I would say it is a word that could be categorised as "hype" in a description. I wouldn't have used it, and I most certainly wouldn't have used it in an application for a new category. You might come across a meta who would let it through but it would be a huge risk to include it in an application example.
A successful ODP editor formula includes writing boring descriptions. It is supposed simply to say what the site is about (beyond the category name) and what is on it. You are not supposed to make subjective evaluations. Though such an approach would certainly be far more interesting and potentially useful provided the evaluator is trustworthy. The use of terms used in marketing, hype, is also an indicator of an editor who might be using the directory to promote selected sites - who is to know you are promoting a competitor? I think it would be good to see a directory that gave real and independent opinions - this website is a crap affiliate of ... or this site contains loads of great photos of ... good points... bad points... But such a concept would not fit with the ODP. Might work on a small niche scale though.
I always stick to the facts and most of my descriptions are still available at DMOZ most of them untouched (and will probably remain that way until the end now that nobody edits those categories), unfortunately half of my edits are in Croatian so very few people can evaluate them. Personally I have no competitors, my niches are so obscure (and before anyone comments photo portal I maintain with friend is third in Croatia because there is grand total of three photo portal! ) that death ratio of existing sites is higher then birth ratio of new websites. So we could say I was abusing DMOZ to get more people interested in my pathetic hobbies (hint: links from Wiki to DMOZ so somebody actually visit category) and get them to start there own website (and also to turn them into worshipers of me). Don't steal my ideas! I'm already working on something similar for certain niche.
I do agree that lack of transparency is one of dmoz's problems. I mean - why can't editor-guidelines be published? Why can't guidelines for people applying for new categories be published. Why does there have to be the perception that people can't coach each other (they actually can).
Golly - why did I get in trouble for publishing an internal memo then? But I guess that's just me? I guess for me it comes down to: there are so many rules, restrictions and regulations that it is hard to keep up with what one can and cannot do.
I got into trouble too http://dmoz.org/guidelines/communication.html My guess is that there aren't enough rules and most of them are general guidelines and can be interpreted (abused) multiple ways. There should be a simple list of do's and don'ts like Ten Commandments.
I never used to understand what people meant when they said dmoz just got too big - but its recent troubles and the misunderstandings that arise when one just wants to step outside the mold for a bit have changed my mind. It really just got too big. IMO Wikipedia also runs this risk, actually. Though the fact that my dad (who is a computer scientist) recently got info he needed for his scientific work from wikipedia when the university library couldn't help me baffles my mind.
Wait, your a DMOZ editall and 1) don't know the editor guidelines and 2) don't know what you can and can't do? Not sure that makes any sense to me.
Editall? And I get the warning and get removed; now I'm really lost - I new it - I should have spent lot less time checking guidelines and just edited I would have become editall in no time...
The key word is internal. Publishing information that is only available to editors on an external forum is not a good thing to do. You can quote the guidelines (http://dmoz.org/guidelines) all you want since that information is available to anyone.
This bit is good though http://www.dmoz.org/socialcontract.html We will keep all official ODP editorial guidelines and policies open for public view at all times. There are rulings which are contained only in internal forums. There are clarifications contained only in internal forums. These are official ODP editorial guidelines and policies. There are, I assume, guidelines and policies in the internal Meta forum concerning editor recruitment and advancement. These are official ODP editorial guidelines and policies. If these things are not official guidelines and policies then what are they? Doesn't the Social Contract override the guidelines on secrecy of internal information? http://www.dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html is also interesting. However, the ODP is first and foremost a self-regulating community of net-citizens that basically runs itself. Through a system of self-governance, the ODP volunteer editors manage the directory's growth and development That statement is completely false. It is run by an elite group of unelected and unaccountable appointees by decree. And that elite maintains its status by using the communications guidelines where it suits them even when they contradict the Social Contract. I have argued for some time, even volunteered to do the cleaning up work, that the guidelines contain numerous errors, omissions, and misleading statements. When there are clear answers in internal forum threads. Why are those clear answers not published in updated guidelines and why is it a heinous hanging offence to publish them? It isn't lack of resources because those resources were volunteered. Perhaps it suits some to have numerous editorial practices that are not publicly available and publication of which results in the threat of or actual removal.
Why these people want to be the elite and what is the benefit for them? The correct version of your statement is as follows: "It is run by a CORRUPT elite group of unelected and unaccountable appointees by decree." It seems you finally started to see the reality.
Sometimes power is more alluring than money. Without tangible evidence of corruption I would not level that charge. From what I have seen personally most of DMOZ's problems lie with managerial incompetence and inexperience at the top level, coupled with an arrogance that only they can possibly know best. Suppression of information is a means of hiding failures. That isn't to say there is no evidence of corruption at senior levels though such evidence does point at specific individuals.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This seems to be big problem with admins, moderators etc. in general, usually if they stay in position for too long they become reluctant to give up there position even if they aren't doing anything and feel threatened by any type of change so they start search for things to do to prove to others that they are irreplaceable and that World would end without them. Medieval Ragusa city council had nice method for this, new duke would be elected each month and reelection was possible only after two years! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ragusa
Are you serious? The first thing people would do is delete all their competitors and drop their spamsites. Wiki is different, because it is not dominated by greedy webmasters. If DMOZ would go for the same concept, it would be only webmasters who do this (most people are not interested in editing a links dir). Yeah, I am upset too that I can't get my sites listed (good resource sites with tons of human written articles). I just hope that the recent signs of life are a good indicator that it may happen after all, but I don't lose any sleep over this anymore. My non-dmoz site gets more google love days these than the dmoz listed site.