DMOZ Star Listings

I was going through some dmoz categories today, one's where i should be listed in but the crooked editor wont let me in.. no matter.. but I noticed some star listings at the top of some categories. What are those sites? Does the editor choose those? Anyone know?

 

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html#cool

 

It suppose to be a cool site, better than average but a lot of time it only means that it belongs to a DMOZ editor.

 

how often, exactly? and how do you know that by the way?

 

It states, very clearly, that editors may not "star" their own sites or sites they are affiliated with. I know that may not stop ALL editors, but I'm confident those would be a rarity.

 

thanks for the info, i couldnt find it on the help section

 

Showing once more that the poster of this continues to spread misinformation.

New editors sometimes make this mistake and get caught and warned. Editors that insist they have a right to do so, since the site is good, get terminated.

Editors may not cool their own sites or any sites with which they are affiliated, including business or personal affiliations. Doing so is contrary to ODP's policy and mission to provide a fair and objective resource for end-users. It is also contrary to this policy to request another editor to cool a site with which you are affiliated. Misuse of the cool site feature may result in removal of your editing privileges. Please see the section on Conflicts of Interest for further explanations.

 

We are required to give a legitimate reason when we cool a site. To give an example, during my almost 5 years as an editor I've put a star on http://www.thepeoplemover.com/ My reason was: "This is the official website of a major city transportation system. It should be listed above the other transportation websites."

This puts the site at the top of the list in the dmoz directory only. It has no effect on anything else as far as I know, but I could be wrong.

The other site I "cooled" is no longer working and has been unreviewed. That site was http://ima.korea.army.mil/Area1/sites/installations/casey.asp and the reason was: "This is the official Government website for Camp Casey."

I don't own either of those sites.

 

i wonder why someone would star a site in a category which just contains less than 10 sites. There are many categories where there are tons of websites whith no recommendations... is it because there is no cool site in each category or the editors are not going out to find the cool ones...

 

I had a star listing once set by a meta editor and the category editor removed it and put his own there.

It was dealt with by the meta editor but shows what a lot of the editors are like...

 

Usually to draw attention to the official site.

Most categories lack a marked "cool site" because there isn't one that clearly stands out as being official or exceptional in any clear way. An editor should not mark a site cool simply to recommend it. There should be a real reason, not just an opinion.

A site listed in a shopping category should never be marked cool for obvious reasons.

 

How about "I'll star yours, you star mine"?

 

As long as the "what a lot of editors are like" is attributed to the actions of the meta editor, I would totally agree with that statement. However, to use the actions of one person as the definitive of what 70,000+ people are like is quite an exageration.

I can count the number of cool sites I've listed on less than one hand - because I haven't cooled any. Not that I haven't seen some pretty cool sites, but I do a lot of editing in business related areas and don't feel it's proper to elevate one site above others just because I like their site.

New editors sometimes don't get around to reading the "cool" rules until after they've made the mistake of cooling their own site - the problem is handled, the editor is educated, and life goes on for everyone (in one form or fashion). If the new editor learns from their mistake - all is well - if not, then the editor and the directory part ways (sometimes rather abruptly).

 

That could happen, and probably has, but it would be abuse. It would be pretty easy to spot too; there are cooling logs so editors cooling each other's sites would really stand out.

Editors who make too many "innocent" mistakes don't last very long. We don't like that kind!

 

Sites I have cooled:

Official movie sites
Official celebrity sites (e.g. a celebrity's own site or official fan club as opposed to unofficial ones)
Government and local government portals
Emergency information site during a natural disaster (for the duration of the emergency)
A fantastic personal website by an animal rescue expert. No fancy professional design, no SEO, not even her own domain name. Just hours of riveting reading and photos and stories to bring tears to your eyes.

Sites I have uncooled:

Hotels and other commercial websites

The site must be the definitive or most comprehensive resource on a particular subject. An official site meets that criteria, a site that keeps your interest for hours and makes you keep going back to it time and time again meets that criteria. It is not a reward for good design, fancy graphics, or a site that is "cool" in the sense the editor just likes it more than others.

In some commercial categories cooling is prohibited. In other commercial categories it is frowned upon and there had better be a lot of justification.

Every cooling and uncooling has to be explained in detail, preferably with reference to the guidelines.

There are separate cooling logs for each editor - they are upfront and checkable by every editor at any time. They will be checked any time an editor is accused of abuse, and every time the editor applies for additional editing rights.

A cooling early on in an editor's tenure, or a cooling in a commercial category, or a cooling without a proper explanation, will cause a lot of attention by meta editors who will crawl over everything the editor has done, and cause a prompt uncooling.

A cooling of a site that does not meet the criteria for cooling is often indicative of a self-interested editor. Since it promotes the site above the others it is giving an advantage to that site. Unfairly giving an advantage is liable to be rewarded by an account being removed.

The purpose of cooling is to ensure that an official site or an otherwise exceptionally comprehensive site is not lost in a mass of sites that simply qualify for listing. Therefore it is unlikely to occur in a category with very few listings. And it is more or less impossible for a category to have two cooled sites - if there are two most definitive sites then neither is the most definitive and neither qualify. I have seen that maybe once, possibly in the government sector.

A large number of editors disapprove of cooling on principle and there have been discussions several times about restricting it to experienced editors or removing the feature altogether. On balance it is a useful tool in the exceptional circumstances it can be used legitimately and useful to identify the self-serving problem editor. Netscape/AOL staff policy is that cooling will remain a feature.

I reckon to have cooled one site for every thousand I have listed. That is probably about one site in every four thousand reviewed. I would guess that is probably about average. That is how rare it is and how high the hurdle.

 

I cooled one site the first week I was an editor, and got a quick uncool. I just though the site was better than the others, and was told that was not good enough. I didn't cool anohter site for a year. I think the only sites I've cooled since are to distinguish official performer sites from fan sites. But in one case, the offical site was so bad compared to the fan sites, I didn't cool it.

 

All starred sites get reviewed by a meta. I have had sites cooled (not by me) which were unstarred after a few days (or weeks even).

 

Besides Web masters, who uses Dmoz?
(i'm not being sarcastic, I'm actually asking the question....)
I don't know anyone that still uses Dmoz, apart from web masters and SEO people.

 

And besides Google, MSN, and the hundreds of other clones?

 

It seems at present time to be a very useful resource for pedophiles. They can find everything necessary, from excuses about why there is nothing wrong with child molestation to chat rooms for exchanging pictures of their victims or discussing ideas on how to find new ones.