Can DMOZ editors edit other catagories?

Officially, all this may be true.

In practice, human nature being what it is, I have strong doubts that seeing a suggested site from another editor isn't going to influence the editor's decision.

 

Pagode is right. Applying to edit the category you want to submit to is the only way to speed matters up, and that means proving beyond all reasonable doubt you are a capable, honest, trustworthy, and objective editor who will not use the category rights to disadvantage your competitors. By taking on the category you are agreeing to treat all with total equality including your own site. And that will be checked. Then you are not expediting your own listing because you will be listing all the others in that category at the same time - you have not gained any advantage.

The important principle is to avoid editors gaining any advantage in any particular category. If you got an expedited listing whether you do it yourself or get someone else to do it for you that would be an advantage to you, disadvantage to others, and that is simply not acceptable. More than not acceptable it is pure abuse defined in the Guidelines and a potential cause for removal as an editor. Which is why anyone that asks is effectively asking another editor to be abusive in their editing - hence the quite likely possibility of hanging, drawing, and quartering.

 

But the other editor would have to see the submission first in order to be influenced by who submitted it.

For example - this morning I went to do a little editing. My first choice was what broad category did I want to visit out of six - most of those having new submissions designated by a number. Then, when I had decided that I wanted to see why a particular category had more new submissions that it had the night before - I drilled down until I found out why. Took about six clicks to get to the newest submission - and that's when I could determine who had submitted it.

Sometimes I have a particular category in mind when I first start editing - last night I started editing with the intention to completely eliminate the new submissions in one category - so my mind was already made up where I was going before I started editing.

Most of the time it's more of a "what do I feel like doing now" - and I know from talking about other editors, that is the typical way that editing is accomplished.

Ok that went far away from answering the question - like I said up front you have to get to the new submissions in order to determine if it came from inside or outside. Which means you've already made a decision to edit in that category before you get there.

 

There is something in that. If the editor doesn't note that the site is theirs then the reviewing editor is unlikely to be influenced. If they do note it, and many do because they don't want to hide affiliations, also a criminal offence, then it is reliant on the reviewing editor to be objective. The vast majority of sites are listed by editors experienced enough not to factor it in. But there is always the risk that someone inexperienced may have missed the very clear message. If caught both parties will be penalised. You have to remember that for all the editors who do the bulk of the listings, a fellow editor trying to get an advantage will be as popular as a fart in an elevator.

Meta editors do keep a close eye on what editors do with sites they are associated with. Any wrongdoing and they will step in. You sometimes see a note to say this site belongs to ex-editor xxx. If an editor's own site suddenly gets listed in a different part of the directory instantly whilst others waiting have not been touched in years it will stand out - the pair will be caught.

But there is always the risk someone will get away with it I guess. If they are persistently self-interested in their editing they are likely to trip up and get caught later on though. You see anytime someone wants to get a new category, away from their starter category in some spam-free area a meta will carefully check their record - everything you do in DMOZ is logged in a form that cannot be edited or deleted.

 

Makes sense, thanks for the detailed explanation brizzie. I now see that it really is designed to be as resistant to corruption as possible.

I never really saw much solid evidence of the supposedly widespread dmoz corruption. I was, however, under the impression that once you are an editor you can get your own sites listed relatively quickly(ones that meet quality guidlines). I think this is a widespread belief, and I hadn't read anything until now that countered it.

I suppose some would consider faster reviews for personal sites corrupt, and I see how it could get out of hand. But I just kind of assumed it's one of the perks of the job. Maybe they should add a FAQ to Becoming an Editor questions:

Once I'm an editor, will I be able to get my sites listed on the ODP?
(insert summary of Brizzie's replies to me here)

 

Once you are an editor you tend to follow guidelines precisely as regards listability, title, description, picking the best fit category. Following guidelines is always going to help get a site listed quicker than those submitted that ignore all the guidelines. But anyone can do that, many do, editors always do. That will always help a site get reviewed and listed in the minimum time but it isn't an editor perk, several SEO firms use the same technique of being meticulous about their submissions following guidelines. Whatever directory or search engine you submit to, following their guidelines is never going to do anything but work in your favour.

 

I have a number of sites awaiting review. I have no way of speeding that up. I can edit in several hundred categories, but it gives me no priority. Of all the categories I edit I only have one site I own [or work for] listed there.

Sometimes a new editor who has not got the hang of things will ask another editor to expeditate things, or raise questions about why his site is not listed yet. That will usually end in a not so postive response warning that this is not the way we do things.