Resigned -

That perhaps some like you and gworld spout rather a lot of it ?

Bordering on the obsessive I'd say IMHO. I feel sorry for those who have nothing much else going on in life that they spend their time getting so ridiculously het up over something.

Especially as all the numerous and exhaustive posts and observations you make on the subject (while very well thought out) are probably, pretty much, in the broad scheme of things... a waste of time and effort.

Hmmm mine too come to that...

(Shrugs)

 

Don't like these threads, shygirl? Don't read 'em. Problem solved.

 

And after reading every single post in this entire thread and being thouroughly disgusted I have chosen this remark to make my comments against.

Bradly...this is the root of the problem. Companies like Yahoo, Google, or whoever have share holders to answer to. They maximize their work for the highest dividend. We all understand that clearly. DMOZ maximizes their directory based on "volunteer free" editors. It's total crap. DMOZ editors imho are hugely corrupt and only care about their own pockets or their power. It's very obvious to anyone not a dmoz editor that the directory editors are corrupt junkies high on their own stench. Sure I bet there are a few good ones out there. But like the OP I bet they get fed up fast and leave. DMOZ really doesn't answer to anyone like a corporation would have to. DMOZ has a power over people sort of like a government. We can only bitch and moan from this side of the fence. If DMOZ was a publicly traded company it would be a penny stock for sure. I think the more vile thing is that DMOZ does very little to create checks and balances on it's editors. Basically once you get in your part of the club. Where are the standards for listing a site? I think they don't exist in reality and you can surely quote me some rule about a standard I know it's not followed. The months and months it takes for sites to be added is total garbage. A site should be rejected within a week and if approved listed within 30 days. The rules at DMOZ need to be changed becuase it has lost the faith of the community. Sad that no one at DMOZ really cares what people outside of it's ranks thinks or cares. Do they ever ask us how DMOZ could be better? NOPE. Do they ever change? NOPE. They just get more and more corrupt with every year. The listing is also less and less relevant every year. DMOZ is crap and I don't even bother trying to get listed seriously...oh sure..go fill out that form and say a quick prayer but in the end it's not worth caring about. Sorry but applying to get into DMOZ with a legit site shouldn't be a freaking gamble.

Isn't DMOZ even remotely concerned of the appearance of corruption and how people percieve the project? WHO THE HELL IS IN CHARGE THERE! I suspect no one and everyone. Accountability really is the problem.

I wish webmasters would join together in signing a petition asking google and any other search engine that uses DMOZ to drop it's listings entirely. It would basically end the projects power and only then might real change take place.

Well my 2 cents are spent hope you enjoyed the read.

 

That's the problem - you're on the outside pissing in, and you don't even know what you're pissing on - you just assume the worst because, unlike reasonable people, for you, what you 'know' > fact-based truth. And people say we're arrogant!

The guidelines are there for all to see.

Since you obviously know about it, could you please detail for us the system of checks and balances in place then?

You are ignoring the fact that submissions are simply SUGGESTIONS and that an editor can theoretically do an outstanding job without ever looking at a single submission.

We get through submissions with dilligence and care and unpaid effort; it's not a 9-to-5, 5 day a week job. Is it really fair to tell any volunteer in any organisation that he HAS to volunteer/work as much time as will be necessary to meet a certain target? Of course not! I would very much like it if submissions were reviewed that fast, but you have no idea how much junk submissions people send us every goddamn day. It never ends. The solution, then, is to make Google less of a honeypot; hopefully you guys can campaign google to drop us from their directory (not that I can see from their point of view why they'd do so, but hey, we can hope)

As for the targets you set - why in your ideal scenario do approvals take so much longer than deletions?

my very presence here surely disproves that. There's certainly no other incentive for me or the eother editors to be here. I understand DMOZ has a bad public image; just look at how much illusion and impression instead of logic and reasoning are behind the anger you and others show towards it - if there isn't real reasoning behind no liking something, then it's a case of bad image causing lack of trust.

 

It should be about DMOZ, you made it personal, that's were the problem was. Please don't do it again.

Yes, you do comment on my posting, that's where this all started.

I agree, you have finally done what I asked, I consider the accusations retracted and the problem resolved. Please don't start up again and we'll be fine.

 

I have volunteer staff on many of my sites and if they don't login, post, or contribute in a certain time frame I replace them. Yeah it's fair to ask those that volunteer to actually freaking do the work!

I knew you would tell me about your "guidelines" which of course I already knew of. But those are crap and don't seem to be followed too often and don't seem to be applied regularly.


I like how you ignore the basic thought of my post. DMOZ having zero accountability and only answers to itself. I love it how DMOZ editors can't accept ANY damn criticism of it's system. You people swear that when DMOZ rules were made that god himself wrote them. WTF...how about some changes that would help CURB the crap. You ignore my sentences on the importance of perception because you truely don't give a rats ass what I think. You just don't like me talking bad about DMOZ. Not that you will really DO anything about the complaints or problems. Sure you guys fight corruption wherever you find it...blah blah...how about setting things up so that corruption can't even occur?

Like every new link must be triple approved? Like every removal must be double approved? Like actually having a first in first out queue? Yeah I said it..it's a FREAKING QUEUE! You people make me sick to my stomach. You're pathetic to say the very least. If you were freaking starving in the desert I wouldn't give you my spit.

This is how most webmasters feel about DMOZ editors and the sad part is that you jerks don't even care.

You're the editor..enlighten us oh wise one. How about you freaking tell me the checks and balances that are suppose to be in place?

I mention perception as being important but you didn't quote that now did you? You say we (me) are ignorant and that people call you arrogant. Well inform us better and get rid of our ignorance...then maybe you wouldn't be so damn arrogant.

 

OK.
As I understand there are 2 possibilities for a DMOZ editor to be corrupt.
1) he is being paid by webmasters to list their site - this means also the webmasters are corrupt
2) he is giving favor to his own site (and of his friends) - so besides being an editor he is also a webmaster who is corrupt

Solution:
a) we close down the possibility to suggest sites - there are corrupt webmasters among the people suggesting sites
b) we eliminate the possibiity to communicate with editors - in this way corrupt webmasters can't contact editors
c) we don't allow webmasters to become an editor - if you aren't a corrupt webmaster you can't favor your own sites

Now I think of it. The only people being corrupt are webmasters.
Not all webmasters ofcourse.

 

That is far from an exhaustive list, of course. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you realize that.

To start with, add:

3) he is using his position as a DMOZ editor for personal gain or profit (cf. macdesign)

That's probably not a bad idea and it's been suggested before - and dismissed. Given that fact, it's kind of a stupid thing for you to post, don't you think?

 

Eek we're off again on the corruption thing.

The majority of editors are not web professionals, they are teachers, priests, librarians, students, retirees, military, postal workers, public servants, doctors, stay at home parents, and so on. Some are IT professionals unrelated to the Internet. Some dabble in web design, a very small number make their living from it. The way people talk here you imagine a community of self-interested web designers and SEOs but nothing could be further from the truth.

Since their introduction last year Admins are in charge of day to day running of the operation and they are 8 volunteers chosen in part for their lack of connections to Internet business. Admins ultimately decide who gets to be editall and meta, the roles with the real power to abuse if they go bad. Admins have been very very careful, to the point of frustrating many, but I don't think they have made any mistakes since they took over last year. They are still finding their feet somewhat but are beginning to make an impact that is not yet visible externally.

Above the Admins now, and preceding the Admin system, is Netscape, part of AOL Time Warner, a publicly accountable company. They don't interfere in day to day operations but it is their product, they are the owners, and they can and will intervene if something is against their interests. That they are more or less invisible means they must be pretty satisfied that it not a hotbed of corruption. DMOZ answers to the management, board and shareholders of AOL Time Warner. At any time they can pull the plug on the servers and abandon the project if DMOZ ceases to account to them properly.

As has been said a submission is merely a suggestion and carries no more weight than the 500 million other sites not submitted/suggested but which may be additions that are actually better. The best sites we list quite often have never been submitted. But it is more than that. DMOZ is not a listing service for webmasters. Never has been and never will be. Webmasters are suppliers of materials and send us that material on spec, no-one forces them to. There is a big difference between being a supplier and being a customer. Webmasters are the former not the latter. You know those insurance companies that send you letters about their policies their researchers are certain are absolutely perfect for you - but you didn't ask them to send you the details. Are you obliged to make a decision on their policy within their timeframe? Are you obliged to even read the letter in their timeframe? How would you feel about getting harangued and insulted if you didn't? Because, whether you think it is right or wrong, that is the reality - a submission is a speculative mailshot to editors. There are commercial website listing services where webmasters are the customers, there is competition, take your pick, not every directory has to work on the same model.

DMOZ has never sought the faith of the webmaster community. It was never ever aimed at the webmaster community. It's target is the Internet surfer community and you rarely hear complaints from that community - we act as their website spam filter and like any spam filter some crap always gets through so we refine and refine.

Yes editors are concerned that on the whole there is very little corruption yet the believe persists that it is widespread. Yes editors are interested in how the project is perceived because it is clear there is a big misunderstanding that we are somehow serving webmasters and interested in their interests. Somewhere along the line we are miscommunicating and by coming to forums like this one we can try and set the record straight for the few reading the threads but more importantly take away information and look at how we are presenting ourselves and all the information we publish about ourselves.

No, you are right there. But that is because what you (webmasters) want from DMOZ it can't and won't deliver. There are others out there who will give you want you want but DMOZ is not targetted at you. It is like alcoholics demanding the Salvation Army consult them about their selection of music for the Sunday march.

Actually yes, there are a lot of projects going on to make editing more efficient and the directory easier to use. For our users that is - the Internet surfers. The information we pick up from DP and elsewhere also enables us to look at other things and I am sure at some point we will look at making things clearer for submitters as it is the cause of much misunderstanding.

I'm pleased to hear it - it may relieve the passionate hatred many webmasters have for DMOZ and the effect that has on blood pressures.

Obviously we do allow webmasters to become editors but there is something called an Affiliations Database. Every website with which an editor is associated (not just owns or maintains) must be declared as an affiliation. Most editors use the database though if they have concerns they can use other methods as long as they do fully declare. Failure to declare an affiliation will result in removal of the editor's account. That ensures the editor cannot favour an affiliated site and there is a punative penalty for trying to skirt around the control. I believe a number of editors refused to declare and are no longer editors.

Not true. What you think tells me we are getting our communications wrong, that we have really fouled up on explaining what we are, what we do, and what we aren't and what we don't do. I care, most of us care, that we have given you an incorrect impression somewhere and we want to solve that.

When an editor is inexperienced or their activities are in any slight way suspect then each new link they add and each removal is very closely scrutinised by multiple editors and if it is wrong then the decision is reversed instantly. As they gain experience and trust the checks will diminish but at all times every decision ever taken by every editor is contained in logs that are available to scrutiny by every other editor. Logs cannot be in any way amended or otherwise tampered with.

The first in first out idea relating to the lists of unreviewed sites is impractical for all sorts of reasons. But from a conceptual level it does not fit in with our mission and objectives to operate in this way. Lets say you have a legitimate travel booking service. To get to your site we have to process tens of thousands of spam sites that submitted the day before you did. Instead of doing that we go straight to your site and list it, leaving the spam in place. That is totally fair to the legit webmaster. We might also give preference to submissions where the submitter has clearly read and absorbed the guidelines on how and what to submit. That is fair on those who have taken the time to do that isn't it?

We try but it quite often ends up in a shouting match and everyone storming off muttering obscenities under their breath. It would be nice to break the cycle. But that does to a large extent rely on people actually listening to what DMOZ is about, what is does, etc. and most importantly accepting that it is not service for webmasters and that webmasters are the suppliers not the customers. If webmasters can grasp that then there is a common reference point for webmasters and editors from which to move forward. As a webmaster your objective is to get DMOZ to "buy" your site as good material for our users, the surfers, and you aren't going to get much constructive advice from the buyers if you start ranting at them and calling them all names under the sun. We're very happy to tell people what we're looking for and how to present your material to us but it's a no obligation deal on both sides - you don't have to suggest your site, we don't have to take that suggestion up - there will never be any compromise on that aspect.

 

Ditto perhaps for you ? Because it's all too obvious to all here that YOU absolutely love them, which was my point.

A bit obsessive really, if you were to stop and think about it, every thread here on DMOZ you are straight in there with 'cool calm and collected 'observations'... ( none of which are based on anything really worth geting your knickers in a twist over, ...especially when you have self confessedly got no sites that inclusion bothers you much about ???)

You should stop getting involved Minstrel, these threads are nothing to do with you, you are neither an editor, a wannabe editor OR a webmaster who is upset because their site isn't listed.

You just don't 'like' DMOZ apparently. Well ok.. that's fine with us/me and the world in general. We all have our little 'annoyances'. Made your point (ad nauseum) . Move on ?

You surely have so much better things to do ? Your website and personal forum are great ! Why not concentrate on those ?

Yes you should.

Then you might not have so much of a problem either. ( I will if you do ! )

Or perhaps you protest a little too much ??

You expect an awful lot of justification from editors, and they do try to give it no matter what the flak. Shame you're not willing, and no-one here has actually asked you yet, to justify yourself, and just exactly what it is about Dmoz that gets you so *personally* antsy pantsy ? Given you have no vested interests.

You don't like Dmoz... and ????

 

Sorry. None of the above.

<edit: misread that "neither as "either" - correction: you are correct - I am none of the above>

As for "these threads are nothing to do with you", I'll remind you (again) that this is not the Resourceless Zone. You don't make the rules here. I'll post where and what I choose to post. If that bothers you, move on. Who's forcing you to read any thread at all here at DP, let alone this one?

 

Ditto, absolutely.

No-one forces you either. I'm just the same as you. I take an *interest* just as much you do. Nothing wrong in that.

So I have as much right to read and post as you do.

I'm sorry if it offends you personally that I'm here reading and posting my personal take on things, but thats just exactly what you do too isn't it ?

 

Huh?

I don't care whether you read or post in these threads or not. A page ago you were, I thought, offering the opinion that they were worthless or pointless:

THAT was when I posted:

Again, I choose to read and reply to these threads about DMOZ. If you want to do the same - hey, knock yourself out! Fine with me...

 

You're dodging a very deliberate question, and in so doing highlight the point I was making: you spout all this stuff like you know it to be fact, but in reality, you're just mouthing off without having a clue what you're on about! No shit we have an image problem - whatever it is we're doing wrong, it's somehow sending the loonies after us. You should leave the DMOZ criticism - which we actually care about - to people whose heads are squarely on their shoulders. Coz all you're achieving is diluting the signal to noise ratio here, and it's doesn't help anyone.

 

I was very impressed by brizzie's remarks. Then of course I had to read what you said bradley. I think part of what DMOZ is doing wrong is letting people like you speak on it's behalf. Brizzie was polite and outlined solid information to rebuttle much of what I said. I even learned from his post. However your post is offensive. I think your post bradley is part of the problem and why others like myself believe that dmoz editors have an elitist attitude.

Brizzie..thank you for your post. It made me realize that at least some of the editors have the proper attitude.

 

I'm going to put on my Internet surfer hat for a moment. I'd consider myself more of a web surfer than webmaster anyway.

How is DMOZ useful to me? I don't currently use it to find information, and wonder if I'm missing out on anything.

 

Good point..I can't remember when the last time it was that I actually used the DMOZ (if I ever did) to find results. The only relevance it has is that google pulls data from it.

 

Can you show me anyone who is not a DMOZ editor who uses DMOZ to find anything?

I don't think "the internet surfer community" has ever even heard of DMOZ.

 

Webmasters trying to get into the index and checking the competition out.

 

Okay. Touche...

Or webmasters trying to see if they have a listing yet