DMOZ - Are all the Editors Smug?

Someone remind me again why I want to be listed in DMOZ?

[shawn]

I have one site that is listed in DMOZ - I have a second site - which is related to the first in that it deals in the same widgets just different customers that have a different budget etc.

So I am sure you all knw what happened when I tried to list it in the same city on DMOZ.

The problem is when I tried to explain why I thought it should be listed The editor invloves other editors and it turned ugly. I was bombed with quotes fron their TOS and smug comments.

Things like "You may think you have a right to be listed in DMOZ but.." and then they quote something from the TOS!

So now I am thinking I would rather stick my foot up the green monsters you know what.

[mat]

You want to be listed in DMOZ because it's a valuable resource and a useful link. You are listed in DMOZ. You (presumably) tried to get listed again, same goods, same company, different storefront?
That is, like it or not, against the TOS, and that's not smugness, them's the rules.

Take your shoes off first.

[ettore]

Propedeutic reading: "Modern Dragons: Green Iguanas"
by Ayden J. Young, 1997, TFH Publications.

Very useful for learning how to realize the difference between the green monster's you know what and the green monster's mouth. You know, same lizard, same color, different front. Don't risk losing your foot.

[cornwall]

>>Things like "You may think you have a right to be listed in DMOZ but.." and then they quote something from the TOS!

I am not sure why you object to this form of reply. Basically you are trying to buck their terms of service.

With deeplinks and separate sites I have around 200 listing in DMOZ. Whilst I have come across the odd corrupt editor, most of them are legal, decent and honest.

As the last post says "Don't risk losing your foot."

[rogerd]

Shawn, it sounds like you are trying for a duplicate listing in the same category. If a typical visitor clicking down the list saw them both, would he conclude that they were essentially the same site? If so, no reasonable editor would include both listings.

On the other hand, if you make the content on the second site sufficiently unique and useful, perhaps you could justify a second listing.

[hutcheson]

Is a policeman smug for arresting you for leaving a bank with a semi-automatic weapon and a large sack of cash that didn't come from your account? Or is he perhaps enforcing the community rules, as is his duty?

And, to answer the other question, editors DON'T believe that ALL webmasters are arrogant jerks who consider themselves above all rules, and their own desires paramount over social obligations.

But the ones that are, make it very difficult to keep effective lines of communication open.

[kevinpate]

I've come into contact with a limited number of dmoz folks via resource zone, emails and what I see posted here by folks who are ODP volunteers.

Based on my experiences, 'smug' is not a term I would utilize. Helpful and courteous are the two terms which most seem applicable to the public and private exchanges which have involved requests and/or questions from me.

[shawn]

Maybe I am not making this clear(obviously since I have sparked everyones flame shooters), there are 2 companies(same product) owned by differnt people but have the same person woking on their sites - how is this wrong?

[John_Caius]

Dmoz is about listing sites rather than companies. So if the same person produces two sites about the same product then you can see how they might end up similar and hence be considered fraternal mirrors. It may be that there is more connection between the two companies than simply the fact that they happen to use the same web designer.

Caveat - I don't know what the specific sites are in this specific case.

[shawn]

Really I am not trying to be a pain in the rump about this but I think the editor got a wire crossed and now everyone has become offended and bitter :)

Basically a designer who has his own site works for the design company that DMOZ wont list. So the editor thought that he had 2 sites when really he only has one. He is listed on the companies site as a designer. He was asked to submit the site to DMOZ, however, when he did that he must have used his email address from his private site(who knows why) and that caught the eye of the editor I am guessing.

I have pretty much just accepted that the company site will not be listed and we will move on.

Shawn

[rafalk]

. . . now everyone has become offended and bitter :)

Well it's sort of hard not to when you start out a thread calling the people you're asking for help smug.

[motsa]

The posts in the Resource Zone thread explained to you quite clearly and reasonably why it wouldn't be listed. The fact that the answer wasn't what you wanted to hear doesn't make the people saying it smug...or bitter. Your perception of the situation is understandably somewhat skewed and that isn't likely to change, despite efforts on the part of others to clarify matters.

[shawn]

I dont think my perception is skewed, I honestly think that I was not clear enough in explaining myself or the situation after it was brought to my attention. The conversation had long taken place before my postings in the resource zone. I only found the resource zone after looking through some posts here.

The original editor was smug and had her mind made up before I could explain what had happened.

Well it's sort of hard not to when you start out a thread calling the people you're asking for help smug.

I didnt say all were smug - I asked if all were or was it just a select few. I am sure your not going to tell me all the DMOZ editors are perfect and do not respond to submitters Inappropriately or are too quick to make judgement? That would mean they are all perfect - that I doubt.

Your perception of the situation is understandably somewhat skewed and that isn't likely to change, despite efforts on the part of others to clarify matters

Yes Mosta I see that 2 seperate sites owned by 2 seperate people with one common employee with a site of his own can not be in the same directory?

That is how I see the situation - wrong or right.

What do you see that is different from what I just explained? Remember that the posts from the DMOZ editors in the "resource zone" may be slightly skewed as they may not fully understand the situation. You have to admit that explaining this type of situation over an electronic media such as email/online forum may not work out for the best in either party.

I am certain that I can sit down with any of you and drink a cold beer and get along. :)

[rogerd]

Shawn, I've only met a few editors in person, but they seemed quite reasonable. Since we lack the information here to comment on the substance (nor is this the right place to do that anyway), I'd offer the general comment that the better DMOZ editors are very vigilant in trying to prevent spammers from sneaking multiple sites into the cats. They are accustomed to people trying to disguise the related nature of sites, and probably tend to assume the worst when they discover a connection. What happens from that point depends on the editor and the details of the situation.

[figment88]

I am a DMOZ editor and I consider myself more arrogant than smug.

[shawn]

am a DMOZ editor and I consider myself more arrogant than smug.

hey! - a sense of humor :)

I am sure rogerd what you say is true - myself and the other designer had no intention of trying to get one by the editors.

[motsa]

Remember that the posts from the DMOZ editors in the "resource zone" may be slightly skewed as they may not fully understand the situation. You have to admit that explaining this type of situation over an electronic media such as email/online forum may not work out for the best in either party.

I can't speak for anyone else but my responses to you were based on what I personally saw when I looked at all three sites. I neither know nor care what any other editors you had contact with said and believe me, I fully understand what your situation is, both from your point of view and from mine.

In any case, this specific situation has been dealt with. You're not really going to be able to argue your case here without it getting into charter violation territory so I'd recommend you just let this drop. You've already said that you don't really care about the ODP link so why all the fuss?

[Powdork]

I can't speak for anyone else but my responses to you were based on what I personally saw when I looked at all three sites. I neither know nor care what any other editors you had contact with said and believe me, I fully understand what your situation is, both from your point of view and from mine.
In any case, this specific situation has been dealt with. You're not really going to be able to argue your case here without it getting into charter violation territory so I'd recommend you just let this drop. You've already said that you don't really care about the ODP link so why all the fuss?

I'll agree that this makes a lot of sense if you agree that it sounds sort of, well.. smug.;)

[Dynamoo]

Well, I could go over to the R-Z and get the lowdown, but maybe it's better to make general comments.

The shopping categories are a blooming nightmare. There are a LOT of submissions, and a LOT of those are doorways, mirrors and affiliates. Some deliberately hide this behind layers of shopping carts and other stuff.

Now, editors in Shopping have to be real detectives with just about every site they get. Is it an affiliate? Is it a mirror? It's not just as simple as spotting a couple of qksrv or bfast links, so other clues have to be found. And that can be something as subtle as similar elements in the look and feel, individual graphics, content details, layout, navigation and the like. There's a very good chance that an editor will spot this, especially if a whole category is first checked over for existing listings and then has the waiting submissions processed.

So it could be something as simple as the editor thinking.. "hey, this site reminds me a little of this other one" and then finding enough common elements to assume that it's some sort of mirror.

If you check the Site Submission requests at R-Z then you'll see some of that process in action. A very large proportion of the requests are for shopping sites or others that are mirrors or affiliates.

Just as an aside, this must be one of the reasons why the Shopping categories tend to be backlogged. It's not the sort of job a novice editor would usually be able to handle.

[cornwall]

>>It's not the sort of job a novice editor would usually be able to handle.

For the life of me I cannot see why ANY volunteer editor would want to wade through the stuff being submitted in shopping.

On the other hand, putting on a consumers hat, if I want to buy something online, then I am looking for good directory editing.

Google is useless at delivering decent serps (from the customers point of view) to someone wanting to buy, say, furniture or book a hotel in, say, London.

Looks as if the browser will continue to have to struggle to get the info from either a search engine or a directory :(

[Aaron Larson]

This thread is pure comedy.

I really don't know how it helps anyone, though, or what good it does for Webmaster World to run it.

[arlarson]

(Please note that the "Aaron Larson" who posted above is not the "arlarson" who is a meta editor at dmoz.org.)

[NFFC]

He didn't say he was.

On that note lets move on, thread locked.