Doesn't this just piss you off?

This answer is logical to me, but I doubt if that counts

An editor, actually a few of them, wanted to work in the cars categories and build them up, which included deeplinking this site.

Why does a site that is about another topic, but equally unique, get zero listings? Because no one has wanted to work in the category where that site was suggested - or the category where that site could be deeplinked. Or - they've worked in that (those) category(ies) but stopped before they considered the category finished. Or - they wanted to work in that category but got called away by real life and haven't gotten back to it. Or - they wanted to work in that category, but decided that something else might be more important at the moment. Or -

We can't have a rule that every listable website gets listed before any get deeplinked - I'm not particularly interested in working in Society or most Shopping categories (for example) and getting those websites listed before I could deeplink a site that's already listed elsewhere (or double list a site in Topical and Regional) would severly impact my desire to list sites. More than likely to the point where I create another directory and forget about DMOZ.

Then when my directory has all the equestrian sites in it and someone else wants to add another one in Texas, but I want to work on Washington adding some deeplinks of sites I think are good, are you going to say I can't work on my own directory how I want to? DMOZ is my directory (mine and all the editors), that's how we feel about it - and that's how we work on it.

 

No, it doesn't.

Even if it were the case that there were no inconsistencies in how DMOZ policy is applied and no corruption whatsoever among DMOZ editors, policies like this one are going to be a problem and a public relations nightmare. That is the point. So if you are a DMOZ editror who cares about the directory and not just listing your sites or your friends' sites, you should be worried about this.

 

See this is what the problem is, you say its your directory. Isnt this suppose to be a directory for the public? Now I believe that webmasters are part of the general public and most of those webmasters posting in this thread seem to believe that this site is spammy and has to many listings. As Minstrel stated this is a public relations nightmare for DMOZ, I do agree with him.

How many sites are out there that are 100% better than this spammy site and have no listing at all within the same category, yet this one has 26 listings. Editors always wonder why there is such a conflict between them and webmasters, I believe this should give you your answer. You have a site like this listed not once but 26 TIMES yet most of us who have sites that belong in DMOZ to help improve the directory for the general public Dont Get Listed.

 

It's a directory for the surfers, created by surfers, edited based on the demands (or perceived demands) of surfers.

 

What absolute nonsense. The contents of DMOZ have nothing to do with the demands of surfers. DMOZ editors have made that abundantly clear. The contents of DMOZ have to do with the "demands" and opinions of DMOZ editors. Period.

 

Never mind. In my opinion the ODP is no longer worth the trouble. This is just another example of it's growing irrelevence, the difference being this example is fully documented and discussed right here. I must suck being an editor right now, there's no telling if what you're doing is going to count in the long run. If the directory becomes completely usless the people funding it will stop doing so.

 

And since when did I and other editors stop being surfers?

I talk to a lot of horse people about DMOZ - I talk to alot of cooks (homemaker type) about DMOZ - I talk to my friends about DMOZ. If I can't find something I'm looking for on DMOZ - I add it - because if I'm looking for it, someone else might be looking for it. If people I know are looking for something they can't find on DMOZ, I add it (same reasoning).

Someone on another forum I frequent was looking for a miniature poodle stud - and I gave them the link to the DMOZ category for miniature poodles - there was one listing for a stud in their state.

How is this not surfer related? I'm not in this for the money (and neither is any other honest editor). It's something I enjoy doing, it's collecting and compiling sites that are interesting to us (and hopefully to others), in a common area.

 

This site isn't even worthy of ONE DMOZ listing, thats what the problem is. If it was an authority site or was at least well designed and served a purpose other than to display ads... well then nobody would complain. BUT, and a big BUT - this site isn't even worth being listed PERIOD... that's what the problem is.

Go out and Deeplink a site worthy of being in the DMOZ, not this one.

 

The way it is being explained, I take it as surfers meaning editors. So the way I understand this is that its a directory for the editors and the surfers who are friends of the editors. As for it being a benefit to the general public, I personally can not see any benefit to the general public which I consider myself a part of. Now if I was an editor, I could see where the DMOZ directory would be of benefit to me and my online business.

Imocr you have been kind enough to try and answer some of the members questions here and I respect you for that but this is one question I dont believe no matter what answer you give none of the members here are going to believe it. This is a huge public relations problem for DMOZ and only strengthens the belief that there is corruption in DMOZ.

Also the fact that I have pointed out a new site of mine to a couple DMOZ editors and it hasnt been listed also indicates to me that there is no intention of listing that site, yet the site I showed a few DMOZ editors is better than any site listed presently in DMOZ for that category, this one no DMOZ editor can explain. This only shows that the directory is for the editors not the general public. You know the site I am referring to.

 

Yes, okay, "editors and friends of editors". If I find a site that I find highly useful (and let's assume it's not one of mine, to keep it simple), and I "suggest" that site, you are not going to add it if you don't agree with my evaluation of the site, are you?

If your characterization of DMOZ as "for surfers, of surfers, and for surfers" were even remotely true, editors wouldn't keep telling us that there are no such things as "submissions", only "suggestions"...

 

If the site is guidelines compliant, and has unique content, and I am (or another editor is) working in the area you suggested it to - it will be listed. You can test this - find a site for a horse breeder (any breed) that isn't already listed and suggest it - or find a local site (must have a regional presence) in Tenino, Washington, or Tumwater, Washington, and suggest it. You could also find a riding stables site (a place that offers lessons) or a boarding stables site and suggest those. Those are some of the areas where I edit. But if you want to test it by suggesting a site to an area that receives a ton of suggestions (like real estate, or travel, or web design for example) - it may take awhile to validate my statement.

Let's take horse breeds for example - I don't have 6500 friends in all parts of the world - so it's not just listings for friends. However, I do have friends that want to know all the riding stables available at the location of their next duty station - and I can show them. Along with all the other regional listings in that area. I also talk with friends on other forums about breeding who might be across the country from me and I can point them to the breeders lisitings in their state.

 

Come on lmocr, you can't honestly say that you agree a website like this should be listed at all, let alone 26 times. The site design is horrible, there are ads everywhere, it has an insane amount of links all over it, the website is clearly not designed for the user.

If someone submitted as website like that, with 1 page and 1 picture for each individual type of horse... would you list that website in the main horse category, or the main horse category plus each and every type of horse in all the other related categories too?

My guess is you wouldn't list that website at all.

 

You're just digging yourself in deeper. First, that's a lot of "ifs": If in the opinion of the editor the site is guidelines compliant, and if in the opinion of the editor it has unique content, and if I am (or another editor is) working in the area you suggested it to and if the editor feels like it sometime in the next decade or two- it may be listed.

Or maybe not, of course.

You also ignored the essential part of my previous post:

 

First - there is more than one page and one picture per car type - the ones I looked at had three pages (maybe twenty photos in all).

If someone suggests a site to Horse Breeds that had photos of all the breeds (which there is one) - and I wanted to add a deeplink of it to say the Knabstrupper category then I could - as a matter of fact, if there are pictures of Knabstruppers in there I will go do just that (never thought of it before). I really need to take some time to work on the rare category and build up those breeds too - been a little busy elsewhere lately.

 

If I don't agree that it's guidelines compliant - no I won't list it. If I don't agree that it's unique content - no I won't list it. If I don't agree with your opinion that it's a useful site (but it's guidelines compliant and has unique content) - I will list it.

There I specifically addressed the "essential" part of your post - which is pretty much what I said before.

 

Just a couple more inches and we'll slide the top over that hole for you, lmocr...

 

dont get me started on DMOZ. I've only been trying to get them to list a free e-card site I work on for over a year...amazing how the EDITORS site shows up nicely...but they cant seem to include a new site. DMOZ is SO dead it's pathetic.

 

Only a personal opinion but I would not have listed the deeplinks of that site - insufficient content - but I have a bigger problem with http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=allcarpictures.com - an appalling site that wants me to download something - spyware?

Not being able to see logs any more I can't work out a pattern but from what was said earlier in this thread it seems to be a multiple editor effort to add some photos of cars. Once one deeplink is done, other editors can easily conclude it is OK to do it more than once - no collusion, nothing corrupt, probably good intentions. With 5 million listings some are bound to be crap but seemed like a good idea at the time - sites change, standards change, editors gain experience. Report it as a quality control issue and someone will go look, that's the way it works. Start implying abuse when there is no evidence of that, only of not particularly good site selection which is nevertheless within guidelines (just), and editors switch off.

I don't think so - this is just a minor quality control issue of no real consequence. With 5 million listings some are bound to be crap blah blah blah. Perfection would be brilliant but unrealistic.

They include 20,000 - 30,000 new sites a month. Clearly there are other priorities than e-cards like cancer research sites in Health, local businesses and community projects in Regional, craftsmen's sites in Shopping, sites for natural disasters - DMOZ reacted like lightning to the tsunami in South East Asia and the hurricanes in the USA. The editors who developed a category for tsunami relief sites could have elected to use their time to work through thousands of e-card sites to find your one instead. I'd say the editors that made that choice made the right one. I know of another editor who spends all their editing time on cancer research sites - they could ask for rights to go through e-card sites, but have chosen to stick with their own priorities. Good for them. And so on.

 

Ok if this is the type of criteria looked for, then I am going to throw fuel on the fire. My new real estate site has over 70k in photos on the site, explain to me why it wouldnt be listed, thats an average of 4 photos per home listed in my real estate market. Show me or any of us another site that has as many photos and content as my new site...I challenge you or any other editor.

This is not self promotion, I want to show that I can dispute that statement about why in an editors mind this spammy site this thread is about is listed.

 

DMOZ is a joke.

Your wasting your time voicing off here - my advice - don't submit any websites, to it - don't use it. It'll just become another dinosaur.