How to get listed in DMOZ, the easy way. 2 days.

This has been suggested before several times for those reasons. Always rejected - it directly contravenes the charter that says that DMOZ is and will always be free. Charging would change the nature of DMOZ and impose obligations to paying "customers", webmasters cease to be suppliers of materials. I believe most editors would rather see the project close than compromise on that. But there is nothing to stop anyone taking the data to date then enhancing it with paid listings. There is an opportunity for someone.

Just following your lead gworld. Except I admit when I am wrong.

 

Nah, I'm not bothered about the rep don't worry. I don't do rep myself and rarely use the CP here.

I do see what you're saying, but in order for that scenario to work ODP style and no disrespect, it IS a lot bigger and specialised or 'nichey' if you want to call it that.
I guess what I'm asking is where on earth you'd get editors doing informational ( NOT commercial in any way ) Kids 'weather sites' or Health ' Pregnancy Complications' type stuff. Personal examples I do admit. However, these little areas do make up a lot of the bigger picture and :

Surely those who had paid would always, always be the priority ? And if they weren't then those that had paid would be pretty pissed off that they weren't ? And quite rightly !

Start charging and you start a system of those that can and want to pay v's those that cannot or have no idea about seo ( or even care).
An online 'class system' if you want to call it that. But the editors priority would always lie with those that had paid hard cash up front to be looked at and listed first NOT with the most relevant site for the category. Thats a big problem.

I can't imagine many schools would pay for a listing, or many charity or health related non-profit sites. Which would mean they'd always come last to commercial areas and webmasters savvy enough to work Paypal etc. Skaffe may be good in what it does, but it's prorities will always lie with those that have parted with the cash. And, those that know enough to part with the cash are those out to make it... generally.

The rest would be left to languish and at the end what you have is a really nice shopping/hosting/real estate and webmaster-general directory.

That is your flaw right there unfortunately? Making money. How can you make money out of 1000's of non-commercial areas and sites who won't pay but are absolutely the most relevant to their non-commercial niche ? Your priority as an editor there is always to review hard cash sites who have waved a few dollars at you.

I can see the basic flaw there in listing sites in categories ? Can't you ?

 

And how that will be any different than present situation:

American Red cross: 55 links

Amnesty International: 43 links

Green peace: 1 link


Cherry boys gay porn site: hundreds of links
Almightyzeus porn site: over 30

add to this list other porn web sites that have hundreds of links. The only difference will be if DMOZ admits to getting paid for admission then every one will have a chance to get listed, and may be an school submission that probably will stay as submission forever will also get listed, instead of being a private marketing tool for few DMOZ editors.

 

At Last some serious sensible debate rather than just attacking each other. I have always said, I am up for being criticised, but you must put in place an alternative, if no alternative is put forward, then it is just negative crticism.

The way I see it, the editors who edit these non com niches, normally have a passion for it (why else would they edit for free ) So they themselves would know the contacts, AND be able to distinguish between the good and the bad, so they would be able to build their niches without any submissions.

To answer the money from non com areas, the answer is simple realy. People still sell to non comm areas and, as such, contextual advertising or affiliate marketing can subsidise these areas. When I said make a charge, I meant make a charge for review, not inclusion. No obligation to paying customers, other than to deal with them first over everything else. Altruistic ideals and money making CAn go hand in hand if the right balance is struck. In fact I think they need to go hand in hand, as per the example you gave earlier of Oxfam. They use a combination of paid and altruistic volunteers in their organisation, and by and large it works well.

 

I've made no secret of the fact I personally think Dmoz should get rid or distance themselves from the Adult section completley. I've agreed with you many times in other specific threads dealing with these listings and that I think it's excessive and unfair to other sections. I won't repeat.

I wasn't trying to put forward an alternative at all. Just a pointing out a basic assumption from a rank and file ordinary editor ( in non-commercial categories), that if it all went commercial tomorrow.. then my loyalties, priorities and the guidelines placed upon me would change drastically.

I'd go from listing and finding relevant and informational sites ... to looking at sites who'd paid first to have their sites looked at. Even worse, I think if people were paying the directory money, as an editor in that money making entity, I'd want my cut too. Why should it all go to the owner if I'm doing the work ?

Now multiply me by 1000 wanting their cut and pretty soon you'd have to (as the owner ), concentrate on the more lucrative and commercial areas in order to pay editors like me wanting paid for the work they do. Not cheap if you're big.

QED = A commercial directory concentrating and top-heavy in commercial areas of the net. Non-commercial and the simple most relevant information to the surfer looking for it would suffer.
Basically, an overwhelming glut of HDTV/latest Mp3 player sites and a complete dearth of 'how to deal with losing a baby'/' basic cancer support in my area' sites. Why ? because editors would be too busy dealing with the HDTV stuff and the people who've paid for a review, to have any real time to concentrate on the latter non-commercial ones.

And also if there are contextual ads, adsense, banners etc and most sites paying just for a review. You don't really, honestly believe that you'd get too many volunteers just for the hell of it do you ? No, they'd be wanting paid, as I said, if the overall premise was that this directory is out to make money. I would (shrug) otherwise the owner coins it in off my work. Do you work for Skaffe for nothing when Bruce has made no secret that he's out to make a buck or two ? Why would you want to make money for someone else with nothing in return to show for it ? That doesn't make sense to me, especially if you know exactly how the web works as a webmaster. Then it's doubly puzzling that you'd edit and list only for the owner to reap the monetary gains.

Oxfam isn't about one thing. It's diverse and encompasses everything from the running local charity shops, political involvement for change and the logistics of supplying aid to those most in need world-wide. A huge undertaking and, yes, experts should be paid if they can help in any area of the above.

This thread however, and Dmoz/Skaffe Commercial v's Non-Commercial is simply and purely about sites getting listed in a directory and the issues ( editors and spam) that influence that listing for or against. That's it. I don't think the two things are comparable at all.

 

Shygirl, I wasn't being critical of you when I said about an alternative being needed. I feel you are knee jerking a little, which is the natural reaction to potential change. in non com areas, where spam is not currently a problem with free delivery, why should it became a problem when people have to pay? What , in reality will happen is that spam to commercial areas will drop, but there will still be a massive volume of spam. The fact i s thought hat less spam will be submitted, which can only result in a better resource.

 

And why do you think that DMOZ is not commercial right now? Why do you think that AOL is supporting it? Is it because a company that has been involved in so many scandals and caused so much loss to simple investors is made of nice people who only think what is best for Internet?

Why do you think that they try to insist on a non existence copyright that caused many editors to leave? If tomorrow they decide to sell DMOZ for a large amount of money, who is going to stop them?

 

Don't worry about it, OWG. Shygirl takes everything personally.

 

Yes you're soo right Minstrel I do. Thanks for pointing that out, I'm truly humbled by your wisdom..oh and piss off you S**T-Stirring loser.

Back to polite discussion :

OWG, I didn't think I was knee jerking and it certainly wasn't meant to come across like that. I was only trying to explain logically and without emotion where I thought things would go if Dmoz was suddenly tomorrow part of a commercial directory that's all. As Minstrel so insultingly said, (well thats a change !). I do only speak for myself and my own views. I leave others to theirs also, no apologies for that I'm afraid.

And there is nothing at all there you could look at in my post and say, hmmm maybye at ? I did with yours especially the commercial and non working hand in hand. But I remain unconvinced that it would work.

And also you never said if Bruce paid you to edit or not ?

 

Nope I volunteer

 

Then what a very, very nice man you are.

Bruce gets all the money then ?

And the spam thing, I think we are in danger perhaps of getting our wires crossed. When you say spam you are thinking about simple volume of sites submitted in popular categories. Hence if a charge were levied for site revision it seems automatic and very logical to you that spam would drop.

Now I have 3 concerns as an editor with this :

1) I'm not convinced charging would deterr a lot of webmasters from trying to get their site listed any way they can. Even if it is a bit 'spammy' or not a particularly useful site. The potential (perceived) "rewards" on paying this charge in terms of possible Adsense/banner ad/affiliate returns may be worth paying any charge asked for. I'm not convinced charging would automatically mean a huge reduction in submissions for review. In fact, I'd be worried it may attract even MORE submissions with the absolute guarantee of a review once the cash changes hands ? That would be very attractive to those who want a listing. So overall, no I think charging wouldn't on the whole reduce spam too much, and in fact, may even actually increase it with the added bonus of a guarenteed site review for those that pay the fee.

2) Websites refused after payment, would not be happy bunnies. A lot of time and effort would go into explaining why the site didn't make the grade, and a lot of anger towards the editors making these decsions. Even more anger almost certainly, than the current system generates. These people have paid their cash, they'd want their money's worth. Sure you can say to you're blue in the face that the cash only goes towards the editors time in reviewing, but if the review was unfavourable ? I think a lot would find that extremely hard to accept, given the high level of discontent with the free submission model at the current time.

3) Then of course there's the commercial 'editing' thing. Would editors be paid for their time ? I know you personally do it off your own back but I cannot agree that lots of others would work voluntarily in order to generate money solely for the directory owner. I think sooner or later they'd be many voices of discontent and many asking for recompense for the time they spend editing in a commercial environment. The bigger it gets and the more money that pours in, the less willing editors would be to work for nothing.

And what of those editors with their own sites to list ? Would you let them bypass the 'revision' fee ( well, they are working for nothing ). But surely would know that NOT charging them would result in exactly the same Dmoz scenario. Ie : Lots of self interested editor applications in order to list their own sites AND ALSO, with the new charges, in order to bypass the revision fee per site as well !
And if you actually do charge editors for a review for their own site(s) despite the fact they are working for you for nothing ?. Then you risk alienating the very foundation of the directory and it's commercial viability. Those that do the reviewing. You're then seen as giving nothing back to those that help and just taking all that money from volunteer work. People aren't stupid.

The more you do the commercial thing, the more problems you encounter. Simply clearing spam by charging isn't an instant and simple solution. The potential probs above I listed are only the tip of the iceberg and only the ones I see, I'm sure others have concerns.

So, no knee jerk stuff, just an opinion on what would happen. Do you disagree with any of those basic 3 points I raised ? I'd be interested in your views on them.

 

DMOZ is about listing useful and unique information and editors use a lot of sources for that beyond submissions. Many of the useful sites are commercial. I was very happy late last year identifying and listing green energy sites - commercial but the environment is important. If there were charges for sites then editors could only list sites that paid and a lot of useful sites would never get listed. That is against DMOZ concepts.

If people paid for listings then they would expect to receive priority attention. Another basic concept is that editors edit where and when they want, not according to webmaster schedules. Try and direct DMOZ editors towards paying webmasters and it will be the quickest way to lose editors.

There are plenty of paid-for directories around. DMOZ is different and there is room for different in the marketplace. Put it up against long established paid-for directories and its inexperience will be its demise - there is no available niche there.

 

I know Brizzie, however OWG and Minstrel seem to think I'm having knee jerk reactions and getting too personal about things.

OWG interests me, he seems open to opinion and edits elsewhere in a commercial environment for no financial gain himself. Which I find hard to understand after reading the Google Adsense/ Marketing/ Affilliate/ Buy Content/ Sell Links/ .. kind of environement here.

I for one would be very interested in what he has to say in response to the points we've made, not knee jerkingly ( and that phrase sooo does NOT conjure up images of editing to me lol )... but just observational and I do honestly feel, simple logic. I'd be interested to hear otherwise.

(P.s Minstrel, no am definitely and really, REALLY not interested in another uncalled/unasked for sarcasm and 'how witty am I' sesh from you... peddle it somewhere else away from this one, cheers luv ).

 

I was just adding to your own list

 

So would you like to explain, how do the editors discover 100 of links for sites like cherry boys or other porn sites that are not accessible through the home page of these sites or any other navigational menu?

Would you like to explain what is so unique and useful in a affiliate gay porn site that according to DMOZ concept need hundreds of links while green peace only needs one link?

Are you sure they are not already paying? To put things in perspective, yahoo charges $600/ link for adults web sites, to give a porn site 100 links, it means that porn site owner had a gain of $60,000 by getting listed in DMOZ for free. What other motivation an editor can have to go and find 100 links that are hidden from public and list it while the sites that are submitted are not reviewed?

 

1) This is a possiblity, but it would mean that sites would be submitted to the correct categories if nothing else, also all the auto submissions would immediately stop. people would not be willing to pay $30 100 times, while currently they think nothing of submitting 100 spammy sites.
2) yep I agree, there will be some unhappy bunnies, there always is, again people will have to live with this.
3) The model already works with other directories. Editors not getting paid in a commercial directory. We do however have some benefits, like a skaffe blog, and free skaffe hosting etc. But I am happy with how things are there.

I did mention earlier about how it works, but will recap.

Editors CAN add sites to the index for free, in fact many do just that. the BULK of sites are free inclusions, not commercial, and there is no charge for editors adding sites, in fact we are all encouraged to do so.

I appreciate that introducing a charge will cause problems potentially, but don't you agree that as every day passes, the ODp is getting farther and farther behind in its index. I honestly can not see submissions going up if a charge is levied. Lots of people us auto submission software, and these submissions would stop overnight. Because of that the quality of submission would rise immediately.

It all boils down to one thing though, is the ODp working to an effective standard as it stands? I think most would agree that something has to be done to stop it from buckling under the sheer backlog of submissions. There is a lot of hostility against a fine instituion, and something MUST be done to deal with this. I am not saying that charging a nominal fee will cure all the ills, because it won't. But it will cut down on all the autosubmitted crap, which by itself will free up editors time. As you know it takes just as long to review a bad site as a good site. OK some sites can be rejected off the bat in the blink of an eye, but if you have 100 of these to look at, it still stops you getting to the good stuff, or adding other resources you have found.

 

Another way to restrict spam is to filter submissions. Filters certainly are used by some directories. I cannot comment on what filters the ODP may or may not be using. The technical people may understand all that. I wouldn't even if they told me. And of course they are not going to release that kind of information. But I doubt if auto-submission has worked on the ODP for years.

 

No. I am not talking about Adult, that is your obsession not mine, and constitutes less than 1% of all listings.

If you can substantiate your claims with actual real evidence rather than speculative idle rumour then submit that evidence. If not then you are all hot air and assumptions.

 

So you can not explain and you admit to corruption but it is OK because adult is 1% of all listings.

I submitted evidence many times in this forum and in different threads which you agreed that was correct and DMOZ agreed by removing the listings after the exposure but the editor is still an editor. Great abuse control system, if public finds out about an abuse, we hide it and continue with new abusive listings instead.

 

Or, just remove a word like "thinspiration" from the descriptions in the listings and no one will know what the site is really about.