this forum and share your new impressions on the ODP, with this forum's members. Thank you.
74,000 in total since 1998. Currently there are just over 7000 editors still active and the number is declining month on month. Whilst most are not corrupt, there are corrupt editors who have evaded capture or squirmed their way out of removal. Since metas have been removed for corruption in the past it would be naive to suppose that there are not currently one or two corrupt meta editors still in the pack. The abuse report process is flawed due to its closed nature. They do but productivity in August was a record low, following on from another record low in July. This demonstrates a serious problem for DMOZ. Particularly in the English language part of the directory which has been shrinking in size for over a year. Only K&T and World are holding the numbers up and creating a small net gain. This is down to lack of editor resources more than idleness. Not true. Within the more than a million sites waiting for review there are bound to be tens of thousands of non-commercial listable quality sites. Many of those will wait years for a review. There is no way to anticipate which of the 700,000 categories will be visited by an editor and when. And those recommendations are good ones but won't guarantee listing, certainly not a listing soon. There are some incorrect assumptions and conclusions around this place but there are also some real facts. People do pay editors, editors do take money, most hopefully get caught, eventually; some, hopefully only a few, escape justice, inevitably. DMOZ has an awful lot of issues, most of them of its own making, and is collapsing slowly but surely. It would be naive not to recognise those issues, to stop viewing the project through rose-tinted glasses; only then can something be done to reverse its current fortunes.
There need to be more corrupt editors out there so that I can pay someone to add my legitimate links, . Unfortunately creating legitimate sites and submitting them to DMOZ doesn't work anymore either, well it doesn't work unless you consider a 6 - 12 month waiting list as "working". I'd be more than happy to pay a fee of like $5 or something for an express review of my site, and that isn't to imply that the site needs to be expected, but maybe for $5 you could get your site reviewed within 7 days and receive an email about why it wasn't accepted if it wasn't, and with the revenue DMOZ could pay some full time editors.