Skrenta, one of the founding editors has over 10 thousand (that's right, 10k) affiliated links within the 'largest HUMAN edited directory' that were placed there by an automated system. Most of these links do NOT conform to the guidelines of the ODP as they are nothing but bot driven syndicated pages with NO unique content. Does that look like it could remotely be construed as evidence of corruption? Most of those deep links (which, according to the guidelines are not the norm) ARE in the correct regional category, but they also pull from sites that are also listed. If an editor were to see a submission to another site that listed syndicated content, they would NOT list it, yet there they are... and while they are there, people wonder why other sites that are written manually are not listed. Think I'm fibbing? Look it up. [WIKI] Controversy and criticism http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=topix.com] Now tell me how it's OK for an editors site to be automatically listed over 10 thousand times, yet there are sooooo many valid sites that can not get listed once. Then there are the several points of paid listings as seen on sites like scriptlance. [google search]. While none of them can be truly varified, it's strange that so many of them are completed/paid with positive comments. *shrug* So, is it Difficult to list website with DMOZ? Well, not if you are an editor, or if you pay Do DMOZ editors list their own sites? DMOZ Editors Accept Bribes? Lets Review Objectively DMOZ listing price list What type of evidence would you accept, or what are you looking for?
Your directing your response at the wrong person. I stated that corruption does likely exist, just as it exists everywhere in every walk of life. The person before me stated he had never seen *any* evidence of corruption. I can see how perhaps I wasn't clear. The type of evidence I was looking for was in relation to the accusation that editors don't list competitors web sites. I summarized that it would be possible therefore to find a category where the editor owned all of the web sites in that category (assuming anything else would be construed as competition). That is the type of evidence that I have never seen.
It was a toss up as to replying to you or the person you replied too. I chose this line for my response "I have yet to see anyone post anything that remotely looks like evidence." so sorry if it was misdirected... I can not give that evidence, as I'm sure it's likely happened in one category or another, on the whole, that type of thing would have to be rare, as the category that it would happen in would likely only have three or four sites in it... or full of affiliate/duplicate sites *shrug* Which, heh does kind of describe several of the adult categories Though, on the whole I don't think that happens all that often outside of that. I listed competitor websites while I was an editor... heh, I had no choice, as any site listable in my category HAD to be a competitor, or owned by me as well, and that certainly was not the case. The few categories that I use/used as a resource all had competing sites as well...
Your view is just too simplistic. It would be less obvious if a editor listed inferior sites too and just cut out the MAIN competition.
It would be less obvious but it would still be obvious. I have always and will always list competitor web sites.
For those accusing DMOZ of corruption, you are making a very serious accusation. If you are making such an accusation, please do not use the word likely, or how many percentile accuracy. It should be beyond all doubts If you are alleging corruption give the proof, which editors, which links, how much have he taken and evidence of payment. You are posting in a public forum, I have to remind you on that.
I don't necessarily agree with you on this. Serious charges, yes, but it's not criminal activity if corruption does exist, and no one's name in particular is being called out. Many people have a bad DMOZ experience to talk about, and this public forum is where they vent, and also where they think someone may be able to shed some light on an issue that is so tightly guarded. I believe a great deal of this frustration could be combatted if DMOZ could somehow employ a system (automated, or human run), which would alert site owners once their submission has been reviewed. I believe many with an actual ANSWER to that question, whether it's a 'yes' or a 'no', would feel much better if they knew that their submission was ever received in the first place. Submitting to DMOZ is like shooting your web site link into outerspace. Maybe it got there, maybe it didn't. You will never know unless your site is listed. Many site owners with that question in mind, give it a few months, and re-submit their site thinking 'maybe they didn't receive my submission'. I believe part of peoples' frustration with DMOZ is that they CAN'T prove (or disprove) the alleged corruption beyond a reasonable doubt. When it's up to people to populate the directory with VALID links, and many site owners know they have a completely original, relevant site, yet are not getting listed after months (in some of my experiences, years), they, as human beings begin to question the process; in turn, automatically (inadvertently) accusing actual people of wrong-doing. We blame computer glitches on computers all the time. In many peoples' opion, this is a 'human glitch'. The fine editors at DMOZ have to understand and realize when something is called into question with regard to submissions not being accepted, then it calls them directly into question...they are the ones, who have control. Site owners have none in this situation. It is human nature to want to blame something or someone...
There is a Big "If" and yes there is plenty of frustrations but still you do need evidence before tarnishing one's reputation in public. Evidence may be hard to get but you still need to get them. You cant just accused anyone of corruption just because you believe they exist and just because evidence is hard to come by you can call them corrupted in a public forum with nothing to back you up. There will be gross miscarriage of justice if such practices are to be encouraged.
I *TRIED* TO PROVE "CORRUPTION" Having been an ed for over 8 years I once tired of the tales and decided to try and get evidence of the systemic abuse that is so often bandied about as though it were a fact simply on the grounds of having been repeated so often. Having been one of the ones that was rather heavily engaged in an internal struggle years ago to avoid ingression of the Adult section into the rest of the directory... I had no particular vested interest in disproving the tales about that branch. Frankly I suspected if rampant abuse existed anywhere... that'd be the place. Enter the Guy That KNOWS All About it: Every Forum Needs a BMOC I spent considerable time in an Adult SEO forum where the tales were repeated in thread after thread. One guy turned out to be the voice of experience, an ex-Dmoz Adult editor, and he was constantly stirring the pot with confirmations that widespread corruption was accepted behavior based on his extensive experience. "Expert" Turns Out to be Bitter EX Mind you this conversation was taking place in 2007 and on checking I found he'd been canned from Dmoz because he was caught doing the very things he told of. The last time he'd had a loginj, the president was Bill Clinton. Yet he was telling stories of rampant abuse as if he had inside knowledge, and he hadnt seen the inside of Dmoz in 8 years. He'd lasted a short time himself before he was ousted for seriously abusing his login privs exactly as he claimed others do. His story didnt wash and he slunk out of the forum after it was proven he not only had no idea of current events... his own ouster proved such behavior was NOT even accepted internally when he'd been there. He was just bitter that he'd been busted. FACT CHECKING Still I begged for proof from others. I told them (truthfully) I'd LOVE to nail an Adult editor... PLEASE bring me evidence of editor-as-competitor... give me a URL for a cat where this was happening and I'd get staff on it. They could finally DO something about this instead of just bitch about it. Just help me nail the guys doing them wrong. Finally one guy came forward and offered proof... gave me a URL for a category where the resident editor owned almost all the sites, the balance being sites that were dead. Further, the resident editor had removed my informants sites. He had even applied to become an editor and been turned down by the culprit. AHHHH... Now I have them... I checked it out. Well, maybe not... For starters, there was no resident editor. The logs didnt show any specific editor taking any big interest. There were no dead sites. The informants sites were a combination of sites that had never been in dmoz and sites that were still in dmoz, but he was looking for them in the wrong place. His sites had never been in the category in question. As for the sites in the category, there was a site that had changed content (it wasnt dead, but it didnt fit anymore so I removed it). I've spent years tracking down who owns what, and there wasnt a chance all those sites were owned by the same person. There were zero sites in the cat that appeared to be getting editor love, and the category hadnt been edited at all for several months prior to when he said his site had been removed, so NOTHING was added or deleted from the category when he said the event happened. His sites that were in the directory had been live in the database the entire time, just in another spot. He had a compelling and realistic sounding story, it just turned out to be a combination of misunderstandings and worst case guesses based on the tales he'd heard. As for his editor app... turned out the guy had in fact turned in apps, but by his own admission he'd lied about his associations on his first app, had been caught at it, then tried changing the story on the next app. They didnt appreciate being lied to, and they turned down the app because they dont want that kind having an editor login. The system worked as intended. IN THE LONG RUN, NO STORY My systemic corruption chase was a bust... at best the cat was neglected, but there was no fire to go with the smoke. Another guy came forward to bring a tale that bombed in similar fashion. After a pretty extended run I gave up the quest. Everyone knows a story of how dmoz did this and did that... and everyone knows editor so-n-so is corrupt, but despite a forum full of people certain of this, they couldnt help me nail anyone, as each tale brought forth disintegrated on inspection. I gave it a shot, finally left. I dont have an axe to grind here... I dont edit there anymore. Not even particularly popular with their staff, so I dont need brownie points. OTOH, the truth is the truth, and most of what you hear about dmoz is the result of misunderstandings or the result of a vendetta from an ex-ed that didnt enjoy their stay. I spent over 8 years there... and like any organizarion, it has it's good and bad points. The story of them being the embodiment of evil are basically like a lotta other stuff you hear on the net... another silly urban legend.
You can get listed in DMOZ but it takes a looong time and your website must be of at least decent quality. I can't imagine how many suggestions they get daily, it must be overwhelming.
It doesn't need to be attractive, modern or standards compliant (all desirable attributes BTW). It just needs to have easily found unique content. For legitimate websites, and they're the ones we want to list, that shouldn't be a problem should it ?
I'm a co-owner of the website in my sig and I must say its pretty darn great reference. It has been awarded as one of the top travel sites already last month and will receive another commendation next weekend for being one of the top tourism reference by the MSU. It has also received an award as one of the best travel promotion in California by a regional tourism. Mentioned in the Huffington Post and New York Post and this December the owner will have a guest show on a local television station in Asia in relation with its tour promo's. Yet its not listed... but were not worried as we are doing great things.
I've submitted two sites to dmoz (the first one over two years ago) the second site about 4 months ago. I saw from my Google Analytics account that a Dmoz editor has visited my most recent site 3 times, spending about 1.5 minutes each time visiting, but I've not heard anything back. And I'm not included yet. My site is all original content, and besides not matching my title bar perfectly (I change my title bar/tag every couple months,) that's about it. I really wish I could be included, but it's frustrating. I know the editors are swamped, but it's one of those "out of my control" areas. I do believe the back links from dmoz are priceless, as a few of my competitors are ranking above me and the dmoz link is the only thing I can analyze that's different. I have many more quality links, and a lot more original content. Any more suggestions would be appreciated. Chris
Dont stress man... I had adult-url.com showing a backlink in dmoz (awstats) then when i checked the search i found nothing so i got my hopes up for nada I want to know who is in charge of the adult section in dmoz as i feel im being stroked here....and ill have none of it! @robjones Is that all you have to say about this? ohhhhhh the drama i must endure in this section laterz malcolm
I have seen coruption there before, (A friend was an editor)... Even he was taken payments, (or so he said)... He has left now, but it just shows what happens behind closed doors. I have been waiting almost a year to get my site added. ~ Mike
Yeah... I was too darn brief there Malcolm, I'll have to come outta my shell one of these days. @ms1234 - Yep, there are instances of it happening, just isn't as prevalent as some indicate. The situations get dealt with on discovery and are just an example that people as a rule arent all perfect... not an indication of the systematic culture of corruption some would have everyone believe. Long waits there are pretty common these days, but it isnt something that's punitive or intentional, just the nature the beast when a volunteer organization is covering a 4mil+ database. They do a darn good job considering the scope, and they never promised anyone they'd list their submission, just that they'd build a big database (which they have done). Not a perfect setup, but it's still better than many and in most instances better than the press they've gotten lately.