Become a DMOZ editor?

I visited DMOZ and the Resource-Zone again today.

I submitted 4 new sites.
I opened a status topic to check on a site which was submitted on 18 May, 2004.
I bumped status topics on sites which were submitted on 2/23/2004, 2/23/2004, 2/23/2004, 11/8/2004, and 11/8/2004.

I worked hard to beat myself down to keep my words polite on the Resource-Zone.

All of these actions mark me as slightly out of touch with reality and certainly a bit self-destructive. It seems as if I just bang my head against the wall because I like the feeling.

Once again, I am motivated (why, I have no idea) to make another application to become a DMOZ editor.

I've already been turned down for a category for which I was very well suited.

I am certainly no fan of DMOZ.

I don't even really honestly believe that I can make the place appreciably better.

I'm sure that I would never be approved to edit categories which were useful for my own sites.

I am very certain that my time would be better utilized building content.

And yet the lure of the wall continues to call to me...

Where is the sense here?

What is the right thing to do?

Is it ethically correct to feel about DMOZ the way I do and still submit web sites?

Is it ethically correct to feel about DMOZ the way I do and apply to become an editor?

Is there an ethical imperative to join the system in an attempt to fix it?

 

I think you would make a good editor Will, have Minstrel and SiteTutor put in a good word for you, if that does not work contact me and I will get you in for sure man.

PS: Will if that does not work get a hold of me and we will start our own directory

 

call it awoz.org
(anthony)(will)oz.org

 

How about AnthonyisODDZ.com

That would work...

Will is not going to do anything Honey, me and you will start our own directory and search engine

 

I'm not sure it can be fixed at this point. It started out with a lot of the right ideas but I think the biggest problem is the lack of openness. There seems to be some of that as far as internal politics but you always get that in any organization.

I'm talking more about stats.

If people could see that there were 5 million pending listings and 200 people who'd approved a listing in the past week, it'd be obvious that there was an imbalance and you were going to wait a long time for them to get around to you.

Maybe some of that is available to insiders. But from the outside, it seems like a very unfair system.

 

I will make one with you

 

It isn't even just about fixing it any more. The concept is doomed to failure: There are simply too many new websites, too many old ones in the index, and too much inertia in the organization to keep up. The directory will keep getting more and more stale and more and more incestuous until even Google realizes it's useless. At that point, they will disconnect the life support and it will finally die a natural death.

Or, as AC keeps suggesting, it will become a commercial enterprise either with automation or paid editors or both.

And before Birdie/CBP or someone else pops up to tell us how many new pages were added in the past month, yeah yeah... we know. You're still not even close to keeping the directory relevant and even you know that... you just can't bring yourself to face it yet.

 

What a mess, how do you fix something that does not have a proper functional structure in the first place

That is like trying to fix a building on fire, first you have to put the fire out, check to see the damage done and then clean out the bad parts, then you can start rebuilding.

There is so much damage going on right now, the only thing that could help is a major shake up at the top and new focus on changing the way things are done from top to bottom.

AOL has a major public relations disaster on their hands the size of the Titanic and there are many icebergs in the ocean (new search technologies) that give much better results than a human edited directory could ever produce.

 

What is the proper way to organize something like this?

Do you have voting? Do you do everything in public? How public? It'd be nice if we could do something like Amazon's "real name" but are you willing to give me your credit card number to become an editor?

 

What is Amazon's real name

Explain it to us and leave some links on it......

 

Yeah... what is Amazon's "real name" and are you talking about the website or the river?

And no, I'm not going to give you my credit card for any reason at all but nice try

 

More than a year ago you submitted these sites and they are still not approved / rejected? Useless.

They seem to turn down an awful lot of applicants who, one would think, would make good editors. I wonder what criteria is used to decide?

Ethically correct - web sites? Mandatory, I would say.
Ethically correct - editor? Um, yeah. Why not?
Ethical imperative to join? Not at all?