| This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 34 ( 1  ) || |
|How to get into DMOZ? Send money? Become an editor? Send flowers? Make noise?|
Five months and waiting for site to be accepted. What's the latest info on DMOZ?
| 11:05 pm on Sep 4, 2012 (gmt 0)|
seems like over the years, ordinary DMOZ moderators continue to get lazier and lazier. Barely ever approving any new sites.
Years ago you could pay freelancer or other sites for guaranteed acceptance, but i'm not sure now. ?
I've got a professional site that qualifies a 100% and needs to be in there. I submitted it to the correct directory 5 months ago, and still nothing..
Anybody know of a way ? Or is it still special, secret contacts only in order to get in ? Looking for either a paid inclusion, or secret contacts or whatever. either / or.
Whatever it is, this site deserves to be in there over so many others currently in there.
After all these years, they should at-least had a paid service by now that AT-LEAST guarantees to review your site within 30 days. At-least that, for crying out loud. Wouldn't be surprised if mine hasn't even been looked at yet.
| 3:18 pm on Sep 16, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Let's see now. This forum permits users to link to a home page on their profiles. Would you criticise the forum as a whole if some of them don't work :)? |
If those links belonged to currently listed (supposedly active) mods and admins (probably the equivalent of editors, etc at DMOZ), yes.
| 4:45 pm on Sep 16, 2012 (gmt 0)|
If all of the DMOZ upper management agreed to venture here, to debate and discuss policy and practices with an eye towards implementing change, then I'd be happy to host all manner of exchange about the same. However, given the limitations of jimnoble's 1-man, 1-meta, 1-voice @ DMOZ role I'd ask that we not venture too far afield into DMOZ policy and practices.
|Btw ..your discretion in your public replies is much appreciated .. and re-inforces my respect for you .. |
Leo, that's a sentiment I share. I'm impressed (and happy) that any meta is still willing to publicly engage - voluntarily, no less (here and "there") - on the topic of DMOZ. I show and employ a measured degree of deference to metas who participate (attempt to directly address questions about DMOZ) out of respect and appreciation - especially since I'm well aware - as a WebmasterWorld moderator - that there are and long have been many folks here (past/present) ready to whine/whinge about OUR editorial practices. And, guess what? WE have a TOS policy that says/prohibits posts whining about US . . moderators. (Not sure folks ever entirely grasped how that fact might come into play in how I handled past engagements with metas here.)
| 8:04 am on Sep 23, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|If all of the DMOZ upper management agreed to venture here, to debate and discuss policy and practices with an eye towards implementing change |
Well, there we have one of the problems of the ODP. There are basically two levels of "management".
1) Meta editors (including admin editors) like Jim and me. We are "responsible" for running the directory. Selecting new editors, firing those that did not meet the expectations lined out in our guidelines etc. We are active in several forums, like on RZ (our own forum) where we try to participate in communications that are not just mud-throwing.
2) AOL staff, responsible for the backend like our software, legal stuff and things. And effectively including most of our policies. They rarely are seen in our internal forums, and barely ever in public. Very shy species, they are. ^^
While the "new" software we got years ago does offer an API meant to make the software improvable by the community, we (as the group mentioned in "1") can't change the software that's running as a frontend on the editor server. And we can't change the data structure behind it. And while we could in theory change guidelines documents, that feature seems only to be working every other year. To sum it up: We can't really implement change. And since AOL staff is (currently, with "currently" meaning "for the last few years") not very present, they can't do it, too.
Short summary of why I wrote this: Of course we could talk about change, but there is no sensible way for us to implement it. Which is why most of us don't waste their times talking about it anymore. Been there, done that. Spent lot of my time on those things several years ago.
(And regarding discussion on this forum specifically: There has been so much hostility against us here, which always has been tolerated by forum moderators, I don't think that attracts ODP meta editors very much.)
| 1:46 pm on Sep 23, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|To sum it up: We can't really implement change. |
Thanks for the robust illumination - in a few well chosen words - of the issues, windharp. I can imagine that it's sometimes frustrating to see the possibilities of the ODP and be hog-tied by the limitations of having AOL as owner/partner.
|so much hostility against us here, which always has been tolerated by forum moderators |
I think this thread is useful/helpful to understanding the reality of the ODP and that, as forum moderators go, I've managed - for the past ~5+ years - to host an ODP dialogue that has been more productive of light and less productive of heat than in prior years or in other forums.
| This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 34 ( 1  ) |