Forum Moderators: open
Thanks for checking that. I remember the category now as I just visited dmoz and it triggered what it was.
I did change the domain a while back, so maybe that had something to do with why the site never got reviewed - although this is guess work on my part.
It's very interesting to finally know that my site wasn't deleted - phew, as I thought my site description might not be accurate or something. Would it be worth re-submitting or is it okay to leave it the way it is?
So now we know that most editors aren't corrupt, what about the ones that are? Are they dealt with in any way by dmoz, say thrown out, their sites deleted, banned or something?
Thanks again for checking that out - at least I know my site isn't at fault in some way.
I occasionally come across editors in the logs with just a few edits to their name that show a ststus of "removed" and sometimes within just a few days of joining, and I have seen a high level editor with tens of thousands of edits shown as the same ststus too.
At that point, the logs are inspected and someone, another volunteer, has to right any wrongs as they are found. Anyone can inspect any log at any time, and if anything is found can alert someone higher up to take a closer look. Even people on the outside are encouraged to report problems: there is a thread on another forum where several thousand problems have already been reported and fixed. If no-one reports a problem, then it cannot be an important problem. If it were important, then it would be reported. No?
>> I did change the domain a while back, so maybe that had something to do with why the site never got reviewed. <<
Hmm. You never mentioned "another domain" before. Nice of you to not tell the whole story up front.
>> I thought my site description might not be accurate or something. Would it be worth re-submitting or is it okay to leave it the way it is?
That would entail being in the category that you submitted to, in order to the see your suggested entry (and I don't have edit permissions there, wherever it may be) - and it would involve a "site review" to let you know that (which I cannot do, as everyone would want one).
g1smd, I just stickied you. I'll sticky you again.
Can't help you then: and don't throw mud at the volunteers anymore.
However, I don't know who you are, or anything about your editing authority with the ODP. I feel uncomfortable disclosing personal information to someone on a message board, even though your intentions are honorable. I wish you could help me.
I think it's unwise to reveal our personal identity and business ventures on this board. Also, as I told you in the sticky mail I sent you, I would have to disclose too much information about my competitors' web sites that could disqualify them. That's not my place to do that. I won't play that game, because I think it's wrong.
If you will read back, you will find the title of this thread is "DMOZ Blacklist". I originally posted because of an experience I had that could possibly be such a situation as that.
To support my original post, which questioned some (not all) of the editors, I will copy and paste some text taken directly out of an email I received from an editor. This person has been an editor for quite some time. In previous emails, I specifically discussed whether or not DMOZ editors were allowed to list their own commercial sites in the categories they edit. The editor told me that DMOZ did not disqualify editors for doing this..."If we did, we would not have any editors"...'quote'
Any reputable institution, organization or government should be questioned from time to time, and should, in fact, expect to be questioned. That's how entities are kept honest. The only people that should be upset about this type of questioning are people that are dishonest. And I don't consider this type of questioning 'mud-slinging'.
For the honest editors, once again, this was not directed at you. Judging from your posts, and some of the people who have responsed to you, you're probably a reputable editor.
I think the ODP concept is a good one. I think many editors are noble in their intent. But I also think that it's our responsibility to question what we feel is not right.
If there are sites that are listed that should not be, then you should be letting the ODP know about that - while they remain listed, other people may see those sites and use that as a justification for themselves to submit something which is not listable too; and so our spam pile grows. There is a thread in another forum where more than a thousand problems have been reported and cleaned up. You can sign up anonymously and post there, or feedback a Meta editor via a forum or via the ODP feedback mechanism itself.
Unfortunately, their 'recruitment' methods have no effective monitoring and so almost anybody is taken on in the role - this is evident in the fact there are 37'000 of them. Some editors are good and some are bad, personal agendas are bound to set in, as I bet many just sign up to get their site added to dmoz - then wait to be replaced by what will hopefully be a 'genuine' editor. I've no idea of the number of 'evil' editors but there must be a few, as there is much talk on the web about 'editor shafting' and 'blacklisting' etc etc. It must be tough for dmoz to try and keep their credibility intact with all this talk, but this could go on forever and it can feel very personal when it takes so long to get in and I do wonder if it's worth it at all. I think lifes too short to worry about 1 directory, and there are other options available.....
It's kinda sad that such a large resource as dmoz has these problems at all - even more so since they are owned by AOL. If anything they should be better, and all this bad publicity isn't good - I'd fire all the editors, inform dmoz's user base and tell the press too. Companies can rebuild and remarket, dmoz needs some measure in place to either speed up operations and /or recruit quality paid staff - they have cash at their disposal.
obviously popular due to the free submissions aspect
You have fallen in to the classic DMOZ bashing fallacy --- characterise DMOZ as something that its not and then criticise that characterisation.
dmoz needs some measure in place to either speed up operations and /or recruit quality paid staff - they have cash at their disposal
That is only the case if you consider DMOZ to be some sort of listing service - its not... as such the concept of a "backlog" does not really exist.There is only a "backlog" at DMOZ if you consider DMOZ to be a listing service and the editors role being to process submissions - it is neither. Most critics and that author consider DMOZ to be a listing service ...they need to get over that. Many other directories provide that service. I fail to understand why so many complain about something that is not provided by DMOZ. ...and what is provided is free.
An editors role is to build a category of useful resources. The role is not to list every possible site on the topic of the category and its not to process submissions. Submitting a site is nothing more than a suggestion for the editor to consider (and editors are free to totally ignore all submissions, though most do not.)
To build a category an editor uses the following resources (for eg):
1. Personal knowledge
2. Following links on sites already listed and not listed
3. Searching Google and Yahoo, etc
4. Google alerts
5. Print advertisments; signs on trucks etc
6. Submmitted sites
7. Industry publications
8. etcBy submitting sites, you are doing nothing more than providing another means of assistance for a editor to find good sites. The problem is that the submitted sites is the worst source of good sites and is the most inefficient way for an editor to build a category. The best sites are probably never sumbitted (not every one has heard of DMOZ!) - they have just as much right to be considered for a listing to build a category of good resources as any site submitted. As they were not sumitted, they are just a bit harder to find.
From this point of view the "backlog" at DMOZ is an irrelavant concept. The "backlog" really consists of the entire www of sites not listed.
DMOZ is NOT a listing service for webmasters. That servce is provided by a lot of other directories.
I can assure you that most applications are turned down, but even so, more than a dozen new editors start up every single day, sometimes double that or more.
>> and so almost anybody is taken on in the role <<
"Almost anybody"? In what context do you mean that?
If you mean that it doesn't matter how old you are, what job you do, what eduction you had, and what your social standing is, then, yes, the ODP will take on anyone who can look at a site, look at the guidelines and decide whether said site is listable; and if listable then go on to craft a hype-free title and description for said site.
If you mean that they'll take on any old spammer, and deceitful person, people who cannot spell, have no sense of grammer, then no, they do not. We want to keep all those people out. Those are the ones responsible for lowering the quality of the directory.
The editor applicant reviewers are occasionally fooled by some applications, but such a newly approved editor will be removed quickly once any problems are noticed: and there are 9000 other editors and millions of casual surfers to do the noticing - so most stuff is caught very very quickly.
For a new editor, several dozen people are likely to have looked at their editing logs within the first few weeks.
>> this is evident in the fact there are 37'000 of them <<
You keep repeating that number. And its false. There have been 67 000 editors since the project began, and at this point in time there are 9000 with an active log-in because they have made at least one edit in the last 4 months.
>> Some editors are good and some are bad, <<
No-one has ever disputed that. However most of the bad ones are caught and booted very quickly. There are a lot of people who report problems. There is a forum elsewhere that has a thread with 1500 posts in it with problems being reported and fixed. Most of those are dead or changed listings, but a few are editor abuse - and all are dealt with. It would be damn near impossible to get away with systematic abuse for long: any editor can look at the logs for any other editor, any site, and any category at any time they want to.
>> personal agendas are bound to set in, as I bet many just sign up to get their site added to dmoz <<
There are quite a few people who join, add 10 sites and never log in again. Believe me, the edit logs for those people are scrutinised very carefully by very many people - and if anything has been added that should not have been then it is deleted, and if anything has been removed that should not have been then it is re-added.
>> then wait to be replaced by what will hopefully be a 'genuine' editor. <<
There is no such thing as a "replacement". Editors do not get exclusive rights to a category. There are hundreds of editors that can, and do, edit in any category anywhere in the directory, and anyone above a leaf category can edit all the way down the tree.
>> I've no idea of the number of 'evil' editors but there must be a few, as there is much talk on the web about 'editor shafting' and 'blacklisting' etc etc <<
There are a "few", and most are short lived. An editor with tens of thousands of edits to his name, and many more reviews of sites and listings than that, has said in another public forum, that abuse runs at less than 0.1%, only a few abusive edits or listings have been seen in tens of thousands of checks.
Thats called the Yahoo Directory -- DMOZ provides a different service. <<<<<
Yes, but I think it's a great idea to hire people to work in those areas that editors do not want to work in. There are large parts of the directory that are never touched except to remove dead links occassionally. Let's face it. There are many, many categories no one wants to improve. Most of the editors are niche specific.
The dmoz reminds me of that guy in the gym that only works the biceps in his right arm and his back. Consequently, he flexes well from certain angles but he has really skinny legs, left arm and flabby abs. Looks just like the dmoz.
I still want to know who spent all those hours cramming 10,000 back links into every single category they could find for topix news service? Why would they do that? It is mind boggling. Go to little regional categories and see "find news about this town in topix" with a link that just goes to their main page. 10,000 backlinks?
I believe that is true. Not because a majority of all editors own commercial sites - possibly they do, but there are no statistics about that kind of thing so I don't know. However, if the ODP had the kind of draconian rules that would forbid an editor to add his or her own listable site to the relevant category, giving it a guidelines compliant title and description, it would mean that we didn't trust the editors one whit. And that, the lack of trust, would lose us editors (and quite rightly too!) (Besides, systematically forbidding the listing of good sites based on who owns them would be pretty stupid, which would mean that no intelligent person would want to be an editor. That ain't the case now, I can assure you.)
The number of editors who add or edit only their own commercial site(s) and do nothing else is so small as to be statistically insignificant; hence, it's logically impossible for it to be the case that ODP editors in general are there just to watch over their own commercial interests, or those of their best buds. (I just checked my own stats - 11000+ unique adds - I don't have that many friends :p )
In my opinion, the quality of DMOZ has continued to spiral downward, whether that be the result of corruption or inability to manage such a large index. And for this reason, lots of other directories are cropping up. They may be small now, but I believe one day DMOZ will be much less important than it is now.
So in answer to the original question:
1. Submit to other directories, and don't worry about DMOZ.
2. Better yet, start your own directory.
3. Start a new site, and use a unique email address and name, and resubmit to a lower level category on DMOZ, and you should be able to become accepted as an editor.
You are assuming that free submissions are the main source of new sites for DMOZ and a DMOZ editor's role is to process those submissions - they are the worst source of new sites and editors are not there to process submissions.
I think I have three DMOZ listings that were added without a request. It wasn't until then that it ever I ever thought to ask for inclusion.
One - about four months ago - was listed within a week of submission. Some have taken longer. Some have never made it in.
And I will lay odds that these sights are very niche specific-entertainment/hobby style.
In the beginning the dmoz piled a lot of sites in there to make it resemble a full, well-rounded directory.
Since then, no one wants to work in those boooorrriiinng categories. That is why those categories continue to rot and decay. I see several that are actually shrinking monthly as dead links are removed but no new ones added.
>>>>(I just checked my own stats - 11000+ unique adds - I don't have that many friends :p ) <<<<<
And I bet that almost none of those concern a "widget-style" site.
The unique problem of an all volunteer directory has is a very lop sided source. It's time google stopped relying on the dmoz for source. It is just not comprehensive enough.
More than 12 editors start up every day. So over 1 year that's 4,380ish. But I think it's more than that even if my theory is based on joining just out of interest. But people are really joining to get the free listing, so I'd wager you'll get a lot more joining - more than 4000 plus per year. A free entry to get in one of the best directories on the web!, webmasters aren't going to turn that down - especially when it's so difficult to get listed - as we all now know...
Also the company where I got the 37,000 figure is a very well known guide publisher, they have offices in London and New York, provide a free major offline newsletter, 100 Guide CD's, they own a series of guides including the most famous travel guide in the world and have a testimonial from WHAT PC March 2001 - and I'm sure they hire the best researchers that money can buy and have approached dmoz for this information before publishing anything in their guide. Infact the figure of 37'000 editors was included in October 2001 first edition of the guidebook.
BTW - this company has info on over 25'000 destination the world over, it publishes over 150 specialist guides at this time. Just as famous as dmoz, if not more.
"Almost anybody"? In what context do you mean that?
Yep, age, occupation and education doesn't matter when editors are chosen. I don't hate dmoz, I just think their admistration is bad at the moment, and I can't see it improving.
Well, d'oh! It's now four years later and the figure is almost 70 000.
You can do the math as to average number per day if you want to.
>> I'm sure they hire the best researchers that money can buy and have approached dmoz for this information before publishing anything in their guide. <<
No need to approach anyone for that information. It is on the ODP front page.
Looks like they have even more editors to refuse good sites - or are the editors just freebie hunters. As difficult as it is for some to get their heads around this concept, one thing's for certain - dmoz's rep will suffer. I'm surprised dmoz editors run to defend a website that gives them nothing more than a free link. "I got a free link in dmoz for my many hours slaving away for someone elses gain"
That's how it is though and everyone on the web knows this to be the case. Those that (editors included) do it for passion are clearly not gaining from it - apart from a link.
1 link only!
Yes, it is a service to whoever wishes to view the sites in it's database, but doing something so complex and work heavy for free is not only financial suicide but a waste of time. I can understand offering an incentive that leads to a profit - but there is no profit because people keep pointing that out to me.
Running an operation of dmoz's size to attract an investor is a good idea, but only if you can take advantage of that. Dmoz clearly hasn't. But I think AOL interest is more from 'another service' point of view, they can now offer another reference tool to their arsenal. They could of improved dmoz's service if they wanted to - they clearly don't. lol lol
And what do the many people that edit at WikiPedia get out of that? or who contribute to Project Gutenburg? or helped to write software like Linux or Mozilla? Or who contributed to any volunteer community project?
Ya know that guy who helps out at the homeless shelter? He's only in it so that he can nick a can of soup once in a while, don't ya know?
Well, that's very debatable and a fine cause worthy of respect. But editors with agendas are not. Dmoz wasn't created to 'help' anyone but the creators of it. And offering the info to the public to make themselves known as respectable is one thing - offering free links to editors is another.
There is obvious confusion as dmoz seems to give free links to any editor, and webmasters are eager to get in for the traffic aspect. Even though dmoz explains it's exisitence on the site - this is obviously being missed by site owners, as they see sites being added every day, friends sites, competitors etc, and either can't or won't understand that they can't get in - which is a mistake by dmoz by not making it clearer.
Not everyone reads the small print, and that's life.
You cannot blame a human desire to want to be equal - eg get listed in dmoz, because everyone knows the value of a listing in it. That's not a crime and you and other editors can make your point as much as you want, you will be ignored and seen as the enemy I'm afraid, which will fall back down in dmoz's lap for managing the site the way they do.
Everything follows from that! Will listings get fewer, site owners may give up trying to list in dmoz - who the hell knows. But the editors will always be hated and that's guaranteed. Dmoz has got to look at that issue before it's loses it's resource.
Anyone else agree with my theory.
Well, we know we have many enemies. We routinely channel their excreta into our spam filters; and the louder the wailing in forums like this one becomes, the more we realise that we're doing a good job.
>> Will listings get fewer, site owners may give up trying to list in dmoz - who the hell knows. But the editors will always be hated and that's guaranteed. Dmoz has got to look at that issue before it's loses it's resource. <<
Since most editors find sites to add by using magazine articles, billboards, store fronts, Google (and other SE) searches, posts in forums, and many other places, the ODP would continue to grow by half a million sites per year even if nothing was ever submitted by webmasters ever again. In fact, if volunteers freely giving their time to catelogue sites are your enemies, I'd suggest that you don't bother submitting to, or contacting, the ODP ever again.
Good luck.
And this is how you gauge your success? The sites I manage are all representative of brick and mortar businesses. We most assuredly will never get in to the odp because no one does any editing in those categories. I haven't even submitted the last three because it is just a pure waste of time. Those kinds of categories just lay in rot.
But I should think that if you spend time in these forums with fellow webmasters and enjoy their frustration about the inequities of the odp......
doing something so complex and work heavy for free is not only financial suicide but a waste of time
Sometimes people do things for reasons other than pure profit. For some there is life outside of the mighty dollar.
I think many editors, forum moderators, volunteers of any kind for that matter would strongly disagree with that statement and may very well take offense.
2. Despite DMOZ's listings in Google, they are still a private organization, and they can do whatever they want.
3. You can cry "foul" all day long, but see #2.
This is true. They are a private organization and they can do whatever they want. The problem is that the general public accepts them as being an unbiased 'authority', and so does Google. That may have been true at one time, but I don't believe it's the case now.
I also agree with dvduvall:
1. Submit to other directories, and don't worry about DMOZ.
2. Better yet, start your own directory.
As I mentioned earlier, since my sites are now spidered and ranked, a DMOZ listing is rapidly losing importance to me.
And in response to #2, competition is the only thing that will fix this problem.
I wanted to say in reponse to Event King, that I agree with many of his posts. But I don't hate the editors. However, I am losing respect for their judgment. They also seem to have an air of 'we're in control'. In control....of what? One solitary link? How on earth did one link become so powerful?
That, too, can be addressed with more competition.
It will happen.
P.S. Uh....when I said 'one link' it made me remember something. I may be mistaken about this, but aren't sites only supposed to be listed once in the most appropriate category? I wonder why so many sites have multiple entries...and other sites are blacklisted.
doing something so complex and work heavy for free is not only financial suicide but a waste of time.
Absolutely! At last someone has explained why not a single webmaster om WMW has children.
Sure, a lot of them run orphanages for profit, or specialise in selling kids' clothing. But not one of us has children because that would be not only financial suicide but a waste of time.
Or maybe you skipped the day at school when the wider range of human motivations beyond financial profit was discussed. If so, you are missing a lot that could help you understand how people use the web.
And, you have to ask yourself why 9000 people who could edit there, choose not to do so?
From the surfers point of view, if someone is looking for the particular widget or service that you provide, and they visit that category: will they find at least one site that meets their need? If so, then the the ODP has done what it set out to do. What it expressly has not set out to do, is catalogue everything - only a representative sample.
Gosh, don't you ever do anything other people consider a waste of time and money? Personally, I'm a computer game enthusiast. I spend money and time on computer games, which brings me no benefit at all. (Not even any status or perceived status, because I don't even play online!)
I just play games because I think it's fun, and satisfying, in my own way. And I just edit at the ODP because I think it's fun, and satisfying, in my own way. Some people will think I'm very geeky for the former, and very boring for the latter. But I don't really care. I like gaming, and I like organizing things. I'm a librarian. I don't really enjoy monster truck pulls. To each his own, right?
I think your assessment that nobody could possibly be editing in the ODP, or in Wikipedia, for any reason other than gain to them is nothing but an extrapolation of the fact that YOU would find it a boring chore. Others of us do not. All you need to do to convince yourself of this is look at how many editors there are who work only in completely non-commercial categories. In fact, the non-commercial categories are frequently MORE actively edited than the commercial ones. If volunteer editors tended to be a self-interested lot, no one would ever edit obscure scientific or literary or academic categories at all; no one would ever edit in the children's directory (where there are no commercial sites.)
One of the things I really like about editing in the ODP is that, like any good hobby, it places no time constraints on me. Things were hectic at work for the last month, so I barely edited at all. Some week previous my husband was out of town, I had little to do, and I must have edited eight hours a day. The flexibility of the collaborative project makes it easy to enjoy as a non-stressful hobby, and I get to feel accomplished when I look back at some of the neat categories I've built and realize that it is now easier for searchers to learn about topics that were hard to dig sites up on before. I enjoy it. What's the problem with that? Doesn't EVERYONE have some hobby other people would be bored to tears by? *shrug*
