Post Site in DMOZ

CBP doesn't say that he is doing anything special - he indicates that that is a policy (perhaps unofficial) for DMOZ editors. He has made this very clear in numerous posts. Perhaps he means it as a "mental note" type of punishment ("This guy has resubmitted so put him to lowest priority") but he has been very clear on this point.

I don't think any of us ever doubted that editors are (mostly) nice to other editors. That doesn't alter the fact that at RZ they are intolerably rude and condescending to anyone not in "the club".

Perhaps you should spend more time in the RZ and/or on other forums. This is no exaggeration or invention on my part: Editors have repeatedly posted comments to the fact that certain categories have not been updated in 2 or 3 years because they already have enough sites in that category -- one recent example of this statement was by several editors in a thread (I think at RZ but possibly on another forum) about why new real estate sites weren't being added. I believe one of the comments was "Because there are already 185 (or some number) sites in that category and how many does anyone need?".

It's refreshing to know that some of the claims of DMOZ editors do not reflect DMOZ policy. But at the same time it's rather discouraging to think that so many of the editors are apparently creating unofficial policies and enforcing them.

 

I've just spent an hour reading and searching the RZ and couldn't find anything. If you have it handy could you post a link? If not, thats ok I believe you.

But if your reffering to instances like the real estate directory dicussion, to me it's a grey area, but to other editors it is black and white.....Dmoz requirements state tthe site needs orignal/unique content. The hardcore word for word following editors, would perhaps not add any more directory sites because maybe the properties in those directories are found on many of the other already listed directory sites. There for, there is really not much unique content compared to the sites already listed. First come first serve. That is the argument that is raising the bar for directories to be included in the ODP, (so stated by an editor in one of those RZ threads.) I agree, but feel bad because the work a webmaster put into the design of his site and he/she feels that it is different than the rest. Well technically it is different, but the content is not that different.

If there were 200 directory sites that only listed widgets applying for submition to the ODP and all the widget manufactures added their listings to every one of those 200 directories, should those 200 directories be considered to contain unique content and get listed in the ODP.

That is the argument those editors are making...why would a Dmoz surfer need to sort through 200 listing of the same content?

So when the only submissions a category is recieving is duplicate content, the ditors discuss and sometime decide to close a category from new additions.

The gray area for me is...to me the features of those sites would be the uniqueness and I would tend to list them as long as they a few different contents also. But I can't change the rules so I have to follow rules as instructed by the more experienced editors.

The problem is the variance of human interpritation of the guidelines. Some are stricter than others. And this will never change because everyoone has their own opinions of what the rules really mean, a general statement or word for word.

And because every webmaster builds their website different, we have to interputate the rules and use our own judgement (this is where the agruments all lead to and stem from and nothing we do can change this). It would be nice if the rules stated x number of articles, x number of pages, x number of photos to be included, but that is not possible with the variable of human built websites and human managed directories.

It is not just ODP, it is most every human directory. I just read a complaint about a rejection from a Digi Pt member's directory. One of the same complaints as at DMOZ. this Thread here It is a small complaint now, but if Bobby's directory grew to 1,000,000 sites and had 1,000's per day submitted, you would start to see all the same arguments as with ODP. People will start to call Bobby's editors corrupt, rude (well maybe not rude, as he has auto replies), and self-proclaiming gods of the internet.

(Lots of sites=lots of variables + lots of editors=lots of variables + lots of people interacting=madness) Total=world of complete and everlasting unrest and conflict.

Later,
Rob

 

dmoz seems to take forever to actually enter the site. Anyone else experience this?

 

How much unique content can a real estate directory have? I mean, they sell buildings and property, right? I'm not in that industry but the logic seems to me to be grossly unfair and that is what people who ARE in the industry are pointing out: Why should somebody who managed to find a sympathetic editor in 1997, or who knows someone who is or knows an editor, be given the advantage over his/her competitors of a DMOZ listing (see below)?

I think if the DMOZ is to meet its obligations to its mission and to the internet community, it MUST be impartial and inclusive rather than exclusive. I don't mean it should have to list all sites but it should list all sites that meet the DMOZ criteria, if only to be fair. As I have said elsewhere, the problem is that it is an impossible task for human editors to keep up with the number of new and deserving sites being created every year. That would be okay if DMOZ clearly stated the following:

Instead, what DMOZ states is this:

But the statements of its editors are at odds with those official statements -- its not about "keeping only the best content" if the true policy is "first come first serve", is it? And as for link rot, DMOZ can't even keep up with link rot in its own directory...

The difference, as you and everyone else well knows, is that Google doesn't feed its directory from that DigitalPoint member's directory, so if Bobby's editors are rude or corrupt, people stop submitting and go somewhere else. And I think you also know that the only thing propping DMOZ up at this point is that Google connection.

 

I have read this whole thread. Very good thread. The best I have ever seen when it comes to discussion DMOZ issues.
I have submitted sitetutor.com 20 times between 2002 and 2004 and have been red tagged for it. Too bad it happened before the new content got up, huh?

One thing I myself am tired of is self serving behaviour. I see it on both sides. And once again, RZ is not an example of the average DMOZ editor. I have just seen Will's post about Hutchensen's personal life, wow, scarry to find out what can be found out about someone.
I am not surprised it has come to this. I have PMed Hutchensen on RZ to show him and also mentioned that he has some explaining to do about his behaviour.

It does not have anything to do with "Why is my site not in" but with what he has been displaying which is completely unacceptable behaviour. The fact that he has labelled himself as a Christian reminds me why I have not attended service in so long.
people who use positions trying to make others feel guilty.

Just like the 3/day spammers don't show themselves in the RZ, the good editors are usually far away from the RZ as well. It is a war zone there. Not something anyone wants to get caught up in.

If Hutchensen can run the RZ and have some sort of support from editors enjoying his grandstanding, that is very very sad and should not be supported by DMOZ.
I am no longer participating in the bashing because I have seen the good and the bad and I cannot make it a DMOZ editor specific issue. And if you guys think everything is united between editors, you are wrong. There are flamewars going on in the editor only part of the RZ. Editors having senior editors (or whatever they call them) overwrite their editing and so on.


Another thing is that some get very sucked in over there and on a one on one basis they act very differently than they do on when it comes to uniting against people who remind them of the ones who cannot give up trying to get their sites listed.

I have once posted on a forum saying I was looking for good internet marketing related sites because I am editing this category for JoeAnt. What I was looking for was good, quality weblogs and sites such as DazzlingDonnas blog. Next thing I knew I was being PMed with commercial sites which didn't meet the restrictions for being commercial (such as having to have 2 forms of contact visible etc.) and one of my inclusions was overwritten. After that the follow up PMs followed and I was about to be argued with over regulations I cannot control and let me tell you: I can feel the frustration and can only imagine what it must be like dealing with this everyday.
About first come first serve:

Well , some of us got online early and have an advantage, such as the guys registering domains like business.com back in the days.

Thas life.

I have to say, the Hutchensens and the spammers equally should be put in the same category. Everyone is selfish to some extent but what matters is pinpointing the bad apples and help wheating them out.
That is all I have to say.

Mike

 

Where is this?

 

http://dmoz.org/profiles/hutcheson.html

Do you still think the DMOZ editors disapprove of this guy, Tutor?

And... he's a Christian! Talk about living your beliefs, eh?

I wonder if he can even see the irony of the discrepancy between what he says in his "autobiography" here and his actual behavior...