Stop defending DMOZ

Excuse me?

 

sridhar, I think from reading this thread, the general tone and the point you are trying to make is moderately obvious (at least it is to me, YMMV, of course).

You haven't got your site listed in a time that you feel is appropriate. You feel you have been wronged. (this is all prior to you creating this thread, but evidence at Resource Zone shows this).

You have come up a with a list of ways how, in your opinion, the ODP should/must improve and, thinking you were speaking with the voice of everyone that isn't an ODP editor, you created this thread.

I, and other editors challenged your suggestions, asking you to clarify how you feel the solutions you proposed would improve the ODP. You have chosen to ignore those discussions completely. Instead you make a flippant comment about editors who you feel should resign, which got replied to in a similarly flippant manner. You then, in the very next post, started your personal attack against that editor, an attack which you have taken to Resource Zone.

Editors have shown how your allegations are unfounded, and yet you insist on continuing to attack that editor.

I don't think you are really interested in having a discussion about how to improve the ODP or discuss its shortcomings in any way, because every discussion leads back to you complaining about your own site not being listed.

 

sridhar kondoji your questions are invalid because you have yet again shown complete lack of understanding for how DMOZ works. Not how you would like it to work maybe but that is tough. There are a million or more sites that have been suggested to DMOZ that have not yet been reviewed. A majority of those are spam, maybe as much as 99% in some categories. But suggestions are just that, suggestions. They do not carry any more weight or priority than any other sites published on the Internet. It is merely a way for people to perhaps bring the site to an editor's attention but the editor is not obliged to even look at the suggestions. Some editors use them as a source for listings, some don't, some mix it up a bit. I find most of the sites I list via search engines, newspapers, and the TV. Rarely have I even looked at a list of suggested sites in the last 12 months and then it has only been to remove obvious spam or to deal with updates to URLs. And the order in which sites are reviewed when someone does look at the pool of unreviewed sites bears no relation to when they were suggested in most cases. Because the oldest suggestion may not look the most promising in terms of a listing. And that is what we edit to do - list sites. So we'll pick sites whose owners have carefully followed the guidelines when describing their sites. Or maybe ones where the description indicates something interesting about the content.

So an editor has to clear all sites waiting for review before dealing with one they are associated with? I would need to clear a million sites or more before I could list a site I had an association with under your theory. But wait, our real pool of sites waiting to be reviewed numbers in the hundreds of millions. So I have to work for 300 years before my own site can even be considered? And list yours first even though your only contribution to the project has been to submit a mediocre site and throw some insults at editors. The truth is that when an editor adds a site they are associated with to a category they will usually clear all the other sites waiting in that same category, and sometimes in nearby ones at the same time. That makes sure that direct competitors (those suitable for the same category) are not disadvantaged. So I am sure if Sarah or any other editor one day becomes involved in an e-greetings site they want to list they will most likely review your site at the same time. In practice that is how it works most of the time.

Do you realise how entirely silly that statement looks and is? You are a spammer of the nth degree. You have submitted over 5,000 sites to DMOZ and clogged up systems in a deliberate attempt to disable those systems and ruin your competitors. Is that true? I don't know. Do I have a scrap of evidence for it? No. But prove to me that you are not the world's biggest spammer or you are guilty. You use aliases to hide your spam, you are on the run from the FBI for Internet fraud, etc. etc. Can you prove otherwise to my satisfaction (bearing in mind I will counter every bit of proof you offer with more far-fetched fantasy)? Do so or you are guilty. It doesn't work that way does it?

Thing is neither you nor loads of other people who post here like DMOZ, what it does, how it does it. What editors do try and do here and elsewhere is to explain the reality to help you understand it. If you still don't like it we don't really mind as you are vastly outnumbered by those who do like it and you can't cater for everyone.

Cheer up? I haven't laughed so much in ages. Oh and I forgot to list your site again today. Strangely there were a lot more deserving causes.

 

I will definitely post suggestions, if i have.

I have failed to understand the point of view some editors who posted here.

One of the editor went to the extent of checking links on my website and comented on design. Surprisingly this was 1 millionth on his to-do-list.

Let me ask this
When you review a website what you actually look at?
Take the example of database servers.
There are several database vendors Sybase, Oracle, SQL server, MySql etc etc.

Do you go to the extent of checking if all of the Ansi SQL commands are working without any syntax error?
Whose job is this anyways? Is it the job of vendor or a DMOZ editor?
Or both? Do you know that all of those database servers have some serious bugs. Yet they are all DMOZ listed. They all provide same service and address the same market/community/customers. Even the syntax is almost dead similar. Even the results they produce are similar.

What is your criteria, when you review a website?
Standing_out_in_crowd, unique service, unique content, serving a particular community, websites serving an area where no one has ventured in ?
Do you look them up all or selectively look at to make a decision?

I don't want to name the editor, who went to a greater extent and looked up my website to tell me that my website is not worthy of listing.
What will you say about this editor. Who himself has ridiculed, who said that my area is actually 1 millionth on his to-do-list?

There are probably dozen editors, who have responded to the threads and pulling the topic from one end to the other.

Some editors have come very close to say, that when my website comes up for review, it will be rejected. Now this is not an allegation. They are actively looking up for flaws in my website.

I will list flaws in my listing here. This makes any dmoz editors job that much easier.
1) 3 submittals of my website in past 1 year (spam)
2) Submitted in a wrong category once.

Thanks
sri

 

I'm no fan of DMOZ, sridhar kondoji, but having popped in several times to see how this thread was going I must say that your posts almost make me want to start defending them.

If your intention was to point out things about DMOZ that you felt were flaws or inequities, I would suggest to you that this thread has been an abject failure. You made the fundamental mistake of attacking the person rather than the organization and, worse, you picked a person who is a very poor example for what you are trying to attack.

I think you should just pick up the pieces and move on. By now, every post you make just seems to stir up more antagonism against you.

Maybe just step away from the keyboard for a while. Go for a walk. Look at the birds and flowers. Hum a few mantras. Tomorrow is another day.

 

minstrel,

Just to add little bit...
I may have picked a wrong person. Which also means, there are some persons who exhibit a behaviour, i have pointed out.

Let me be clear. When i made an allegation, sarah was not not the person, but a DMOZ editor.

Thanks for your advise.
This will be my last post on this thread.
sri

 

Don't be silly, it was me a couple of pages ago, anyone can see that. I glanced at your site and gave you some honest feedback. It wasn't a formal review - when I edit I have more productive areas to look at. You were whinging so it is natural to go see what the fuss is about. Who knows, you might have had the greatest site I had ever seen and I might have gone and added it on the spot. Not the first time that has happened - twice I've done that in 3 years. If I hadn't have peeked at your site I would not have known it was one of those that are about 1,000,000th on my priorities would I. When editing I know exactly where those low priority sites are likely to be lurking and avoid it like the plague.

I look for unique content and plenty of it. Whilst there is a base level of quality and quantity beneath which a site is totally unlistable, there is a second level where one compares the quality and quantity to other sites in the same field. The aim being to list the most comprehensive sites on any particular subject thereby covering all the available unique information on that subject.

Lets not. Like all editors I only edit in areas of the directory where I feel comfortable that I know all the branch guidelines and category definitions. I haven't a clue about database server site criteria. The editor will check the site complies with the general guidelines and the category description. They will then make a judgement on the value of the content - is it sufficient in quality and quantity relative to other sites on the subject.

After making sure I understand the category requirements I will check the site complies with the general guidelines and the category description. I will then make a judgement on the value of the content - is it sufficient in quality and quantity relative to other sites on the subject. How do I make that judgement? Well in my case it is largely experience - after reviewing 50-60,000 sites you kinda get a nose for it.

You mean how do I pick sites I am going to review? Depends on how I feel. I saw an ad for a car the other day. I found the manufacturer's website wasn't listed so I listed it. There were a few sites waiting there too. So I reviewed them. One I rejected, one I moved, two I accepted. Then I checked the category itself and found a couple of sites incorrectly listed so I moved them. Then I updated some old descriptions to comply with today's guidelines. I found a site on green electricity yesterday whilst seeing whether it was worth changing my supplier. I will check to see if it is listed and if not I will list it. There were some other sites concerned with wind turbines that I found on a government site I thought were quite interesting so I'll check those out too and list them if they aren't already. If there are other sites that been suggested and are waiting I might review some of those too but if there are too many for me to do in the time I have then I'll be choosy and only review the sites where the submitter has followed the guidelines in describing their site. That's me. Every editor will have their own random and completely unpredictable methodologies. Very few of them review only submitted sites in the order submitted.

All I have seen is a realistic assessment that you have submitted a mediocre site to an immensely oversubscribed topic that is immensely uninteresting from an editor perspective. No-one has carried out a review of the site so no-one can say it will be rejected. By the way "design" is immaterial and rarely impacts on listability. It is the content alone that is important.

Not really. That information will be readily available to the editor who eventually reviews the site and the chances that they will see this are zero.

 

Not in my experience. The chances are probably significantly greater than zero - how many editors have read and even posted in this thread alone?

 

Given the number of active editors and the time this site is likely to take before it is reviewed it is highly unlikely that any of the editors who have visited this thread will be the reviewing editor. And if it is one of the editors who visit here the chances they will remember this thread in three years time or whenever someone gets to reviewing e-greetings sites are pretty slim too. There are about 10,000 active editors, only a couple of hundred are active in internal forums, and only 20-30 post regularly outside.

 

Oh dear, another anonymous red rep for this thread:
"how typical - you have time to go check on sridhar on resource zone but none to edit. Idiot dmoz editor"

Just for the record (like you care):
I read Resource Zone as a matter of course, and I remembered his posts there.
I have time to edit.

I am getting so tired of this sniping by bitter, frustrated posters. You want to have a discussion? Then come on here and have one - stop taking cowardly damned pot-shots because you have nothing constructive to say!

 

I will get you when I can, Alucard. Problem is that there is a lot of anger on both sites. Many DMOZ editors are bums and many webmasters are spammers. Getting in between the lines, you can get shot

 

Mike, appreciate the effort, but this isn't about the rep - it's about people whose maturity level is obviously too low to have a civilised discussion about anything, or to recognise when such is offered.

My only reason for posting on DP is to try to reduce the amount of anger where possible, and to make sure that everyone has more realistic expectations on what the ODP is and what it isn't.

 

Sri, you have continually referred to my using bad language against you, please can you post the number of the post I used profanity against you? Rarely do I direct profanity at people, although I might use it in a post. I think I might have referred to you in a derogatory manner, but that was due to how I perceived your behaviour by making accusations of Sarah being paid to accept submissions.

There is a saying that says people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you were and are quite happy to personally attack another human being, and refuse to accept you have done anything wrong, yet you appear to have taken offene at my posting my own felings ?

All the best

OWG

THIS is the only piece of aggression I can see I have posted.

 

Don't feel lonely Alucard - I got called an idiot too

I feel privileged to be sharing the same comments as you

 

And under the heading "where's the love?": "i totally agree with that guys comment, go bug people on resource zone you loser"

 

You guys are active with this anonymous rep thing - "idiot" - seems I'm in good company though. Is there any point to it - am I supposed to go shoot myself now? Strange thing is (obviously I'm not using my editor name here as I don't really want to be ripped limb from limb and asked to explain my crimes against humanity) I notice I have come up a few times in this forum. And only once accusing me of horrific abuse - the other times really nice comments (which makes me a bit worried).

 

Maybe you should start every post with..

my name is Brizzie and I do DMOZ, I have been clean now for xxx weeks

<joke>

 

Written by a sad old Welsh bloke

 

This thread grew more than it should be.

Unfortunately, i was out of town. I would have definitely had some fun defending sridhar.

Sridhar: You are brave. Showing up your site and daring DMOZ editors "do what you can" takes some courage. Bravo.
If i were you, i would have hidden my site and fought the same war and bit better. In any case, you have done a great job, considering the way editors ganged up on you. Kudos to you.

Coming to your site. Your site definitely will be banned. DMOZ editors have gone shamelessly to a greater extent in pointing flaws in your website.

Reasons for the ban 1) Insulting an editor. 2) Multiple submissions.

I can find it within a week, if your site is banned/rejected. As i already said, i have few editors working inside.

In anycase, i can't comment on your website. To me as a user, it looks fine, may not be standing_in_a_crowd_type.
But comparing your website with http://www.waitakere-bmx.com/index.php
Your website definitely stands out. Especially the vast community you serve.
If iam correct, eBulawa is also a state in Africa.

Coming to Editors: You guys have shamelessly ganged up on one individual.
Atleast 60% of what he said holds truth.
From the information, i have from editors working inside, this is what they have to say about ODP.

1) ODP has grown to big to be able to manage efficiently.
2) There are several editors, who have formed groups and serving each other.
3) There are few good apples and the reason ODP is still respected is because of few good dedicated editors.
4) Simple question posed to me by my friend editor
a) Why on earth people want to volunteer at ODP?
b) Where is the incentive?
c) Who has time to list websites in ODP? It is all a joke. Most of them have their own purposes to be an editor.

Almost 70% of editors there have their own SEO businesses or are affiliated with top SEO firms. Some editors have made there affiliations public but most of them are still on hide. They have multiple IDs.
Astonishing fact is, some editors have formed a ring and are controlling most of categories for their own puposes. They are in niche markets. They are rejecting some submittals on one pretext or the other.

Real reason for stopping status checks: This is most astonishing fact.
1) Some un-ethical editors have so much influence that they influenced to stop the 'status checks'. Do you guys want to know why?
They simply don't want the webmasters to inform, if their website is rejected or pending approval. Assume a webmaster comes to know, if his website is rejected, what he will do is, he will relist in ODP. So, they want to keep the webmasters waiting forever and forever. On top of it, if you re-submit it, this will make it look a spam. six month clause is a joke again.
So, this is like 'we have your website waiting', 'some editor in next decade, may decide to look at your listing', So keep waiting.
But, in reality, they all know, your website is rejected. But they won't tell you. Why, coz you will re-list and they have to go through the pain of rejecting it one more time.

If, my guess is right, ebulawa.com fits in this category
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/E-mail/E-greetings/Invitations/

Is this an over-subscribed category? Not at all. But there are several thousands waiting in that category.

Some of the best websites in competitive categories have been rejected and after several attempts of re-listing, they have banned them.

There are Editors, who are controlling ODP, like permanent 5 are controlling UN.
So, sad.

Make any allegation you want at ODP, it will be correct and can be proved, provided ODP makes their internal investigation details open.
They don't. They simply can't have a fair system, because it is too big.
Corruption is at its peak.

My friend, you go to some SEO services, they will relist you.
NOw that your website is notorious, chances are zero for your website to be included in ODP.

I will let you know in email, if your website is banned. Don't worry about your email. I can find it on your website or google.

By the way, i got 3 of my clients websites listed in DMOZ.

Good luck.
Stupid DMOZ.