DMOZ as an SEO/Linkbuilding tool, as claimed by an editor!

But you quote all of that and ignore that any person having some contact in this style must declare it so that the sites can be monitored and action taken if there is anything suspect. In the same way not declaring a site that you listed gets you booted.

But see if it is as easy as you told a poster last week, go on try to find an SEO, even try the one you recommended and see if you can pay them to take your site on and list it.

 

Ahaaaaaaaaaaa,

Another editor comes out and speaks.

Alot of debate previously trying to explain actually how valuable dmoz is and how it is so much made for the person seeking information.

From the quote's above sounds more like Google's puppet. And what happens when they let go of the strings?

 

What I find interesting is that you seem to think it would be the end of the world for editors if the ODP ever went out of existance, . Don't you realize the only affect it would have on us is to give us a lot more free time to do other things we're interested in?

It wouldn't be the devestating blow that you think it would be, .

 

Actually I never said or meant that it would be the end of the world for editors. It's actually the editors which enter the content or make up dmoz and it's a shame of the ongoing stories about editors being extorted or hinted to enter more content or else.......

Of course, and I think everybody should have the liberty of doing what they want in their free time even if that means to start their own directory.

 

Here's what I like to do as an editor. Find a small city of 15,000 population that only has 3 or 4 sites listed and go on a scavenger hunt for more sites to put it on the Internet map. There might be 2 or 3 suggestions waiting or none at all.

The first thing I try to find is the Chamber of Commerce which will be loaded with new sites to list, the schools, any government sites and then I'll chase down all the links I find on all of those sites.

I'll also do a Google search on the zip code and the first 6 numbers of the phone numbers, I'll check the listings at the County, Region, and State levels.
I'll search the Yellow Pages.

All this ends up being a big scavenger hunt from site to site. One of the things I look for is a webmaster site, because they usually have a bunch of example sites in their portfolio. You won't have to submit them, if one of us finds them, we'll list them. I took one small city of three sites and when I was done, it had 130 sites, none of which had ever been suggested to the Directory.

It's also possible to search for sites in the Topical parts of the Directory, for instance in Society and find a whole list of churches for that city, which would qualify for a second listing in Regional.

It ends up being a big spider web of sites an editor can chase down, and every now and then, you run into a motherlode of sites.

The nice thing about this type of editing is that the sites need little or no investigation to see if a webmaster is being tricky, , they are what they are, not afilliates, mirrors, or redirects, just legitimate sites.

That's why editors say that suggested sites are not an editors only source, or even the best source. Chasing down sites is slightly slower, but more enjoyable, as suggested sites need more investigation and almost always need to be moved to the correct category, so the amount of time spent is probably roughly the same.

Some editors are all for shutting site suggestions off completely, but, I don't think that's likely to happen, as the Open in "Open Directory" has to do with the Directory's social contract with the public to allow the public to submit a site suggestion for consideration, and to freely use the data editors collect and organize.

 

As the same sites that would be rejected as "tricky" generally make it to the top of SERP all pages should be looked at equally. Especially if the end user of DMOZ is the Surfer, as that would/should place most submissions as submitted by that same end user, making most submissions without any tricks at all.

Redirects, affiliates and the like I actually pretty to detect when a few moments are taken to take that look, and as such, ALL sites regardless of how they are found should be treated the same. As that is the only true way to be unbiased...

If an editor is looking at submitted sites as if there is something wrong with them, then there is a higher chance something wrong will be found...as most sites at one time or another are going to be missing something.

Either way, if the majority of sites submitted are from webmasters, then that should be an indication of who DMOZ really has as the end user, and at least certain aspects need to reflect that, or possibly certain things could/should be changed to make sure that the regular surfer returns. If that means turning off the submissions, then so be it...

 

Serp isn't a consideration, why would it be? We look for the unique content on a site and whether it would add value to the category we're building for the web surfer. It doesn't matter where it ranks, that can be manipulated or bought, and it's totally irrelavant to looking at what is on the site, and deciding if the information will benefit the person looking for the information.

10 copies of the same site, with the same information, does not add value to a category, it detracts from it. 10 different sites, each with slightly different content, does add value to a category, and is of benefit to the searcher.

I didn'y say "tricky sites", , I said "tricky webmasters", the ones who submit the same site suggestions under different urls in order to get multiple copies of the same site listed in order to get an advantage over the competition. It's done for their clients benefit. That's a no no, .

We mainly look to see if the site is complete (not under construction), and that most of the links work, that it's not an afilliate money making scheme that redirects to another site, not a mirror, and that it has the unique content we're looking for. The PR, spelling, and site design is of no concern to us. All of these things are clearly stated in our Guidelines and available to the public, .
http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/

A large number are submitted by professional webmasters, which are not neccessarily the majority, I wouldn't know that for sure however. It's just a guess based on editing experience.

End user is a term I don't like to use, it includes webmasters, SEO dudes, search engines, other directories, editors, site owners, and web surfers looking for information. Editors only serve web surfers, none of the others.

The data we collect and organize is offered freely to everyone, so in that sense, they are all end users, but we don't serve end users (in that context), we only serve web surfers and everything we do is aimed at them and for them only.

When we add sites to the Directory, we're only looking at the web surfer.

 

That was the point I was trying to maintain. Though from the looks of your post before that one, and from the posts of many other editors the submissions given are often looked at as if they belong to a webmaster. IMHO, that is the wrong mindset to have when looking at the queue. All sites, regardless of how they are found should be looked at as if they "for the surfer" rather then "by the webmaster" as many editors seem to see the submissions as.

As most of the site you do find in SERP (and yes, it's relevant if you are searching for zip codes or phone numbers) are also there due to the webmaster.

 

Actually, when I edit myself, I don't look at the submitter or the submission date, so neither of those is a consideration. I don't know if it's a webmaster or just a mom & pop outfit building their own site, and it doesn't really matter.

The only time I do notice, is when a submitter sends a great ODP compliant description, then I look at the name. I only remember two such cases, one specialized in car dealership sites, and one did Real Estate sites. They both consistantly sent in good descriptions, so I got so I'd look in those subcats first.

Of course, they both tried sliding a couple of mirrors in on me, but I caught them all and dealt with them, and I still appreciated the time the good descriptions saved me.

I don't know of any editors, including myself, who pay much attention to webmasters in the editing process, unless they start spamming the Directory, then they're going to catch my attention and I'm going to do something about it.

The only thing most editors are interested in is the site suggestion itself, does it qualify, and where it goes. We really don't have time for anything else, when we're reviewing suggestions.

Maybe another editor would have a different view, but that's how I see it.

 

Then you better be careful so you don't accidentally approve bunch of my submission or some meta might think your showing favoritism towards me since while I'm listing websites at Skaffe I'm submitting them to DMOZ just for fun and to increase backlog.

 

I think editors do treat all sites equally, we check them all for re-directs, poor links etc, but in larger sites we are more likely to find mirrors and affiliates. These are not as likely in the local bingo club site and are more often found in car dealerships, rental cars, airport parking and many other categories. Though re-directs are a common feature of small sites in my experience.

And more importantly we take no notice of design or whatever page rank may mean, I honestly do not know how to check for it! Is the information useful, does it add value, is it unique and what we are looking for in added value is different from cat to cat. But what it does mean is that we consider it valuable for the web surfer.

I am sure before long all this will be poo pooed by some on here, but I tell it as I do it and as I have found others the same.

 

If a site qualifies for a listing, and will benefit the web surfer, why would I care if it was your site? I realize you don't have fond feelings towards us, but, anything less than impartial editing by myself would be editor abuse.

I do have some discretion about where I edit and what I edit, but, I don't have the discretion to take revenge on anyone who disagrees with me, or speaks unkindly to me. (should that ever happen in here) .

Added - Just as an aside, I've disabled my pm features in here (which anyone can verify) so that everything I say will be out in the open. Just as a protection for myself.

 

Well approving of website I suggest tends to be really slow (although these are official public institutions websites) while delisting of my websites whenever legitimate excuse can found is momentary not to mention my previous work is getting trashed by lack of competent editor.

We need proof for that... ask for permission to publish your own editing logs publicly.

But how will I send you bribe offers for more topix and cnn links?

 

Now, that would embarrass me, because I've been in here yacking instead of editing, . Oh well, we all contribute in places that we have an interest, and right now, my interests lie here. Unless you've got a fishing boat charter site in Africa, I doubt I've run across any of your sites recently, but I could be wrong.

You can't, but you're welcome to submit those site suggestions through the public interface, if you think we really need more of them. They might be better than some of the graveyard list or railroad sites that I've listed to give a locality at least one site on the map.

 

You just keep listing those graveyards, they're a great resource for people working on genealogy.

 

Ivan - Dmoz has a small dedicated cadre of haters who often admit to doing whatever possible to the detriment of the directory. You for example have made no secret of your intent to do such... ample quotes are of course available.

I will readily admit that our current policy often results in coddling such low-lifes. We NOW have an over supply of people who think the "high road" is listing sites of even those intent on the destruction of the directory. Personally I consider that the ridiculously obtuse road, and haven't made it a secret we should amend the practice.

Currently you have the freedom to daily accuse us of being driven by bribes... yet your site is in OUR directory more times than most editors own sites and you have NEVER paid a dime to get it there. In case you haven't figured it out, that makes it pretty obvious you're full of guano.

Does my attitude mean I don't want to build the directory? Naah. It means there are just ever more sites to add and almost no examples of indispensible entries in any directory.

I'm whittling away at opposition to my view daily, mostly aided by the work of prevaricating little trolls like you, so keep at what you do best... time's on my side.

 

Yep, I keep finding some distant relatives in very odd places.

 

So what is your suggestion, only list the sites of those who kiss ass?

 

Hell no, just suggesting that it's stone cold stupid to list those that spend every waking hour lying about us for whatever weird reason Ivan does. Ivan says we routinely remove ex-eds sites "like lightning", but he has a site in multiple times. He says the way to get in is bribery, but he has never paid a dime.

I am wrong aren't I, Ivan? I can show quotes where you say the way to get in is a bribe... have you ever paid one to us Ivan?

Trust me, you boys doin' a helluva job convincing people I'm right. Eventually my argument'll prevail, and it'll be all because of y'all.