Introduction: I wanted one of my sites to be listed in Dmoz and didn't want to wait (I had waited something like 14 months before two my other sites were listed). So I found the contacts of an editor, wrote to him and - thanks Jesus - he was in good mood, so we talked over ICQ and he helped me to find the best category and added my site. It took less then 24h from the time I typed "dmoz.org" in my browser and till the link to my site became live on Dmoz! The story: on one forum we have been discussing my site with somebody, and the person said that my site sucks and it's a link farm or MFA or whatever. I told him that a link farm wouldn't have been accepted to Dmoz, and he answered: "Huh, I know a lot of link farms in Dmoz listed there only because site owners made friends with the editor". I beleive this is nonsence. I have never seen a bad quality site in ODP, have you? Is it really possible that Dmoz editors cheat? I thought they have very strict rules and are being controlled by each other so they can't add shit.
The public documents give plenty of information about what sites should not be listed in the ODP: "Sites Generally Not Included". Unfortunately sometimes they are listed in error, due to carelessness, ignorance, or in some cases deliberately bad editing (which itself can have many causes). The idea that all the owners of all "unlistable" sites have made friends with individual editors seems terribly unlikely, when simple editorial ignorance is a much more believable scenario; but regardless of how they came to be listed, we do try to find such sites and remove them as soon as possible. Editor education is an ongoing procedure, and very time-consuming, so in a volunteer organisation there will always be some people who do not get the help they need. But we do our best. If you know of any such sites which should not be listed, please tell us!
makrhod, thanks for an excelent reply! I personally have never seen any inappropriate sites in Dmoz. I myself am appliying to become an editor (for the second time already) so I have carefully read the guidelines and the differences between editor types. Surely I will let now if I see some spam in the ODP.
You're very welcome. Your English seems to be very good, so I hope you have read some of the resources available (mainly in English) to help people with applications. In particular, please remember to address any issues raised in the feedback you received last time. Good luck!
makrhod, I am from Ukraine and am applying to one of the local categories in my native language. But I still have read the publications in English as well. The reason they gave me last time they rejected my application was that they are going to re-structure the whole category and the sub-category I applied to is probably going to be eliminated, so they suggested me to re-apply for another category.
@MokricaIrina Well thats good news, it just means that you should apply for a different category, perhaps something that you do as a hobby, a sport, or an issue in which you have an interest. This will allow you to learn and improve your editing skills and who knows, before long you may well be helping in the cat restructure that was mentioned. And dont worry about not getting approved first time I would hate to admit how many times i applied before the application was accepted. ........But i'm so happy it was, its fun, its interesting and being part of the community is personally rewarding.
I promise not to tell. The important thing is that snooks (and many others) learned from the feedback and went on to become accepted as valuable contributors.
Btw , MokricaIrina ... which website of yours is listed , which could also be considered as MFA ? Since you are applying to be an Editor , I am sure you would not want the Directory to be involved with such a website - thus providing wrongful content to the web visitor ?
websys, One site listed is a site of my partner for whom I am doing SEO and link building. This is an online shop that sells goods and makes money in such a way. There's some minor adsens under the site menu so it could definitely not be considered MFA. Another site (the one they accepted during 24h) has no adsense on it at all (no other context ads as well). I wrote "MFA" here meaning sites that are (maybe, I don't know) listed in Dmoz, also meaning doorways and so on, not only those made only for AdSense. So no adequate person would consider my sites to be MFAs.
If you are so certain that it can not be considered as MFA , why not post it as well ? It would be also interesting the learn about the editors who find about new sites from a messenger chat , i am sure as well . Since you raised the question , of Dmoz editors cheating and non Dmoz editors being blackballed
@ websys What are you fishing for? Very few people choose to mention their url and i dont think baiting a poster is particularly benifical.
snooks , i believe the story in item0 is actually something different from what is being told as a matter of fact , i don't believe there "was" a story .
Can't you respect his confidentiality guidelines? A site was listed though IM, which could get the editor in trouble. I've the sneaking hunch that you are trying to weed out the editor here rather then the page in question. And as for DMOZ listing MFA sites? Sure they do, check out the adult section... Outside of Adult? That answer lies someplace between not likely and not often. Though you can find them, but those are generally bought/sold sites that just have not been re-reviewed. While yes they were added by an editor, chances are they were NOT added as they stand today.
I don't know much more about it. simple and straight forward question... Is it still possible to get listed in Dmoz ethically.
If you mean is it possible for a site to be listed in DMOZ without any cost, then the answer is a loud and definite YES!!! Many hundreds of sites are added every single day, all over the directory, completely free of charge. That's what volunteers do - we find sites and we list them. However, if you are asking whether it is possible to "get" your site listed through some action of your own, then I'm afraid the answer is no. Only editors can list sites, and the suggestions made by non-editors are nothing more than one place volunteers can look for sites if they want to. The ODP is not a listing service, but we appreciate your contribution as it will make it easier for editors to find your site if they choose to look at the collection of suggestions.
While it does not really need a second, I know that a few people out there are hesitant to listen to editors over such matters, so take it from an ex-ed... makrhod is correct! Most of the daily additions to the ODP are on the up and up, so that does make the majority within it sites truly worthy of being there. 2+2? become an editor+list own site? Again, makrhod is correct. Submit and forget, or forget to submit... sometimes the wait time is exactly the same. Its really sad it has to be that way.
To answer your question , Q ... and also of snooks maybe ... I am not saying that there can not be corrupt editors . Mind you , listing a site through suggestions of IM may or may not be a violation - I don't have any comment for that . But my feelings are the thread was started in a roundabout way of saying I hate that i could not get more listings through submissions. It's like saying "I bought a new Sony Vaio laptop , but i wont show you the laptop or its pictures !! " ( Why : Because there is not any )
Thank you for clarifying... though regardless of whether the thread was started in honesty or not, I don't think we will ever have a real clue. I know if I was the OP, I'd certainly not mention the site(s), especially with an editor trying to get the information out of me. I also feel that it's the OP's responsibility to offer up the proof, as that does seem to be best form, though again, at what cost? Possibly getting the site removed? Maybe even getting a decent editor canned? If the editor was canned do you think the meta team would be forth coming in their evidence of corruption? Heh, I've seen editors get canned for various reasons with no evidence because of confidentiality guidelines... so I guess this paradox is best left with introducing pot & kettle to each other Though, here is a thread to semi-support what you've said: listed in 24 hours