Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from

Forum Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Message Too Old, No Replies

Problem in Dmoz

Editor Choice !



5:33 am on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member


I think there is some problem in dmoz. I have seen a number of sites belongs to the same company listed in number of cat in Dmoz. And Also dmoz editors are just submitting their own sites in categories and new submission of the same cat or same industry use to avoid. Even personally i had submitted sites to dmoz those are really having good content & PR and all and did not receive any response since 3 years or so.

I believe existing editors are not following the rules and submiting their own sites and rejecting the others.

Any idea on this.


Adversity Sure Fire

7:13 am on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

Strange :(


7:38 am on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

if you can support your claim that an editor is giving preference to his own site then by all means turn him in. Meta editors can look into this for you, and if you are correct it is possible that they will be removed as an editor, and any extra domains they own and are discovered will be flagged and removed.

Not all editors are as you described :-)

I have been an editor since the beginning of dmoz. I have seen many come and go.
I also understand about not getting listed in 3 years. Just so you know what I look at, I currently have about 5000 sites that I still need to review. I would say 40% of them are spam. I sift through the spam to look for good sites to list. I also check domain records to see who is submitting a mirror site, or trying to slip one by me. This stuff (and more research) takes a lot of time. Meanwhile, while I am trying to add this one listing, three more people submit to my category.

I would say the reason I am not able to list any faster is because of the amount of spam, mirrors, duplicates, and deep links that are submitted daily, which slow me down getting to real sites that need to be listed.


8:32 am on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

There are places to report suspected abuse by ODP editors.

I would encourage you to make such reports.

But I can't tell you where to do that as that would be against WMW's TOS.


9:08 am on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

well we all know DMOZ is a dodgy business ,and 99,9% of the edittors are all webmasters,if by accident you submite your site in a cat that the edittor has his ,hers competitive page ,you can wait until he her is dead then maybe you will see your page in DMOZ.Google should better keep a distance from that dodgy directory .


12:01 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

Its been a whole week since that last batch of whinging about DMOZ, so guess its time for the next thread....

99,9% of the edittors are all webmasters,

Not even close to being true. Where did you get this information from or did you just make it up?

Google should better keep a distance from that dodgy directory

....so why then have Google just start using DMOZ descriptions in the SER display? .... seems to me that Google have put an increased importance on DMOZ.


1:14 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

I also believe the dmoz is dodgy or at least the editors and lack of editing is unbearable. I've been submitting my website for over a year now and getting nowhere. I don't give a rats about google or any other SE using dmoz because im already listed in google, yahoo and msn. The only reason I want the site in the directory is because of all the other sites who use the dmoz content.


1:24 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

I've been submitting my website for over a year now....

Then it seems likely that you have continually abuse their terms for suggesting sites.

....and getting nowhere

You may well have got yourself banned. What other result would make sense?


1:31 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

ok well my site is already listed in the category under the old url that doesnt exist anymore. What I've been submitting is the link update which I've tried twice and yet they still list the old dead link.


2:38 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

Thehittman, are you using the update form, or just repeatedly resubmitting your new URL? You need to do the former. URL updates have been streamlined tremendously at the ODP lately, and provided the request for a URL change is verifiable (i.e. the old address is either non-functional or redirects to the new one) it should be handled in very short order. (Obviously, if the old address still has the content on it, a change isn't going to happen just because it's anonymously requested; otherwise, imagine the chaos!)

>you can wait until he is dead then maybe you
>will see your page in DMOZ

This comes up every week or two, but it's a misconception really worth correcting: it's impossible for an editor to keep your site out of the directory simply by ignoring it, because the new submission will automatically appear to dozens of different editors all the way up the category tree. I've set submissions aside to deal with later only to find that when I returned to them, they'd already been processed by another editor. For a bad editor to squelch your site, he or she would have to proactively sabotage it (delete it, give it a defamatory description, etc.) If that happens, please do use the official form to report it, because we care about such things very much.

If it's just taking a long time for your site to be reviewed, though, it's doubtful there's any abuse going on; just a category with a lot of spam submissions to be picked through in all likelihood, and the fact (often counterintuitive to SEO-types) that editors find new sites to list from other sources (links, etc.) as often as from the submissions pool.

Keep in mind that the ODP doesn't list every type of website, too. If you have an affiliate sales site, for example, it's really the wrong directory to submit to regardless of how good the site is. No directory will ever be all things to all people, and it's good sense to submit a site only to the directories it's a good match for (no Japanese-language sites to an English-only directory, no online drug sales sites to a directory of educational sites for kids, no commercial sites to Zeal, no affiliate sites to the ODP, etc.)

Disclaimer: This post constitutes an unofficial, personal opinion not necessarily shared by other ODP editors, the university, or my cats.


3:35 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

...if by accident you submite your site in a cat that the edittor has his ,hers competitive page ,you can wait until he her is dead then maybe you will see your page in DMOZ...

Not true at all. If it is then you better tell the last 10000 site owners that i listed in my section that I am really dead and will not be able to make any more changes for them.


4:06 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

a section with more than 10,000 links. please sticky me this section so i can have a look at it.


5:35 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

You're joking, thehittman, aren't you? There are 100,000 to 1,000,000 sites listed in each of the ODP's top-level categories.


6:21 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

yeah i know but they also have more than 1 editor normally for the large categories. I've seen categories with 2-20 editors.


6:56 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

That's what I'm trying to tell you. EVERY category has more than one editor. A site submitted to, say, the Harry Potter fanfiction category automatically appears on the to-do list of not only that category's editor but the editors of the general Harry Potter category, the children's authors category, the children's literature category, the general literature category, and the main Arts directory.

So it's impossible for one editor along the path somewhere to stonewall a submission. Of course, if 80,000 sites get submitted to the Harry Potter fanfiction category and every one of them has got to be checked for porno links and so forth, it could take quite a while before any given one sees review. But there are always dozens of different editors involved; there is *never* only one editor on the critical path.


7:46 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

The editors are lazy is because they dont get anything for being editors. So the reason the whole directory is slow is because they simply couldnt give a rats becasuse there is no incentive to actually do anything unless they feel like it. (other than submitting their own sites)


7:46 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

Has it actually been a whole week since we had threads around here with proofless accusations?


8:35 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

The ODP isn't so much slow as travelling in a different dimension. (There are a lot of dimensions to being human, and the ODP covers most of them better than anyone else.)

Something like 6 million listings have been added to the ODP, and about 1.5 million of them removed (dead sites, etc.) One should probably add to that, five to ten million submittals processed at no charge to the submitters, but rejected.

That's 5 to 10 million more actions than anyone else on the web (volunteer or mercenary) has cared to do. Not being a practitioner of necrorodentomensuration, I'm not sure the exact equivalent, but my guess would be something close to "enough whole rats to repopulate Detroit after a Pied Piper visit".

As for the percentage of corrupt editors ... many job applications for dead-end (bonehead) jobs take advantage of a psychological concept called "projection" to identify dishonest applicants. It's very simple: there is a high correlation between one's estimate of the percentage of dishonest people around you, and one's own dishonesty.

I could say I think most editors are honest, but since I'm aware of the concept, I don't think that really gives away any information even about me.

I can say (and anyone can look at the ODP and see this): the editors that do the vast majority of work -- the very active editors -- could not possibly be driven to do the work they do by bribery or corruption. And so, even if 45,000 editors were there to add only their own site, that would only be 1% of all the listings. The other ten or fifteen thousand editors would have done essentially all the work you see.


9:00 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

ok wouldn't it mean dead rats?

but anyway.... i used to be an editor myself at dmoz, musicmoz, scaffe, mavicanet. I've done the rounds. So I have also known many editors there also. Just because you may not be lazy and believe that dmoz is great doesnt mean that everyone else thinks it is. most editors are only editors bring in some sites slip in a few of their own.

[edited by: thehittmann at 9:15 pm (utc) on June 10, 2005]


9:14 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

well thats really strange i complain about dmoz being so slow then all of a sudden my links been updated on the same day......

yeah cheers dmoz, lol


9:35 pm on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

I'm sure it's coincidence. thousands of people whine about the ODP every day; hundreds actually do something about it, and thousands of sites get added. Some days something has to match up.

But the thing is, the ODP went the same speed yesterday as it is doing today. It's just if you look at a small enough sample, you can't tell that. The ODP is like a sandstorm, not an avalanche: just because you can find one grain of sand that isn't moving, doesn't mean it's safe to go on safari.


5:22 pm on Jun 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

"There are a lot of dimensions to being human, and the ODP covers most of them better than anyone else."

I prefer Zeal. Not only do I find the information to be far more trustworthy and comprehensive than DMOZ, I have also been able to add a dozen sites to their directory over the past 3 years.

None of those sites has ever made it into DMOZ.


2:04 am on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

Well I submitted my site as advised and have not bothered resubmitting or complaining etc etc.

But IMHO DMOZ is just not 'immediate' enough.

If I order my groceries via the web, I want it delivered within 2 days (or I'll complain), If I post in a forum with a problem I'd like a quick response (or I'll go elsewhere ), if I win an auction I want it fast (or I'll post negative feedback), if I have a problem with my ISP I want it sorted out asap (or I'll move) and when I was on dial-up I wanted Broadband, now I've got 512kps I want 1 Mbs...

Yet..If I am a webmaster and I submit my site to Dmoz, I have to wait a year? Perhaps much longer? With no reponse or any clue as to what is going on, if it's even reviewed? rejected or binned straight off as spam?

In this day and age of 'next day delivery', 'order tracking' and 'negative feedback' for bad service...DMOZ fails every time, and performance is unacceptable in 2005.

Every other top website (profit or non-profit) in their genure gets by with fast delivery, fast reponses, lots of help/advice, turnover, order tracking, and above all, good service to ALL who use or contribute to the site.

Yet this directory gets upset when users (yes including those that provide the very base it is built on, websites).. dare to complain, or give 'negative feedback' or are not happy with response times.

We wouldn't think twice doing it elsewhere.

All very well saying it is based on volunteers etc. But if you're offering a service (submit your website) that is only showing results a year or perhaps not at all with no explanation or any sort of idea what's going on?
You've GOT to expect some flak in todays world. It's far too slow and uninformative. And to the outsider, almost a secret society ie 'Editors are not encouraged to answer emails'.

I absolutely understand that DMOZ is there for internet consumers and not webmaster. But those that try to contribute, and indeed are invited to... are terribly disillusioned by this Directory now, for many, many reasons. You only have to see the weekly DMOZ bashing here. They can't all be spammers surely?

I was advised to 'submit and forget'. (I did)

But I think it wont be long until people just 'forget'..it's not worth the time it takes finding the right category, typing the thing out and all that goes with it. The Resource Zone is just plain scary and the unfriendliest place I have ever been on the net. I'm glad the status checks have been discontinued as it saved me getting drunk enough to pluck up the courage to ask.

To the layman webmaster it seems only a 'lucky' few in any genure get in and the whole process takes far, far too long.

Everyhing else on the web gets faster and faster, DMOZ cannot keep plodding on at a 10th of a snails pace in todays world.


2:12 am on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

They are a free directory after all, so it's not really fair to compare them to paid services.

Yahoo and some other directories will charge you a fee up front and guarantee either a listing or a time period in which your site will be reviewed.

I don't even pay attention to directories like I used to. I submit and forget, and any links I get are a bonus.


2:23 am on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

I wasn't comparing them to paid services.

Just any other good site/forum/directory on the internet today.

I wouldn't come back here if it took a year for my post to be reviewed.


3:42 am on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

andysmith617: I absolutely understand that DMOZ is there for internet consumers and not webmaster.

And yet you make a lengthy post complaining that it's too slow and not responsive enough as a listing service. Almost all of the noise complaining about the ODP is webmasters.. not users.

It's a hard fact of life that from the user's perspective, those ODP categories probably look just fine without your site, my site or anybody else's site for that matter. Fundamentally, if the ODP gives the visitors a good choice of "Blue Widgets" sites then it succeeds in its core mission. It is not necessary to list every site to be useful to visitors and data users.


4:23 am on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Zeal is a free service (for non-commercial content) and it is more useful than DMOZ for both readers and publishers, in my opinion.

DMOZ has always had a lot of potential and I wish them luck at increasing the speediness of submission approvals and increased quality in their listings.

Zeal shows that it is possible.


4:46 am on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

I can only relate my own experience from the outside, rather than guess what is going on from the inside.

I give 2/10 to the DMOZ.

1. My site is clean white hat, HTML + CSS, human written original content, 1500 + pages. Some would call it an ‘authority site’.

2. Holds top positions in all search engines and has PR 5 throughout because webmasters like linking to it.

3. Site was submitted in the appropriate way and updates requested at appropriate times thereafter.

4. It has not been added in over a year - neither has any other site been added or changed (including spam) to that particular DMOZ page which has 65 links – all ancient. I don’t expect it to ever be added.

5. I have attempted to help the situation by becoming an editor – 4 times!

6. The first application was met by fierce opposition of an editor claiming I was lying about my experience – she must have thought I was someone else. After I explained she was mistaken (and she agreed) I have had no other help whatsoever. Only a standard ‘declined’ email every time I conscientiously reapplied.

7. With a couple of notable exceptions (thanks Jim) I have experienced nothing but arrogance and scorn for my queries in the resource zone. I have witnessed many other webmasters nastily shot down in flames who have tried to offer help, or get to the bottom of a particular obvious problem. I must admit, occasionally I have actually felt sorry for some webmasters – but then I have always found it distasteful when a group gangs up on an individual.

My observations:

1. It is a wildly unfair and inconsistent directory and Google, nor anyone, should rely on it for anything.

2. Some areas of the directory are very well managed, others are not. Some editors are very good, others are not.

3. It is just tough luck if you have to submit your site to a badly managed section.

4. There are people who blindly bash the DMOZ. Maybe because their spamy site wasn’t accepted, or maybe because their useful site was ignored (I won’t speculate on corruption).

5. There are very diligent hard working and useful editors.

6. There are also editors who take suggestions, comments and criticisms of the DMOZ very personally. These editors become overly defensive and do not react to comments and criticisms on the particular merits. These editors have ‘pulled up the ladder on outsiders’ and really do just waste everyone’s time.

7. There will be many here that agree with my thoughts and many who will not.

8. Life goes on - so does the DMOZ, and so does my website.


4:59 am on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member

Excellent post nzmatt - I have a hunch that the editors who are here in WebmasterWorld are not the typical ones, which is why there seems to be such a spirited defense of DMOZ at WebmasterWorld.

Like you I've had great sites rejected multiple times with no explanation, and asked to be an editor in various categories - even trivial ones - with rejection. If the workload and backlog are overwhelming (I'm sure it is) one would expect them to welcome volunteer editors with extensive experience.


5:10 am on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

>To the layman webmaster it seems only a 'lucky' few in any genure get in

Well, only a "few" do get in. 70-90% of the submittals are "spam" (from our point of view, but of course that word is defined by the recipient.)

As for the "lucky" part?

Yes, chance pays a very definite part as to which sites get REVIEWED first, and there are very good reasons why that should be so. Better that than an ignorant edict about what sites should be reviewed first (and, of course, before the sites have been reviewed, ALL possible edicts are ignorant!)

As to which sites get LISTED, ... it will, I guarantee you, APPEAR that is also chance. Because the editors aren't looking for anything that you see of value in a site. Pretty design? Ignored, check. High search engine placement? we don't even know enough about it to ignore, check. Conversion rate? Irrelevant and unknown, double check. Ad banner opportunities? We'll ignore them if we can, delete the site if we can't, and check either way.

We're looking for information, and if we find it we'll be happy to list the site no matter how high or low the conversion rate is. If we don't find it, we want to dump the site no matter what its profit potential.

A different dimension, definitely.

>and the whole process takes far, far too long.

Well, from our point of view, and from the point of view of our customers, it takes no time at all. I don't have to wait even a minute after a site is submitted to review it. In fact, I don't have to wait UNTIL it is submitted. If it's up and serving pages, I can list it. How fast is that?

And, from our customer's point of view, the RDF comes out more often than ANYONE wants to pick it up. How fast is that?

Even from out end user's point of view, the site is pretty fast -- go to dmoz.org, and you're guaranteed to see our latest work, within a matter of days (I think nine days is the theoretical maximum delay.) How fast is that?

So...is there anything else that matters? To us or our customers? Anything at all?

Actually, there are some real timeliness issues. One is, of course, news. The ODP used to list news articles from major sources. We quit, because we couldn't keep it up-to-date. You want news, Google News Search is the place to go, and there's no point in us even trying.

Another is newsbreaking topics. A news report on, say, a new disease gets national attention because it takes some movie star out of our misery. This we often do very very well--generally better than anyone else on the net. The chances are extremely good that even before the usual doorway-page-ad-banner-farm types have their vanity URLs bought and paid for, an ODP editor will have generated a category, built it up based on reputable sources and Google searches, and moved on to something else. The quick-buck-artists find the ODP category just waiting for their spam, submit, then sit down to complain about the "dilatory" ODP editors whose biggest fault was having been too quick at internet research.

There's no "chance" involved here...and no "delay" either. The ODP had done its job of indexing authoritative information BEFORE the webmaster tried to dive in. On most fad subjects, the pool of information is exhausted pretty quickly, and late-comers are simply diving into an empty concrete shell. What do you say? Is it "chance" that they get shattered pates? Or was it predictable ahead of time? OR COULDN'T THEY HAVE GUESSED THAT THE ODP CATEGORY ALREADY OFFERED EVERYTHING THEY KNEW BEFORE YOU SUBMITTED THEIR SITE?

Unquestionably, there is good material on the web that's not listed in the ODP. (So the work continues.) But -- weekly distribution of new work via the RDF; daily availability of new work via the public side of dmoz.org; pre-availability of many "timely" subjects -- what more could our customers want?

This 300 message thread spans 10 pages: 300

Featured Threads

Hot Threads This Week

Hot Threads This Month