Resubmit to DMOZ?

Were your feelings hurt, ST?

 

Kinda, yes! It was pretty offensive. They could have told me what the reason for their hostility was, but they chose to be evasive in their answers and then hijack my thread talking about DMOZ insider stuff which didn't help either.

 

I hate it how you can always buy your way in...
It really sucks for us little "mom & pop" businesses with practically no spending budget!

 

If you could always buy your way in, there would be a lot less complaining from webmasters and other SEO professionals.... think about that.

The reason most of them complain is because they haven't found out how to do it themselves.

I love listing true "mom & pop" businesses. I know other editors who feel the same way.

 

Once I get my mom and pop to create a website, I will contact you hehe (but I'm warning you, my parents are cheap )

 

As long as they are editors mom & pop.

 

Question for the DMOZ editors who post in these forums - everyone seems to constantly bada mouth DMOZ about time taken to approve links etc - does this get discussed among the other editors and do they actually care about this?

All I ever hear is that DMOZ are awaful at this and DMOZ are awful at that - and I tend to agree having never had any of my sites listed, however surely it would be better for the editors or even the 'big chiefs' (are there any?) at DMOZ to do something about it and get it sorted - I know everyone is a volunteer but that in some respects should mean that the quality of work output should be far higher as you actually want to edit the categories you look after and 'should' have an active interest in them.

If this is not the case the DMOZ really need to get rid of the people who are not doing the job properly and get some people in who will do the job.

anyway rant over!

 

Do you really think they give a rat's ass about you or me or anyone else? As long as they get to list all their sites and wipe out their competitors they are happy as can be...

 

Note: If I didn't give a rat's ass about anyone on here, I wouldn't bother answering.

Andy, yes, it gets discussed quite often.

And they are right, in some ways - DMOZ is absolutely awful at servicing the needs of webmasters and SEOs. I think you will find that most of the people complaining about DMOZ fall into that category. Most are also ones that haven't had their sites listed, or don't have the keywords they want.

I know this has been explained before, but rather than just abruptly referring you to some other thread, I will try to explain here (at the risk of the usual barrage of snide criticism from the usual culprits).

The ODP (DMOZ) exists as a place to catalogue what, in the opinion of editors, are worthwhile sites to visit on the web, and they are put in categories. The definition of "worthwhile" is usually unique content in some shape or form.

If I review and list 20 sites today, then the directory is 20 sites the richer. A user (either directly, or thought one of the sites that use the ODP data) has 20 more sites at their disposal. An improvement, huh? But if you are one of the site owners who has suggested a site to the ODP and it didn't get reviewed, then, in your opinion, the ODP is a failure.

Editors have decided that recipes, for example, are very specific, and get listed once per recipe in the directory (resulting in multiple listings for one site) - this infuriates the hell out of webmasters who are trying to get multiple listings for their own sites, and are being refused - they consider that unfair - there should be one rule for all, consistently applied.

Thousands of sites get added to the ODP every day. There are millions more out there which haven't been listed yet - some have been suggested to the ODP already, some are waiting to be found. From a directory perspective, it doesn't matter whether the sites were suggested directly or found by some other means - they are getting reviewed and listed.

So, when you bear in mind that, unlike other directories, the ODP is not putting itself in the primary role of website promotion (it will not guarantee review times, it will not use the keywords that the user wants, it will not create one listing for every product you sell, it will not take paid "priority" listings etc.) then the ODP, from an editor's persective, is working as designed. From the perspective of a webmaster or SEO, the ODP is a highly infuriating experience, and the editors come across as highly unco-operative and unsympathetic to their needs.

I understand the frustration, to be sure, and this is why I have tried to come on to this forum to try to explain things. I'd be the last to suggest that the ODP is totally free of bad editors and some corrupt editors. But I also wouldn't edit for an organisation that was, at its heart, corrupt. I also do what I can to dig those editors out.

The basis of the ODP is volunteerism. There is a constant review process which tries to find bad editors, and either train them (mentoring) or get rid of them. But most editors don't want to be police - they want to edit. There is a large amount of trust put into the editor's hands - if you abuse that trust you may not get found out for a while, but when you do, often the damage you have done gets corrected, and you will no longer edit again.

As for "getting someone in who will do the job" the ODP is constantly looking for good new editors to help grow the directory. There is always more to do, and they are grateful for any help doing that.

You see a lot of cynicism and bitterness of forums like this, and I fully understand where that comes from. But ask yourself what the motives of the posters are... do you feel they want to try to make the world (or the internet) a better place?

Oh, one more comment - the end or the "bringing down" of the ODP has been talked about for years, since well before I became an editor. The feedback we are getting so far, from companies like Google, shows that we are not as far off-track as some would like to paint. I read on this very forum how directories are getting "downgraded" in Google, and the speculation is because Google see that they only exist to improve link popularity of the webmaster's sites. In other posts, you see people constantly wondering how the ODP stays immune to this - working out what "trick" causes Google to not downgrade them. The evidence shows that Google sees the ODP as almost the opposite of these types of directories - a trusted source of links. I don't think there is much mystery or need for speculation - Google doesn't think all directories are equal. But there again, no-one truly knows what is going on inside Google, so my theory is only as valid as the next person's.

Let the sarcastic retorts begin

 

Most of editors have no real power. DMOZ mostly is controlled by few corrupt individuals and that is the reason even if you see many editors here, as soon as you try to discuss anything serious with specific examples of corruption, they turn dumb & deaf, because they know with smallest critic of the internal corruption they will be thrown out.

 

gworld, as you know, I agree with a lot of your criticisms of DMOZ and you also know that I'm no fan of most of what goes on at DMOZ, their business practices, or even the flawed concept on which it is based.

That said, I think you are being a little unfair to Alucard. This is of course my opinion only -- I don't know the man personally at all or anything about him beyond what he has posted here at DP -- but I do believe that unlike most DMOZ editors he has made and continues to make an honest effort to address some of the issues and criticisms that are raised about DMOZ on forums like this.

I find his candor refreshing and a welcome change from the usual canned responses or condescending verbal put-downs that one sees from most DMOZ editors.

 

Are there any editor's left at DMOZ? most of the dose'nt seem to have been updated for month's...

 

minstrel, I suppose we have to agree to disagree. In my opinion Alucard is just a smarter version of cbp which makes him more dangerous since some people can believe that he is honest.

You can see the list of very simple specific questions about porn and DMOZ that I asked in a previous thread and as soon as the topic became specific, he refused to answer.

DMOZ and Porn

 

Never hurt me before I was added to DMOZ and never helped after being included. Waste of time as far as I'm concerned. Lots of hoopla about nothing!

 

lol gworld dont listen to minstrel he has no idea what he is talking about. He even banned a friend of mine from his forum for correcting him, this guy has problems. minstrel believes that dynamic urls are spidered just as much as static urls, he doesnt realize that google doesnt spider dynamic links much in order to prevent servers from crashing. He didnt even know what a dynamic link was and said that mod_rewrite for urls was a waste of time lol. When someone corrected him of this minstrel banned the guy from his forum. I found it amusing to find him on this site trying to argue with someone else as well, I suppose that is just the way he is so I wouldnt pay any attention to what he says.

 

There are several thousand sites being added every day. Those are being added by editors. So I would say "yes", in answer to your question.

 

From other threads:

I will answer someone who I can help with their answers - someone who truly wants answers.

What Gworld thinks of me for not giving him more stuff he can use in his self-proclaimed quest to bring down the ODP is up to him.

 

Try to at least get your facts straight, David76.

 

Alucard

when i said "I am not looking for answer from editors", you know very well what kind of answers editors like you provide, direct quote from DMOZ TOS, or re-wording of it.
I may also add in what way have you been nice or done anything good? Did you fight the corruption in DMOZ? Did you correct anything in DMOZ? May be you think that we should be thankful that a DMOZ editor gives us the honor to repeat the DMOZ TOS for us mortals?
Please, please answer my question about porn in DMOZ, you and other editors jimnoble, macdeesign, sarahk,... were arguing all the time in that thread before I asked the specific question and then there was silence.
Please tell us the child porn, rape and torture porn, breaking the American law by not having 2257 statement for the porn sites listed in DMOZ is not good, or may be you support this and that is the reason you don't want to answer.
please enlighten us mortals how having 100's of links to the same rape and torture web site is so beneficial for the users of Internet.

 

OK, let's quote a little more of what you said, then...

Like I said, I am not going to just help you in your quest. You will have to find others who will give you the materials you are seeking.

And if you know very well what kind of answers editors "like me" (whatever you mean by that) provide, then why keep on asking?

I have tried to reply to threads in this forum like a civilized, respectful human being to valid concerns and misunderstandings which webmasters and other web professionals have about the ODP. Based on feedback I have received from many, this has been a welcome change on this forum.

Yes, I have done, and am doing so right now.

Yes, that is the biggest part of what I choose to do with my editing time.

No, I'm not asking anyone to be thankful for me for anything. I am doing my best. If that makes some people happy, good. If it makes the ODP a better directory, good. If it makes some people frustrated, well, I'm sorry, but like I said, I am doing my best.

I have already given you all the answers I am going to give you on that topic - I told you as much in that thread. Asking it several times, and harping on about it in various threads will not make me say any more. You didn't like the answer, ok, that is your perogative. It sounds like you have already come to a conclusion about what the ODP is and nothing any editor can say will change your mind.

Once we realised that the discussion was going nowhere, yes.