Michael's idea, a more automated and streamlined submission process is excellent but hindered by the existing "turf boundaries" already in place. It would work only if there were a significant shake-up of responsibility at the same time, probably too much to ask of DMOZ but something smaller directories need to address. Andi
MacDesign, did the "technicality" have something to do with him being outspoken against DMOZ? If that was the issue, then one site's "fixing" won't solve the overall problems that people seem to have.
I have to disagree here. In my opinion if Google were to drop their whole directory tomorrow nothing would change. This is because the influence of DMOZ is based on the links it provides both itself and by proxy. The only way that the influence of DMOZ would be reduced (not only on Google but Yahoo and MSN as well) is if the search engines were to stop using the link structure of the www to rank pages. That isn't going to happen. Even though the SE algorithms have been moving from a simple link count to a much more sophisticated determination of semantic information embedded in the hyperlink structures themselves the overall importance of links has not diminished. It's just that they are important for another reason. DMOZ is here to stay and we are all going to have to learn to live with it and use it to our best advantage. - Michael
sitetutor - no - nothing to do with him at all - and he does not need to resubmit. In fact I doubt any good editor will refuse to list a site (or remove a site) because a site owner says something bad in a forum. The only exceptions I can think of being: Legal threats Offers to bribe an editor or pay for a listing
I think your editor in WPW doesn't know about this since he routinely emails the users there that if they say anything negative about DMOZ in their posting, he makes sure that they never get listed in DMOZ.
None of the above. They should just automatically dump any listing that has been waiting for six months. When I got access to Games > Video Games category, I just about lost it! Some categories had more sites to review than are currently listed. (ie..Computer Platforms (259 sites, 912 new))
I was going to say proceed directly to resource-zone but I guess you didn't have too good a time there http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33286 Sarah
I disagree, although I can see your point. Have you seen this thread: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=60 Sarah
Generally it is the same story again and again, new webmasters are asking about their DMOZ listings, they are told to come back in 6 months to ask again. Instead they come back after 3 months and ask. Then they are told "since you didn't follow our rules, we have deleted your submission and you have to start over again" blah blah blah - then they come into digitalpoint saying "guess what happened at the DMOZ forum " and another thread starts. That is a common story which seems to repeat itself again and again with different players.
Mac, I have seen threads in the resource zone where people were told "you can start over again, your submissions have been deleted to teach you a lesson".
Please point them out to me. I have found editors deleting submissions because descriptions were misspelled and have reported them as abusing the system. If you mean a post like this http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25779 Other submissions have been deleted . . . is just reporting that extra submissions were deleted - but one remains
I don't have time for it and it is pointless and we are not talking about isolated incidences. If I find it and show it to you, you will just disappear until another DMOZ thread gets started and then trying to discredit the next person who says something about DMOZ. That is a part of the problem right there, wasting time arguing. We all know it happens, Mac. If someone here is interested in taking the time, I am sure he will find plenty. We are talking bigger issues here.
Mac, can you understand what the overall issue is or do you believe DMOZ is right and everyone who has something to say that is remotely critical, is wrong?
No I think there are a lot of problems with DMOZ, but they are mostly not the ones I see posted in SEO forums. For example DMOZ search for the last few months has been totally unacceptable - finally an editor with some tech knowlege figured out what was wrong. AOL does not provide enough money to pay support staff. There is not enough documentation to properly outline what DMOZ is supposed to be [not that anyone reads anything] and to cover the actual procedures For example I think the submission page should clearly state that even though multiple submissions to diffeernt categories is prohibited - a second submission to a Regional category is not only allowed but a good thing [under certain conditions] I think that sites that feed directly from DMOZ.org to build their directories should be blocked since they steal cycles and make the system slower. I think that a new editor should not be allowed to review his own sites for at least two months, and must do some minimum number of other sites before that happens. I think the submisson pages for sites should have a number of questions that must be answered correctly before a suggestion is accepted. This page should ensure that the submitter also reads the category description. But these are just a few of my opinions, and not all editors would agree.
It would probably be a good idea to ensure that DMOZ editors read this information, too -- other editors have said more than once that a site can be submitted only once. I agree 100%. Of course, if that happened, DMOZ would probably disappear. I don't think ANY editor should be allowed to edit his/her site AT ALL, or even edit categories where their sites could be listed. An excellent suggestion, although I'm not sure there's any way to absolutely ensure this -- maybe a short quiz that must be answered correctly (once - not for each submission) before anyone can submit a site.
let me repost my thoughts from the other forum thread (im sorry if i criticized editor JIM, its all light hearted boys, dont be upset): *********************************************** yarman .................................................... haha...some of ya guys need to chillax its ok to laugh sometimes i wasn't being THAT serious. i think minstrel saw the real point: dmoz takes WAY TOO LONG at...rejecting websites that apply. and its all for show. read those damn forums, the webmasters are sitting there with their balls chopped off sucking up to the editors for some sign of life and progress on their site submission, and all the editors just play them on like ugly girls at a high school dance. its the saddest thing ive ever read. and if you happen to get at all critical or ask too many questions, they ban you from the forum, and delete your website, but only after making you wait at least 6 months to hear about it. you call that professional??? YOU GOTTA BE JOKING. a human edited directory. yes its a wonderful idea. but how can anyone, even nice editors who are in their own bubble of kindness, defend the total BS that dmoz has become? google must have some secret nasty reason for keeping this partnership up, because at least half of the descriptions they write are HORRIBLE and there is no real reason i can see for continuing to use a 3rd party directory after years of google being around except...laziness, and an easy way to say "hey, we aren't biased in our search results, we support the non-profit directory...so BAH"... i would be fine with dmoz in any case if their work didnt OVERRIDE my own meta tags and website design work!!! understand?? its terribly frustrating. i hope editors can one day understand what some of us here are trying to relay....since they won't read my emails or any of my contact attempts.