How long takes DMOZ to accept a site?

It is really amazing how DMOZ and wikipedia editor philosophies are completely opposites, first has motto trust nobody and anyone can be banned forever at anytime for any reason, second has motto trust everyone, even anonymous and you can get permanent ban only if you never contributed anything useful but vandalism and while one is flourishing and has reached world fame other has become totally obscure to anyone but remaining active and removed disgruntled editors.

Well you dug your own grave, while at wikipedia logs are open to everyone and nothing can be hidden so claim of corruption that cannot be collaborated from logs is laughed at it is complete opposite at DMOZ since nobody outside can check logs and any rumor falls on fertile ground.

Hmm, Skrenta blog from 2006
http://www.skrenta.com/2006/12/dmoz_had_9_lives_used_up_yet.html

So how many metas got fired?

 

I could think of about half a dozen without trying very hard and there are probably more than that.

 

So that is why on Wiki some sections cannot be edited by people who do not register..trust everyone..what rubbish.

How many individual sites is Wiki actually listing these days except as a reference? Last time I was there they were producing an encyclopaedia and that was not based on webmasters view that their sites should be listed.

In one category that I have editedin Wiki the rows are endless about what gets put in with reversions and opinions, what a complete waste of anyone's time trying to write objective material.

Could just see that if we adopted that we would spend most of our time trying to reverse spam, subjectivity and people trying to get their spammy, get rich quick sites listed. But that would suit many of the critics on here.

No thanks.

 

Unfortunately, whilst that is true in the sense it is a volunteer project, the actuality is that, due to the use of DMOZ by Google et al. and the weight given to DMOZ listings, then, for the majority of webmasters attempting to make a living from the internet, it is very much a "commercial" directory. (Admittedly, this may be changing with Google's apparent reducing emphasis on back-links.)

In that case, I would suggest that from a "commercial" point of view it is debatable whether you should list any, retail website (unless they have a world monopoly, of course!)

1. You do not have to list "all possible reasons".
2. You state clearly "no correspondence etc."
3. You make it "no-reply". (I do not really understand why you have public e-mail contact, anyway. There is clearly little point in anyone mailing you.)

I think Ivan Bajlo has "nailed" this one in his reply above. Personally, I think the majority of submitters are reasonable people and accept the result of a submission and move on. We learn pretty quickly that it is pointless arguing with rejections since 99.999 recurring% of directory editors never respond.

(BTW, I do not accept there is an analogy with editor applications.)

 

Are you claiming DMOZ, listing in which is, from all accounts, based purely on the subjective opinion of editors, is more objective?

 

If it were based on our subjective opinions, why can we only list in accordance with guidelines? Remember any editor can alter/remove another editors work, but doing so without good cause can get one in trouble.

I was also talking about the material that is written in Wiki, which really is quite a different situation from listing a site with a description (both of which should comply with guidelines). Yes we sometimes debate how, where a site is listed, titled or described but we train editors with this. I can go to Wiki and do any editing I like, or can I? but Ivan said of Wiki
"has motto trust everyone" and actually says
"has motto trust everyone, even anonymous "

If that is true why are some sections closed for editors who have not registered?

Wiki soon discovered that people will manipulate and some controls needed. That is only for an encyclopaedia, on ODP its more personal when webmasters want their site listed and described the way they want it.

Fine but remember we have to deal with 100% not the majority and as one can clearly see on here, just trying to tell webmasters the basic situation generates an incredible amount of heat.

So let's just postulate that we have as many disillusioned webmasters as there are disillusioned ex-editors who post on here, that would be a very small minority of webmasters but if they created as much posts about ODP being corrupt, the editor who rejected them being corrupt, meta editors being corrupt, editors need to be paid to get in.......just keep writing your own.....we would generate an incredible amount of heat.

I don't want to be badgered because I have a hobby, hobby how one enjoys spending ones spare time, of collecting, collating and organising web sites. If someone else wants to do it then build yourself a directory, but we allow webmasters to offer contributions to ODP as well as find websites for ourselves, but that's not enough. I have argued and will continue to argue that we should turn submissions off and also turn off any email contact. It is enough, IMO, that we interact with people on sites like this, though sadly that gets abused because we get the blanket comments about abuse, lazy editors, corrupt editors and why don't we do this or that or the other.

 

Yes, I accept that. I was referring rather to the decision about which site to even look at or consider for listing - the whole process of " I think I will do some editing today.... oh! I like the look of that site........"

Even as a submitter, that seems an eminently sensible suggestion.

 

Let see there are 1,311 protected articles out of total number of 2,710,447 so that makes it 0,05% which can't be edited if not registered... the horror!

No idea of the number of links but I'm betting there are more links on wikipedia then at DMOZ, several non-English wikis have thousands of links to relevant websites compared to few dozens listed at DMOZ. That makes DMOZ completely irrelevant to common surfer for which it was created.

Like that never happens at DMOZ? Of course if some editor dares to object to metas opinion he/she would probably be removed forever...

As far as I'm concerned adult and shopping categories can be delete completely what annoys me is that beacuse of two junk categories all other categories have to suffer from paranoia, while I was editor I barely got any public submission in categories I use to maintain and 99% of the website I've added I had to find on my own.

How hard would it be to place spammy categories off limits but free everything else so that there is actually some use for DMOZ?

 

As I've mention only 0,05% articles are protected, hardly a serious problem, most vandalisms are undone by other users. Of course German wiki introduced approval before edit goes into main article but they are little crazy at German wiki and you can get banned there for absurd things like correcting article using trusted source as reference - must be lot of former DMOZ metas working there.

Today wiki link is worth its weight in gold to spammers even with no follow tag you can get tons of traffic from popular articles which are most often spammed and traffic is what counts not link from some PR1 category in DMOZ.

Wiki liked DMOZ has also blacklist of spammers domains so does links cannot be added any more.

Funny, it was the same thing I was doing before I got removed.

And I constantly get attacked by metas and their lackeys of committing some horrible crime for which I got caught but I got no idea what it was and have never seen any proof, now you know how I feel.

 

You aren't constantly attacked by me - I only do so around once a month and most months I forget .

I can't help you directly but there is a list of common types of editorial abuse in the publicly available meta guidelines. You might like to read through it and see if any of them ring a bell .

 

I bet it was that first one wasn't it? Too bad that one is not enforced across the board. Take skrenta's 10,000++ listings of duplicate content for instance... Not only is it unfairly listing one's own site, such listings were not even done by a human (in a HUMAN edited directory). They break the spamming guidelines, the duplicate content guidelines, the deeplinking policy, and more. If ANYONE should be busted for breaking that rule, it's this example!

 

So, it is actually okay to list one's own site as long as you do it fairly. Interesting, I guess it depends how "fairly" is defined and by whom!

 

Yeah, I get/got slack for listing one of my sites. A site I had as listed in my affiliations (when that finally was fixed) and a site that was on my initial application. *shrug* But you can list your own sites, and even the sites you've worked on for others. You are right on the key though "fairly" and that key's interpretation.

 

I have submitted lots of siteds during the past 12 months but NONE of them have been accepted or denied. No reaction for 12 months now.

 

I have a lackey?? Why wasn't I told??
Where has mine been hiding?? Do they wash cars and windows too?

And once people lose their editing account for abusing the directory, what on earth would be the point of "attacking" them. They have no more connection to the ODP, so as an ODP volunteer I have no further interest in them.
It's just very sad that some of them seem unable to move on.

 

Of course!
As has been explained countless times, editors are simply required to be fair and impartial, and to treat all sites equally and in accordance with the guidelines, whether or not they own them.

That's why the Conflict of Interest guidelines are so explicit on this subject, but unfortunately many people do not (or more likely will not) read and understand them, no matter how many times they are asked to do so.

 

No you don't get slack for listing one of your sites, you get it because after you had listed your own site you jumped ship, now that sounds like a way of unfairly listing your own site to me. And boy did you squeal when someone de-listed it because it went 404.

 

Sorry to tell you there are many old editors for that category. I am one, makrhod is another and so is jimnoble, just to point you to three. You see we are editors in every category.

 

We went over that list several times and came up with nothing and only evidence I ever saw was based on words taken out of contents from this forum. No evidence I ever did anything wrong in my editing!

I wish, then I would have over a hundred deeplinks listed.

I guess it was my fault for getting stupid idea to become editor and actually help, I could have simply continued to spam directory with my deeplinks which would all get listed like the first 9 did before I even become editor and today there wouldn't be only 4 left, I wonder when will those get accidentally delisted.

No idea, maybe you have to wait a while longer before they assign you one, but then there aren't too many editors left so they might be already all assigned.

In which way did I abuse directory EXACTLY? By creating missing categories and adding 244 missing websites? My logs are available for everyone to search for abuse!

Since nobody ever explained to me why was I removed and only reply I get I did something awful how can I move one?

All this constant attempts to avoid presenting evidence or reveal reason only reaffirm my believes that my removal was ILLEGAL!

 

Ivan, have you taken your meds for today yet?