DMOZ Editors: Would you consider starting over elsewhere?

Snooks is quite right about editors being able to list their own sites, with the proviso that they do not treat them any differently from a competitor or any other site, though he does add that he did not review his.

For the record, when you say you bet no one else reviewed them. You seem to be under the impression that Snooks or any other editor has some sort of rights over categories with their name at the bottom. The do not, every category is scrutanisable and changeable by any editor whose name appears on a category above the one in question and their are several hundred editors, including, most of those who regularly post on here, who have the right to post, check and alter any listing in the whole directory. I would not usually edit in say Australia, but sometimes because of sites presented I have stayed over there and if I finished up looking at an editors site that did not comply, it would be changed.

Q, nice to have you back, like my toothache comes and goes, and others often paint editors as being dishonest, my experience with them in 10 years of being an editor, is that, if anything, they are sometimes too scrupulous about listings. I have often seen, in DMOZ internal forums, dozens of posts about where or if a site should be listed, if it deserves multiple listings. I think that DMOZ has debated how many angels can dance on a pin head more times than the angels you can get there. All the editors I have had dealings with have been straight and honest. I guess that Meta editors, who have the task of dealing with the few rotten apples we get, might not be able to make quite that statement, but 10 years of editing has not changed what I discovered in those early days that DMOZ is made up of honest editors, but the ideals of DMOZ in building a directory for the end user will lead it into conflict with site owners.