Forum Moderators: open
.....I nearly spit out my wine....:)
ROFL. Yeah, some topics around here people have strong opinions about. ;)
Yet here we are in the monthly DMOZ-bashing thread and the protests and calls for moderation from the same bunch are noticeable by their absence. In fact we even have a board moderator making one of the more ignorant posts that I have seen during the time that I have been a member here.
I prefer robust debate and people being forced to challenge their own beliefs and I was dismayed by the apologies and comments over in the other thread. But if we are going to do that then let us at least debate (which means providing evidence and arguments). The standard of debate and the low level of tolerance for sloppy or prejudiced thinking was one of the things that persuaded me to hang around originally.
But far too many posts over the last three months have been either unargued allegations or self-indulgent claptrap about why the world (or Google or DMOZ) has got it in for me...
You merely delude yourself about the power of the DMOZ. Unless your site is in a DMOZ category with unusually high PageRank and few sites listed, getting a link off of my amateur site's home page would have more effect on Google than the DMOZ. Quit whining about the DMOZ and get yourself some good inbound links from other sources.
As for DMOZ not looking at the ex-editor list, I know they do. When a new site is flagged this way it is like a big red flag. Editors are afraid to touch something that could lead to them getting removed as well.
On the original topic of this thread.....
I still think you are confusing two issues
1. If you send for review a new URL, then there is nothing in the editors notes to link you to that site. Hells bells, it does not even have any editors notes as a new URL. It is plainly wrong to believe that all sites submitted to DMOZ are checked against the ex-editors list. There would have to be some "alarms" to make the reviewer dig deeper into the provenence of the site.
2. If you try to re-submit a site that has already been banned, then that will be in the editors notes, and will influence any new appraisal of your site.
If there is nothing to link you to the new submission, how do you think "they" are finding out it is "you", an ex-editor with a "record".
If you do truely believe that you are being discriminated against for this reason, please feel free to contact me (include the sites URLs and your ex-editor alias). I promise to give your site(s) a fair review and if I believe that you have been unjustly treated, then I'll put the sites in the queue for the appropriate category with a suitable note. If, however, they were valid deletes (say, for example, you had a site which was just an affiliate of X Y or Z), then would you mind if I posted the reasons here so that people know the real reason? That's my offer - whether you take it or not is up to you... (my ODP editor name is the same as on this board btw).
That looks like a very genuine offer from a respected DMOZ editor (not one of your grouchy ones :) ) . If the original poster of the problem does not take it up, then as an outside observer, I would draw my own conclusions on the validity of the original complaint.
Perhaps allanp73 could say if he intends to take up beebware's offer, or if he does not, then why he does not want to.
Contractor, I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. There are obviously lots of of people in the ODP with good intentions. Personally, given the potential for corruption I have to wonder if the idea of a *commercial* dorectory with volunteer editors is really great. The DMOZ model seems great for non-commercial sites. There obviously is a problem that when money is involved, some corrupt people will apply.
You raise a valid point. I believe that a commercial directory run by volunteers is viable. You have to accept the fact that there will be editor corruption whether it is a commercial free directory or not. If dmoz switched to a commercial free directory – what would stop site owners/editors from changing their content after their site is listed? This happens now and would happen if it was commercial free. I also believe that if the editors were paid and dmoz was turned into a “pay-for-submission” service, it wouldn’t make any difference. If you charged site owners they would growl all the louder that their site is being treated unfairly by corrupt editors being paid off by the “big guys”. Realistically if it was a pay-for-submission service who would you take care of the most? In your business or any business if one customer has repeatedly purchased 1000 widgets a week wouldn’t you treat them a little better than those who purchased “one”. This in itself would lead to corruption.
People need to accept the fact that there will always be corruption within the ODP just like any other organization or business, and there will always be listed sites that do not deserve to be listed. The only thing I can say is if you want to help then report abuse, and/or become an editor. It doesn’t do anyone any good to blatantly make broad-based statements if you are unwilling to help resolve this by taking the time to report what you see.
I found many times the people/webmasters that dislike dmoz the most are those that cannot get their sites listed for various reasons. It’s kind of like those that jump up and down and bash Googles algo because another site has taken their positions in the serps. If it doesn’t work for “them” it is either no good or is corrupt. If their site was holding the top two positions they would claim “this is the best algo ever”.
Marcia – You kill me!:)
Toolman - I never received a sticky
Allan admitted to have abused his own editor powers and was expelled for them. So far so bad (but quite noble of him to openly admit the fact). Also according to his own words, his wive and friends continue to violate the editing guidelines by relaying internal communication to him. This is somewhat understandable given the situation, but will lead to their eventual expulsion anyway.
The ODP maintains an early warning system to prevent repeat abuse by former editors, which among other things consists of keeping a list of their sites for future reference.
He claims that this list prevents his new sites from getting listed in the directory.
At the same time, at least three of his sites on that list are actually present in the directory (including one toplcal/regional double listing), together with another one that apparently escaped the attention of the people who had to clean up after him.
At least one of the remaining sites was rejected a while ago for not having enough useful content at that time. I didn't continue to check the rest, but I suspect that there might be several others with the same problem. They're all spanking new sites, after all.
Real estate sites are generally treated with an extra portion of suspicion, and for a reason. This is an extemely competitive area, which results in tons of affiliate and other doorway sites being submitted, in an attempt to deceive the editors and to carve out a few additional listings. That doesn't mean this is the case with Allans sites (as far as I can tell it's not), but it does mean that there's generally a huge backlog in the respective categories. It also means the the ODP had to establish extra guidelines about real estate sites, to make it easier for the editors to wade though the resulting mess.
The conclusion?
Add more useful content to your sites, and be patient. The requirements for real estate sites are higher than for most other types of sites, and getting them listed generally takes a while. To the best of my understanding (I don't edit real estate sites myself, so someone else may correct me), you seem to be on the right path with your sites, but some more work and time may be required.
Paranoia and conspiracy theories optional.
