DMOZ Problems – Here is my List

DMOZ Problems? – Here is the List

Flawed Concept
Idealism is great – as long as you realize that MONEY calls ALL the shots.
Volunteer editing doesn’t work – just like communism.
“To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.” Except that
Many are lazy, and only became an editor to boost their own sites.
Many are corrupt, especially in high-dollar areas – real estate, pharmacy, etc.
Many are self-interest type pigs only, who want to grab all the marbles.
Only PAID editors will work – if they screw up, their money disappears. YEAH!
Right now, if they screw up – there are no financial consequences.
Google must find another way to do a directory, if they do one at all.
Relying upon an external, third party site to create a Google directory is just bizarre.
Not only are good-to-great sites omitted, but they are engendering webmaster hatred.
Right now, how much does Google pay dmoz for this service?
And to whom?

Performance
Who is in charge?
There is an utter lack of command and control.
Therefore, there is NO RESPONSIBILITY to anybody, for anything.
Who do the meta editors report to?
AOL-Time Warner
... DMOZ Division President – WHO IS THIS? What's his name? I WANT AN EMAIL ADDRESS.
...... Head of the DMOZ servers - WHO IS THIS?
......... Meta editors
............ Editors
Lack of Timely Web Site Reviews
... MANY editors do nothing, after fixing their own sites.
... ZERO feedback whatsoever to EVERYONE.
... Reports of site dumps – too many to review? Just make them disappear.
Failure to add new highly qualified editors
... It's an exclusive club – they do NOT want to share control with their competition.

Lack of Editor Oversight
Lack of editor review - Who reviews the editors?
Are the Editor Standards public? Why not?
Periodic editor reviews? Who “volunteers” for this? How are they paid?
Accountable to NOBODY
Rudeness, pomposity, arrogance, messianic complex
I’ve tried to kiss a$$, but it was always the WRONG cheek. And always will be.
GOD Complexes
One editor actually had the audacity to suggest that I was spelling MY OWN NAME WRONG, and he knew how it should really be spelled. Spectregunner, get somebody else to kiss your a$$. I am NOT going to change my name, just for you. Unbelievable. UNBELIEVABLE. Judging by spectregunner's web site, phallus issues seem to be involved. He MUST have the final word on everything (biggest gun). He craves power more than anything else. How is it that the WORST POSSIBLE editors are approved? Is it because it's the worst editors who are doing the approvals?
Do not email these freaks. The verbal abuse doubles when nobody else can see it.

Corruption
Editors who think that DMOZ is their own personal playground
Editors who sabotage their competition -
... They purposely screw up Titles
... They purposely screw up descriptions
... They purposely screw up base page URLs (.htm to .html, etc.)
Editors who accept money or favors for placement -
Like the police in Mexico – they are not paid much, and are expected to make up for it through extortion – ALWAYS have a twenty wrapped around your driver’s license, if you are the least bit perceptive.
Cronyism – Good Old Boy system
... You screw my competition, I’ll screw yours.
Ignorance
One meta-editor, jimnoble, didn’t even understand DMOZ personal pages, and BLAMED ME!
No help here – he exists just to chastise, humiliate, obfuscate and pontificate.

The Demise of Resource Zone
The most important forum subject section, the ONLY ONE that anybody wanted to see, was CLOSED. When exposed to the light of day, DMOZ editors just couldn’t take the heat.
The standard reply was – “Check back in 6 months”, with added text indicating that if you checked back earlier, you were dust. PERFECT!
Also, submitting your site twice is so egregious, so terrible, that you are banned for life, for spamming – who the he|| do these people think they are?

Eternal Apologists
Thousands of words are written daily by DMOZ editors trying to justify their actions – I guess that they are forced to, due to all the flak they receive.
... Too bad they don’t use that time to edit.
Ton’s of “Yes, but I’m wonderful” statements that CANNOT be verified
Whenever confronted, it is always the “other editors” fault, or
“Stupid webmasters can’t do anything right.”
No matter what excuses the editors may put forth, PERCEPTION IS REALITY.


Is it clear that I don’t care about dmoz any more?
It all comes down to self-respect, and personal pride.
I’ve gone as low as I am going to go.
All this lick-boot cr@p is for those utterly devoid of any semblance of self-esteem.

This will soon be a web page, with many appropriate links substantiating each point.
Enough is enough, already. The extinction of this dinosaur cannot come soon enough.

 

I expected this to be yet another typical "omfg dmoz blows" thread, but this is actually a well thought out post.

I hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears like all the others.

 

Good post.

You left out one, though:

Flawed Concept
The number of new sites added to the net everyday will always exceed the capacity of a human edited directory to keep pace with the expansion, even assuming that perhaps 50% of those are sites probably no one will ever care about. Thus, the current backlog, already unwieldy, is doomed to increase with every passing hour, making the contents of the directory increasingly out of date and irrelevant as time goes on.

 

well, you make some valid points. You also make quite a few unasserted assumptions. Do we really deserve this flaming?

Pardon DMOZ for setting out with a different philosophy then, and doing its best to reject editor applications of those who clearly subscribe to your principle religiously.

The fact that DMOZ is chock-full of very good websites that have stood the test of time proves that it does work. Being flawed, and not working, are two different things. I'd much rather your post was accompanied with suggestions how to remedy problems DMOZ faces, because this well thought out post offers nothing new to the debate really.

I don't think that principle is particularly applicable to DMOZ. You're confusing volunteering efforts with communism.

Yes. Spot them and report them.

Yes. Spot them and report them.

As are many of the DMOZ haters who are upset their site didn't get included, and spend far too much time throwing fits, instead of spending that time improving their websites then trying again. There are thousands of happy webmasters with good sites in DMOZ. Despite everything you're saying, there's no reason why yours can't be in it too - if good enough.

ONLY?? That's quite simply false, and extremely rude to the thousands of unpaid, hardworking editors there. You complain about RZ rudeness, but just look at the hypocrisy here! If you refuse to believe that people work just for the feeling of doing something good for other people, I suggest you try volunteering.

So wait - you propose volunteers be FINED for screwing up?

I agree. The need for a Google directory is debateable in the first place. It's use of DMOZ data to populate it is equally questionable. The same goes for the hundreds (I believe 300?) of other sites using DMOZ' data (i.e. hard work) to make money. But DMOZ doesn't control, or want to control, that. It's unfair for you to place any blame on DMOZ, or attack editors, on the basis that the most respected and popular search engine in the world considers our work worthwhile and trustworthy and a way to improve the relevancy of its search results.

I thought the title of this thread was 'DMOZ Problems - Here is my List'???

The hatred is the webmasters' problem - it takes five minutes to submit a site, and costs NOTHING. To be that upset is completely irrational and a strong sign of mental imbalance. They should get a hobby. It's not like DMOZ uses the Yahoo 'pay us and we'll perhaps let you in' approach! We spend more time reviewing your submission that it took you to file it - and still we get schtick!

Why would you pay for something offered to you and any other site for free?

 

How many days have you been an editor again, Bradley?

 

An excellent addition Minstrel.
That is probably the BEST, and BIGGEST POINT of all!
The model just can't work (except for the chosen few).


I could counter every one of your comments, bradley, but I just don't care.
People are going to believe just what they want.
As stated earlier, "Bow down to bradley" says it all.
I don't think that it is a joke at all - it's pure Freudian, and it's worth 1000 words.
You have exhibited a strong need to kick a$$, and wield power.
Boy, DMOZ sure need more editors like you.

.

 

But what if some people believe something that is false? It could be you or I, most likely it's both. Only with mature debate will we reach conclusions that are going to improve the situation! Please, I beg you, respond to my post without trying to end the debate with an attack on me.

Ach, enough with the avatar already!! Freudian?? So I guess it means I have a strong urge to kill my father, espouse my mother and am secretly gay?

Please - who on Earth would represent themselves as a mad baby throwing a fit, and even add the tagline 'Bow down to (me)', unless it was a joke?!! Why are you so determined to pigeonhole me into your preconceived image of what DMOZ editors are like, that you clutch at straws with unbearably shaky logic in order to demonize me! Anyways, I see myself more as an alcoholic, so I'll change the avatar if it so pleases you! Seriously though, think about just how invalid it is to analyse personality solely based on a joke avatar!

Please, stand up and resume the debate. You put time and effort into making those points in the first post. If you believe they're true (and many are, there's no debating those) then you should stand up and defend them, not end the debate with a platitude like 'People are going to believe just what they want'.

(edit: please, for the several people red-repping me for my posts in this thread, please include the reasons why, or PM me them - else your actions are kinda pointless?)

 

1. There's no debate to be had here, just statements of opposing views.
2. Well yes, of course they are .

 

:::yawn:::

 

It's a rarity, but I agree with joeychgo

Wow, I just got anon red-repped (no reason) for agreeing with Joeychgo! Guess I won't be doing THAT again!

 

No wonder they made him an editor...

 

Rofl! !! --------

 

To all dmoz power-tripping editors -
You have dismissed my sites, forthwith, on multiple occasions, with NO explanation,
and I now summarily dismiss you.
Done.


<edit>changed "me" to "my sites"<edit>

 

Did you expect to be accepted as an editor after all your postings here. They clearly show you are not the material we are looking for.

 

Considering the source, Surf_Dude, I think you should probably take that as a compliment

 

pagode-
I have NEVER expected to be accepted as an editor.
I have NEVER applied to be an editor.
I will NEVER apply to be an editor.

Stop grasping for straws, just for the sake of prolonging a piffing contest.
I concede. Yours is the biggest.

 

This is the guy who wrote about your site:

(i.e. this site is useful)

What I see was a suggestion that you just make your last name a little more prominent on the website in order to make it easier to list the site under the category you suggested. Maybe you had some other contact with him that I can't see, I don't know, but from what I see, the guy was actually saying that your site was not only a good one, but listable. And maybe get more than one listing in the ODP, since he also referred to a listing in the Kids and Teens section of the directory. In other words, he gave you a mini site review, AND gave you a tip on how you can make your site even more listable.

I'm not trying to do anything to invalidate your points or anything, but I feel like you may have misunderstood something.

Thread reference: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=31494

 

Since when DMOZ editors started requesting for suggestions/debate?

I am too surprised.

I heard several DMOZ editors saying "No suggestions, please..."

They are simply communists + dictators combined gorillas.

 

I think there have actually been some quite healthy debates on this very forum between SEOs, webmasters and ODP editors. I feel it has provided a lot of insight into each other's points of view and beliefs.

Thanks for your opinion.

The fact is, which you will see by looking at a few threads in the Directories tree, that directories are produced by people, and they each have their set of values - this will upset others, who see them as being biased against their sites, or their way of thinking. The ODP, being probably one of the least SEO-friendly directories around, by design, upsets more people than most.

"Ah but it's Open", you say, "It's even in the name". Well, if you dig and find out why it's called open you will see that it refers to one thing and one thing only - the end-product is free to use, as long as some terms and conditions are stuck to. That, and only that, is how open the ODP is. In a lot of ways, it's no different from a lot of other directories out there - someone has creative control over the directory and decides what goes in and what doesn't.

 

Ah - More red rep from my no name 'fan' who gives me red rep for the dumbest reasons and never has the guts to leave his name.