DMOZ Corruption according to Google

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=corruption+dmoz&btnG=Search

Apparently, it's not just about gworld or DigitalPoint forums any more...

 

Don’t give this forum too much credit. There have been allegations of corrupt editors around since 1998.

If you look at those results after the first few pages 95 percent of the results are about corrupt computer files, dmoz categories with the word corrupt in them and so on. It really is a cheap shot. Its akin to me claiming that most psychologists are child molesters on the basis of 365,000 google hits for those terms.

The sad thing is that when you result to this sort of puerile critique you obscure any valid criticisms of dmoz that might have.

 

I am also mad at DMOZ because they don't list my sites

 

You must be hitting a different data centre. From where I am sitting every result on the first page is a disscussion about DMOZ being corrupt, nothing about PC files


Mong dont worry your not alone as I too have submitted several "clean" useful business sites for the past year with not one being listed.

 

I'm not sure corruption (although it exists) is a big a problem as laziness amongst editors. At least the corrupt ones are actually listing sites

 

Laziness its rampant. The lame excuse is that their volunteers. Corruption is visible. Abuse is rampant even from the TOP (I would very much like to discuss this part).

 

Somethings never change, it must be comforting for you that after 8 years, corruption and abuse is still alive and thriving in DMOZ.

 

It's honestly not the corruption that bothers me, it seems to be the only way that you can get listed nowadays. If it wasn't for the laziness then the corruption wouldn't exist.

 

Because someone you don't know doesn't do some Internet marketing for you for nothing, in their free time, using their own computer and Internet link, they are lazy? There is no service being offered to webmasters, no charges made to webmasters for any service, no obligations, no duties.

I'll give you some better reasons why sites are not listed:

1. There are not enough editors to maintain the directory let alone add to it.
2. Many if not most editors are confined to small areas and cannot list sites except in that area.
3. Morale and motivation are at a low.
4. Webmasters submit spam all over the place making unreviewed pools too unwieldy for editors to even open let alone process sometimes.
5. The pools of unreviewed sites are far less productive as sources of new sites than mining other directories and doing a Google search on the topic.
6. Webmasters can't be bothered to read, or read and ignore, guidelines on what sites are listable and which category to submit to.
7. The Internet is growing fast and DMOZ couldn't keep pace if it doubled the editors tomorrow. Therefore standards for inclusion rise.
8. Editors don't care that a webmaster thinks their site deserves a listing now. The more pushy you are the less inclined an editor will be to even look at what you have to offer.
9. You can't tell volunteers what to do. They say no, or walk away.

If you want guaranteed review times, placement where you want it, wordings that suit your marketing, customer service, etc. etc. there are loads of directories that work on that model and will take your cash. Go to them instead, no editor will take offence.

 

Annie, I didn't mean you! I feel bad now
I said before you're one of the good ones, maybe I should put it in my sig?

 

They're not doing me a favour, they stepped up to take responsibility, and some (sorry Annie ) obviously don't fulfil their responsibilities.
If they can't spare the time, then DMOZ should say thanks but no thanks and let someone else do it.

 

You're not very good at reading, are you neb? What I said was "it's NOT just about gworld or DigitalPoint forums any more..."

There are plenty of other threads here with different criticisms, neb, and you do the same "blind DMOZ apologist" act in those threads too. As I said once before, I don't post to convince people like you about anything at all, since that is clearly futile - a closed mind is an unreachable mind. Just continue on your blinkered way and ignore what I write. It's not like you and your DMOZ dinosaur friends are going to play any role whatsoever in change anyway.

 

Sorry for the third post but after a second read I thought some of the points should be addressed one by one

1. There are not enough editors to maintain the directory let alone add to it.
Maybe DMOZ should have a recuritment drive. You obviously need more voluneteers but all I hear are people saying that they've been turned down. I'm not saying to drop your standards, but a lot of these people seem to be well educated knowlegeable people.

2. Many if not most editors are confined to small areas and cannot list sites except in that area.
Maybe that needs looking at, what's wrong with editors cross editing categories? If they have knowlege in certain areas then mobility of labour is important in any situation. As long as each edit is logged then there would be a good degree of accountability.

3. Morale and motivation are at a low.
Again, motivation and morale improve with reforms and progress. Like I said, there are obviously things wrong at the moment, even to an outsider.

4. Webmasters submit spam all over the place making unreviewed pools too unwieldy for editors to even open let alone process sometimes.
How much of the process is automated? A degree of spam can be automatically filterer out - dupe submissions for example. This would get around the muliple submissions problems. Just keep the first one, and subsequent submissions are binned.

5. The pools of unreviewed sites are far less productive as sources of new sites than mining other directories and doing a Google search on the topic.
Yes, but which is faster? Granted not eveyone submits their site to DMOZ, but the vast amjority, especially for commercial subjects do.

6. Webmasters can't be bothered to read, or read and ignore, guidelines on what sites are listable and which category to submit to.
Again automate, delete the site and automate a wrong category rejection mail. If you're feeling nice you can suggest the correct category to submit to, though I have little sympathy for idiots that can't get their submission in the correct category. This process also gives more transparancy with a rejection email so webmasters know they have to resubmit or not bother as their site is of a poor quality.

7. The Internet is growing fast and DMOZ couldn't keep pace if it doubled the editors tomorrow. Therefore standards for inclusion rise.
The internet is growing fast, and a new degree of automation has to cope with that.

8. Editors don't care that a webmaster thinks their site deserves a listing now. The more pushy you are the less inclined an editor will be to even look at what you have to offer.
That shouldn't really come into it, if a site is quality then list it. I think the majority of webmaster anger is because of the lack of transparancy in the editorial process.

9. You can't tell volunteers what to do. They say no, or walk away.
Just because people are volunteers doesn't mean they can get away with not doing the job they offered to do. Sometimes it's better for a bad editor to walk away.

 

Somewhat yes. When editors sign to be volunteers expect them to do their volunteer work at least once or twice a week. Same as volunteer firefighters. There is no fire but you go at least twice a week for training and upgrading skills. It doesn't mean that if there is no fire for a year you will just sit down and look beautiful. Ah-Ah learn the trade. List some sites. Delete not working sites. Peep at the unreviewed. List a couple. Make a couple of descriptions and put it in unreviewed, this way when you come back next time you can take alook again and list it if not delete it.

There is no service but its a duty and obligation. Its a hobby. Of course. How often do you want to do your hobby once a year, every six months, every 3 months. I think its not an excuse.

I'll give you some better reasons why sites are not listed:

1. There are not enough editors to maintain the directory let alone add to it.
2. Many if not most editors are confined to small areas and cannot list sites except in that area.
3. Morale and motivation are at a low.
4. The Internet is growing fast and DMOZ couldn't keep pace if it doubled the editors tomorrow. Therefore standards for inclusion rise.
5. Even the founder spams the directory. Nobody can't do anything about it.
6. Crappy guidelines.
7. Abuse is rampant.
8. Promotion is slow.

 

Matt, I was making a joke. That's why I pouted at you via rep.

 

What bothers me about this is that freely available directory scripts are able to filter duplicates or subdomains on the same domain effectively and DMOZ doesn't.

On certain instances of PHPLD script you cannot even submit a subfolder from the same domain, it flags it, and rejects it.

Why can't DMOZ evolve to this level of functionality? albeit on a grander scale. Are they bothered about sabotage? Someone submits their compeititors URL and a dodgy description? either way DMOZ is going put a black mark against it - its either a dupe entry or its a bad entry. Since DMOZ change your anchor and description anyways surely the URL speaks for itself so if a competitor submits you it should backfire if your site is even half-decent - and you will get listed regardless.

 

Read through some of the DMOZ threads here and elsewhere. Many DMOZ admins and metas seem to pride themselves in having little or no technological knowledge, and some appear to take the position that NOT having such knowledge is a prerequisite to being an editor.

 

I still felt bad, I know there are some great editors and I should have made it clear I was talking about 'some' and not 'all'. I feel sorry for the good ones as they end up bearing the brunt of the dis-satisfaction

 

Exactly, it's just about progess, there solutions are there already, they just have to be effectively implimented.

That attitide is just crazy. If they're such Luddites they should ditch their computers and start rubbing some sticks together to make fire.

 

1, 2, 3, - agreed. Sort of. Certainly there are answers but by the time DMOZ has worked them out it will likely be too late.

4 - there are spam filters but too much gets through. Easy answer - dump every submission to the spam magnet categories. Don't switch off the submission form because they will only switch to other categories. Some spam is very clever and detecting it is almost intuitive, no algorythm could catch it.

5 - mining other directories and Google searches are faster when it comes to finding listable sites.

6 - it is one way of doing it. But too much automation is contrary to the concept of human editors do it better.

7 - ditto about automation. You want automation use a search engine.

8 - if it is a decent site it will be judged on that and the webmaster doesn't need to be pushy. Most of the pushy ones have distinctly average or worse wares. Editing guidelines could be much clearer to make the process more transparent but there does not seem to be any will to do that. The guidelines contain too many out of date, inaccurate, contrary, and ambiguous clauses. In some cases such as Shopping only a small handful of editors have a complete understanding.

9 - they signed up to a system that says do as much or as little as you want when you want, no pressure whatsoever. That's the deal. Nothing anywhere says they are signing up to do anything more. One edit a month is better than none and the existence of one editor is not blocking the recruitment of another. If a category is suitable for a new editor, the editors application is OK, and there is work to do in the category, a new editor will be recruited regardless of whether an existing editor is named to the category. I understand some editors have been removed for doing too little - maybe contriving an edit somehow so they don't lose their account. If you collect stamps as a hobby and stop buying them for a few months then you wouldn't expect stamp dealers to start slagging you off publicly for being a lazy stamp collector who should have their collection removed. Same with DMOZ editors - it is a hobby and they didn't agree to do anything more than the bare minimum at sign up.