DMOZ - A four letter word for arrogance?

You have the same power here as many editors have in DMOZ. And DMOZ meta's can be compared to moderators of this forum.
You certainly are benefiting from your postings here. Why else do you have links to your sites in your signature.
If DMOZ allowing its editors to list their own site is a sample of corruption so must be DP allowing its members to post links to their sites. Atleast within DMOZ we have guidelines if a editor may list his site (the same guidelines as for all other sites) and we are very clear an editor may never favor his site above any other site. There are no such guidelines at DP. So to me this makes DP a place more open to corruption than DMOZ is. Does this mean DP is corrupt. Certainly not. If a few editors are corrupt does this make DMOZ corrupt. Also a big no.

 

That's just silly. If you want to draw a comparison with a forum, an editor is closer to a moderator and I would guess that most forums would not likely hang on to a moderator who only signed in once every four months.

That's presumptuous in the extreme. On what basis do you jump to the conclusion that gworld knows nothing about these things? You know virtually nothing about him. My guess is he is more knowledgeable about much of what actually goes on inside DMOZ than you are.

 

I know in your part of the world people like to party on Friday nights, so I can only imagine that this post is the result of heavy drinking or smoking the funny tobacco.

1- Anybody can be become a member in DP, not everybody is accepted as editor in DMOZ.

2- Anybody that posts here can have their site in their signature, not every one can edit in DMOZ and list their sites.

3- I am aware about the DMOZ guideline regarding editors listing their own site but how many actually follow it and how easy it is to get around it?

I thought you wanted to discuss the problems but it seems you very carefully avoid any of the questions that can put a light on DMOZ problems like the one I asked couple of post before. You are suppose to be honest and you were quite upset a week ago, what happened? Did they promise to make you a meta, if you are a good boy or did Admin gave you a song and dance routine about how hard she is trying to fix the problem but it takes time?

 

I will discuss problems with people who are willing to discuss. That does not included you.

I did not leave because I was upset with anything happening in DMOZ but because of the way people here at DP are acting. Seems nothing has changed. This is my last answer to any of your posts. I don't want to waist my time.

 

Anyone can become an editor... while there is some obvious quality control like speling, grammer, that ain't gonna get you banned or declined here - since as you say "I have limited knowledge about everything" it is safe to say - "anyone can become one".

Again - quality control - but I would think there are some obvious standards here that will not be tolerated.

well you tell me... actually I recently had one of mine noted as a mirror [because it was] as I desired to edit in a specific category. The moment I start editing there there will likely be "abuse complaints" so rather than having my editorship question - I beat them to it.

How many editors don't have websites?

Well... for me - I don't see any problem with DMOZ specifically. If you do see a problem - report it. which is about the same advice Google suggests for those abusing them.

 

You don't see a problem in DMOZ with this?

I think it WAS reported: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=53712 - now the question is what is being done and how are you helping?

 

I must admit that I have not read this entire thread but an idea came to me after eading the first page. Indeed, I am noticing an OVERALL increase in DMOZ bashing. All threads in forums seem to be about the same topic, this being the only acception.

Is it worth considering and actual reply from humans. For example we run many online businesses and always make a point to reply (in person) to comments, questions and follow-up and we do this through scripts they we have developed specifically for us., combining auto replies with human interaction.

This may not be possible in this case but IF DMOZ tried the canned response approach...

It may drastically reduce the negative vibes I keep reading more and more of!

Just a thought

 

So that's the complaint now? I thought is was corruption... I doubt any forum would hang on a mod that abuses their board?

As for DMOZ policy - that is "their policy" and I am sure DP has it own as will.

Seriously I have no authority to dedicate policy in your business, forum, blog, or directory.

A play with words... I said "non-involvement" and "say so" of others.

 

I am willing to discuss but you haven't said anything yet, just carefully avoiding any real discussion. If you think that my previous question was difficult, how about an easy one, the same as I asked volcano in another thread, How old do you think these discussions really are?

I thought you left because you were starting to believe what people were posting on DP, this is at least what you said or maybe that was the result of drinking and funny tobacco too.

 

There are several complaints about DMOZ.

I believe that was my point.

I have no idea what your point was here...

No. What you said was:

 

I don't see a reason to post. Does that mean my morality is lesser than yours?

GREAT - glad to see you're on top of this... keep up the good work.

 

Then take it to AOL.

Glad we agree

In error - that was "dictate".

Right: he is not.

 

DMOZ editors are holier than thou. It's their way or the highway.

 

An excellent idea. Let's face it, when it comes to a product, quality customer service will have an influence on future decisions, repeat buying, et cetera.

As ODP is, according to its website, "in the spirit of the Open Source movement", so an online Changelog would be nice. It would help people better understand the workings of DMOZ. Or perhaps there is one and I missed it...?

But that's just my £0.02.

 

The use of such a function has been sked for many many times and it also has been discussed within DMOZ but it was decided that it would do DMOZ more harm as it would do good. Most of the suggested sites we receive are seen as spam by DMOZ and we don't want to give any information to these spammers. Unfourtunately the good webmasters must suffer because of the actions of these dishonest people. Waiting for long times to have their sites being reviewed and not getting information about the status of their suggestion.

This would be a good idea if webmasters suggesting their site were the customers of DMOZ. But they aren't. They are suppliers.

 

I see you still avoid any real discussion and just keep giving people DMOZ canned response. To tell you the truth, I am very disappointed, may be your reputation for being honest is just a myth.

 

I used an analogy. I should have been more explicit as not everyone reading and posting is a native English speaker: human (or even semi-human) responses would be positive for DMOZ's reputation. It is a friendlier and more approachable method rather than unresponsive.

I don't see how it's a bad idea, that it would do harm to DMOZ and would be an open policy.

I respectfully request you to also respond to the whole of my Changelog paragraph rather than just part of my post. I'm not here to argue but rather discuss. Thank you and have a nice day.

 

Just for your information here is the definition of customer service:
assistance and other resources that a company provides to the people who buy or use its products or services

Once again this is just a smoke screen so Dmoz doesnt have to explain the reasons they choose not to list a site. If Dmoz had to explain this and someone could show that these claims were false, it would prove beyond a doubt the corruption within its editor ranks or the vindictive nature that some editors have against certain webmasters.

Take me as an example I have been called a spammer because there have been sitesof mine submitted to Dmoz for inclusion. As we are aware, it is against Dmoz policy to submit multiple sites for the same category, however being a real estate agent and real estate company owner, I am licensed in multiple states to do business.

I have authorized to this point 2 sites to be submitted to Dmoz. One in Atlanta and one in Las Vegas. All these occured over 2 years ago, so for this I am labeled a spammer because I have 2 different sites targetting two different cities in two different states with different content.

The Las Vegas site that was submitted is no longer being used as the information is outdated, the design is terrible, functionality is outdated and a better Las Vegas site which is branding a soon to open real estate company has been created to offer our consumers, updated information, better tools to assist them in their research for Las Vegas and more functionality to improve the benefit to our customer base.

So I dont buy this they are not customers pagode, I take this as a way fro Dmoz to continue to cover its tracks in order to keep from exposing the true reasons some sites are not listed.

 

We do have what you call a Changelog - however, it is only available to editors. It is not available to the public for the same reason that automated responses of rejection are not sent out.

Whether anyone agrees with that policy or not, really doesn't matter, because it is policy. http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/communication.html#privacy

 

I'm a bit confused now. I'm sure that earlier today I read, on www.dmoz.org, that dmoz.org is an "Open Directory" that is "in the spirit of the Open Source movement".

"Note that some categories do not have a Become an Editor link" and "A few categories have the Add URL link disabled, and don't list or accept submissions." have confused me further...

Where does "open" apply to dmoz?