Forum Moderators: open
I recently tried to get an editor to change a sites url (because the site has changed its url) and something so simple, after two submissions and an email follow up on both, has so far not produced no response at all.
I also have several other sites waiting to be included- and I never hear anything from the editors- even after repeated attempts to contact them. I would rather be told that I am not to be included than nothing at all.
Like most people I'd be happy to pay for service. It is extremely important for our sites that we be listed- and it is really frustrating that it isn't really working at the moment, at all.
Btw- I am not putting down all the editors. I know that they work hard on their own time. I am just a little frustrated with DMOZ. The sun really doesnt shine out... You know the rest.
Why don't they introduce an express paid inclusion?
Because this would go against the very ideal DMOZ was founded on. Not to mention creating an incredibly huge legal headache for AOL/TW.
This is a collection of web professionals. We all know this.
If webmasters dump DMOZ then so will the search engines.
Why don't they introduce an express paid inclusion?
While dmoz.org is just a directory, the ODP is more than the directory-- it is a largely self-regulating global community of editors, some excellent, some disgraceful, and the balance in between. If ODP were a business unit, sure, it might make sense to go to paid listings because it would be following the rest of the industry. But ODP cannot function as the ODP without its editors and its volunteer model, and a pay scheme would endanger that.
Let me first make a caveat that this post reflects only my personal views; I am not speaking as an ODP meta-editor or a representative in any capacity for the ODP or other editors.
The non-commercial aspect of ODP is one of the aspects that appeals to me. I assure you that I am a red-blooded capitalist and begrudge no one their e-business. But the ODP is not here to serve business solely, it is not here to serve those businesses' consumers solely, it is here to categorize the Web for the use of all parties who use it for shopping, research, socializing, and every other use.
Consider the SE marketplace during and after the time the original Gnuhoo was launched. Yahoo! had all but declared that a garage firm willing to pay $199 deserved priority treatment to a major charity which wasn't. That was completely reasonable and sensible for Yahoo, but it left small businesses, community clubs, public interest groups, and so on in a bit of a lurch. Some of my consulting clients fall into this group, including a national party auxiliary, a foreign policy journal, and a foreign policy think tank. They are too poor and small to be household names, but they are important players in the formation of public policy and within their niches; they are also controlled by boards with tight budgets not willing to cannibalize their print or radio media for Internet promotions.
At the ODP, however, motivation to edit comes from an interest in a category's subject matter, and the view that we are the only major directory which cares about the odd niche topic. There's no pressure to put off work on Home/Family/Family_Websites just because Shopping/Gifts/Gift_Baskets is busier or more lucrative. And this enables ODP to stand out when many categories are compared to their badly neglected counterparts in YH (e.g. there are only one eighth as many Soroptimist sites in Yahoo as in ODP) or nonexistent counterparts in LS (e.g. college judo teams).
Although in theory a team of staff editors could implement a paid inclusion scheme without interaction with other editors, such action would be an almost in-your-face disruption counter to the sensibilities of the editing community and the mythology of the ODP as the ultimate reference source. Many editors would equate it to Coca-Cola paying CNN to look at their press releases first, or Disney paying to have its trademarks added to Webster's.
In fact, it's entirely conceivable that the loss of productivity (from angry editors, resignations, and lost applications) would be so great as to cancel out any efficiency gain from the addition of new staff.
After all, an earlier program for "Professional Content Providers" proved enormously controversial. Operators of major websites such as RollingStone.com or CNN.com were to be given high-level access to add deeplinks to their content; the PCPs provoked tremendous outcry from a vocal minority of editors and in the end, the program had to be discontinued. I don't think it's an avenue that the current staff wants to embark upon again.
Free is better?? What good is a free car you can't drive? I know it is impossible for the ODP (for reasons aforementioned) but I would rather pay and get listed than not get listed at all.
Again, you may not have the site(s) you submitted listed because they were moved/deleted/still sitting in unreviewed. No URLs, please. Thanks. - Laisha
[edited by: Laisha at 5:06 pm (utc) on Aug. 10, 2002]
Like most shopping categories the content there would ideally be unique businesses. There is probably not much that can be offered in terms of unique content in that category that is not directly related to selling tickets. (Get in line early before the broker snaps up all the tickets:) ) Each broker should have one listing in shopping and one in regional if they have a physical business presence if I undestand the guidelines correctly.
Resouce-zone.com would probably be a good place to bring up issues with this category in order to get someone to look it over and clean it out.
