Open directory submission

Yes. Everybody can. The one big thing about DMOZ is the fact that is all free. I advice you to read http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html

 

That statement isn't wrong. I have over 40 sites. The ODP doesn't turn down people solely because they operate other sites. I didn't apply for a category that was related to any category I have sites in, but they state they will accept those that do. Personally, it is my opinion that they are apt to be more suspect of people who apply and say they are not associated with any sites.

I highly doubt the people you know were told they were turned down because they owned, or used to own, retail sites. I think that is pure speculation and certainly goes against DMOZ's stated policy.

People forget is that "DMOZ" is a large operation and operated by individuals who have wide ranges of opinions of what is acceptable and what isn't. As with any operation, there are bound to be corrupt and honest people, strict and more lenient.

Because there are so many people who want to become editors just to list their own sites, they have to be suspect of everyone that applies. I sure a lot of people with honest intentions have been rejected, just as I am sure some people with less than honest motives have been accepted.

I would guess the majority of people who are rejected didn't take enough time to properly fill out the application, failed to list sites they own (they log ip addresses), had spelling errors, did give list a compelling reason for wanting to be an editor, or submitted sites in their application that weren't right for the category they submitted. It takes a few hours to properly research and fill out an application (at least for me). Over 1/3 of the submissions I have seen were made to the wrong category, and the vast majority didn't meet DMOZ listing guidelines. Part of the blame lies with DMOZ itself because it doesn't do a very good job of stating to the public what is acceptable and what isn't. Heck, it doesn't even make it very clear to editors once they have been accepted.

I am not a blind DMOZ supporter- wouldn't even consider myself a supporter. I DO now have a better understanding of DMOZ after I've seen it from the "inside". I know I wouldn't want the job of trying to determine if a person who applied to be an editor was being honest or not. Perhaps a better system would be to accept more editors, but have a different checks in place to cut down on abuse? I don't know the answer, but I do know that the current system isn't working very well. Having a system that can takes years to review a site only encourages the wrong type of people to apply out of frustration. I still believe DMOZ made a big mistake in discontinuing status checks or not at least letting someone know when a site has been rejected.

If someone has been rejected for becoming an editor, they can always apply again. There isn't a single person making the decisions and I'm sure identical applications might be rejected by one editor and accepted by another.

All I know for sure is that DMOZ is a frustration for everyone involved, both on the inside and the outside. I'm glad I took the time to become an editor, although I certainly have better things to do than donate all my free time to reviewing sites. For those honest editors who do donate considerable time to something they believe in, my hats off to them.

 

LOL, and how many operations have failed for refusing to change a policy that no longer works? How many that have adapted to change have succeeded? Where are all those those ISP's who said they would "never charge" for access? Women were never allowed to vote at one time too....

And DMOZ modifies their policy from time to time.... as recently as a week ago. Didn't you get the email?