I have a directory where we look for high quality, informative and content rich sites. Our acceptance rate is very rare and we want to be as competitive as dmoz. We dont want to depend on PR and we want to score sites based on quality, content and number of parameters and sites ranked by human editors. We want to build this directory of highest quality like dmoz and always be kept for free not just for making money. I am thinking of hiring editors (who had worked in dmoz, joeant etc) so that the directory is well built. I dont want editors to work for free, so i am thinking of charging fast inclusion submission a small fee of USD 9 and pay the editors half of it and rest will be utilised for hosting, other expenses in the directory. By doing this way, the concept of free will not be compromised. Will this work? What are your suggestions on this?
No. You can't both have a quality directory and charge a fee for submissions. You have to choose one goal or the other. Some submitters will pay to have their quality sites reviewed, but if the experience at dmoz is any indication, most of the best sites will never be submitted, and a large fraction of the submitters willing to pay for submission will be submitting sites that would not contribute "quality" to the directory. For just one example, you will get many submissions from individual real estate agents who have purchased domain names for every city and town in a major metro area, and are willing to pay for all of their domains to be listed. Now, I happen to think that real estate agents' websites can be quality resources, but no one submitter's content should be allowed to overwhelm the directory. Furthermore, many real estate agents' websites contain only the agent photo and phone number, plus templated information supplied by the company that built the site. Dmoz has elected not to list these because they lack quality, but a pay-for-submission directory would be under pressure to list them.In these forums, notice the amount of vitriol directed at unpaid dmoz editors for not providing free listings to website owners who derive an income from their websites (or for not listing the sites quickly enough, or not listing them in as many categories as the webmaster wants, etc., etc.). Now consider how much nastier those personal attacks might become if those webmasters had paid for a service, and consider how difficult it would become for paid editors to refuse to list poor-quality sites if the website owners had paid fees for submission...
If you're starting the directory from scratch, nobody is going to pay for a listing to start. I'd recommend offering free listings for the first couple months to build up your site database, grow backlinks, etc. Also, how would you track which submissions editors review? This could turn into a nightmare with editors fighting over submissions to approve. I'd recommend not paying the editors, but rather offer them an unlimited amount of free submissions. Lastly, if you're just starting out and want to be competitive with DMOZ. Throw out your business plans now. LOL
I have no problem hiring editors. I have found it best to train editors as to your submission guidelines and expectations not hire editors from another service. It does however take several weeks to train an editor to be proficient. Local colleges are a good place to solicit editors who are looking for a part time job and fairly easy to train. Free or paid submissions you can quite easily control the quality of submissions with a well trained staff. Just remember when you hire editors even as independent agents you need to have an established business and all the tax obligations that come with it.
You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? I used to wonder about your decisions and your real motivation for usually supporting the worst in DMOZ but after reading your posts here, I have start to think that the cause of your decisions is not personal gain, but simply stupidity and incompetence.
Additional thought: If you make your directory narrow enough in scope, you might be able to have your cake and eat it, too (um... I mean, have paid submissions and maintain quality standards). But you would have to be willing to tell submitters to keep their money and take their URLs elsewhere if their sites don't fall within your scope.