ihelpyou Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 Just one question: How does a brand new directory with very few listings get listed in 8 days, and other directories and sites take over one year? I'm not happy about this. ... missing categories... few listings.... NO different than the hundred other new directories that have sprang up in the past few months. Would anyone care to elaborate? http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Searching/Directories/ Many of you know I have been a huge fan of the ODP over the years, and I have stood with them when members in my forums have bashed them. This incident has truly made me mad. I never thought something like this could happen. Thank you. Doug Heil
ishtar Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 That site blows. See also - http://www.rubberstamped.org/blog.html I counted every listing I could find and came up with 220. This isn't a directory by my book.
inbetweener Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Ishtar, Doug has a personal vendetta against me, and I suspect this may be the reason he is raising this issue with you. The thing is Rich personally approved the submission. I didn't request this of him. Secondly, the directory is purposefully small. If you read the About page you will note that this directory hunts out and lists authorities. It doesn't aim to list every site, or even come close. Size is a poor measure of quality in this respect. If DMOZ responds to personal vendetta's, then that presents problems, does it not?
old_crone Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 How can anyone measure quality without content or so little content that the quality can't be determined?
ishtar Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 I could care less what your relationship to the previous poster is. I don't think there is ANY way that your site should have been listed. And if anyone else would have listed it, I would already have reported it as abuse. As it happens, I haven't reported anything. Yet. I also haven't deleted it. Yet. Just because Rich started ODP does not give him the privilege to add crap to the directory,
Quadrille Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Ishtar, Doug has a personal vendetta against me, and I suspect this may be the reason he is raising this issue with you.If accepting totally inappropriate sites - while declining directories many times larger - is your standard of editing, then "personal vendetta" is libel. The term you want is "legitimate complaint" Please try to keep personalities (Doug, Rich...) out of this. Lets discuss the editing of The Open Directory, against guidelines.
inbetweener Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 I don't think there is ANY way that your site should have been listed My site did meet the guidlines outlined, hence the reason I submitted. The editor made his decision that the addition was worthwhile. It's fair to say not all editors will agree with other editors choices, yes? I respect decisions made, it's your directory. However, you should keep in mind that you risk being played by the hardline SEO who started this thread. Is that what DMOZ wants? Where will it end?
Connie Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 If DMOZ responds to personal vendetta's, then that presents problems, does it not? IMO the only vendetta if there is one is the quality of the directory.
motsa Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Secondly, the directory is purposefully small. If you read the About page you will note that this directory hunts out and lists authorities. I sincerely doubt your commitment to that when I see some of the shops you've listed in Health or real estate agents listed under Business. Be honest about what you're doing -- you might be listing some authority sites but you're also listing people who will pay your listing fee. That's no way to build a truly relevent directory. I applaud the goal but I don't think you have a hope in heck of achieving it.
ihelpyou Posted January 21, 2005 Author Posted January 21, 2005 This is absolutely nothing personal with "inbetween" at all. My concern stems from the very fact I have backed the DMOZ at every turn over the years. I have the proof of that with "many" discussion forum posts that are very public. If some founder that sells a website like DMOZ to others, and then proceeds to turn it into this 'back scratching" kind of scheme, that's when a problem will then exist. The ODP guidelines are "very" clear with directories inbetween. It doesn't take rocket science to see that your directory has very little "real" listings. Afterall; it was launched "one" month ago. I've never said you should "never" be listed, but have said you could be listed later if it qualifies. To list your directory at the expense of other directories I am very aware of does not make the ODP look very good in this situation. There is more than a couple out there that were turned down because of "lack of listings", or "empty categories". Your directory has both. So please, get off this "personal" stuff. I could care less about you. I "DO" care about the DMOZ and always, always have. oh, and BTW inbetween; I find it ironic that you told "MY" forum members in public on a few occasions that you launched this directory because you have had many problems and beefs with the ODP. You have posted in other fora as well the same exact thing. You even wrote in your blog the same thing. You also gave that very reason on the about us page of your directory. To now say the ODP is great in my forums is certainly a hoot. First; it makes you look desperate. Second: It makes me look silly as well since your listing goes against all of my own posts that back up the odp at every turn.
just_browsing Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Seems to me that the real question is whether editor abuse has taken place. Bluntly, was this site added to DMOZ in order that the editor should gain an "advantage". That advantage being a interview with the site in question for PR purposes. If so it is an editor abusing their position, same as if they accepted, say, money. Have other sites been similarly added by the same editor? (and I do not know if my eyes have deceived me, but it looked as if the site in question was removed then added back in the last 12 hours)
Quadrille Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Seems to me that the real question is whether editor abuse has taken place.Exactly; ODP's biggest problem is accusations of editor abuse and the only defence (regularly repeated by me and others), is "Report it and it will be dealt with". If this matter is not resolved according to ODP's own guidelines, what are we to say when forums are filled with spammers making anti-ODP speeches? The involvement of Mr Skrenta raises the stakes; perhaps he would care to comment on why this one directory has been treated so differently from many more mature sites. Perhaps he made a simple error; in which case, the sooner he accepts that, the better. Failing all that, surely the meta editors should take appropriate action?
ishtar Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Last night I went through every site listed in this directory and I found 19 sites that were not listed in dmoz and possibly should be. The others were either listed or were total crap. As soon as I find the correct categories to list these sites in, there will be no point in listing the directory. And it will be deleted. This will probably happen sometime today, but no guarantees.
SeoBook Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Last night I went through every site listed in this directory and I found 19 sites that were not listed in dmoz and possibly should be. The others were either listed or were total crap. As soon as I find the correct categories to list these sites in, there will be no point in listing the directory. And it will be deleted. This will probably happen sometime today, but no guarantees. is that to say that there should not be new competing sites in any field just because when they were started there efforts might be a bit easy to duplicate? I bet you could state similar stats about many directories listed in that same category. also what happens when he adds another few thousand unique domains? another point... there are categories for those sites who ONLY use DMOZ data. because you or a group of friends can reproduce a collection of work does it actually mean that it has lowered value? if that is so then why even list sites with outdated copies of the current DMOZ index?
qwerty Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 also what happens when he adds another few thousand unique domains? I think that would be a good time to resubmit. If at that point the editors view RS as a unique, valuable resource, I would hope they'd list it and not let this thread color their opinion in any way. (He said as he waited patiently for his own highly-targeted niche directory to be listed...)
bldarter Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 I doubt the listing of the site has the support of any meta or administrator at ODP. Not enough content to list yet.
Meta nea Posted January 21, 2005 Meta Posted January 21, 2005 I second that, bldarter. Curlie Meta and kMeta editor nea
inbetweener Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 A shame, however thanks for your timely consideration
just_browsing Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Forgive me if I misunderstand what editor abuse is, but http://inelegant.org/ddp/03003/ states "Additionally, we discourage submitters from soliciting or bribing editors in exchange for listings in the directory. Editors found to be accepting or soliciting bribes in exchange for listing sites or unfairly promoting these sites over others will be removed from the directory" Do I assume that the editor involved will be removed under this rule ?
inbetweener Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Additionally, we discourage submitters from soliciting or bribing editors in exchange for listings in the directory. Editors found to be accepting or soliciting bribes in exchange for listing sites Because that did not happen. I didn't ask Rich to look into my listing request. He did it himself, then contacted me afterwards. Rich has a fine sense of humour. It's a shame that aspect doesn't appear to have been appreciated.
Meta nea Posted January 21, 2005 Meta Posted January 21, 2005 We don't discuss the actions of any one particular editor here, regardless of whether s/he's been abusive or a model editor. Postings discussing particular, named editors may be moderated. The privacy of our volunteers is important and we take that very seriously. Curlie Meta and kMeta editor nea
Guest Larry Wall Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Last night I went through every site listed in this directory and I found 19 sites that were not listed in dmoz and possibly should be. The others were either listed or were total crap. As soon as I find the correct categories to list these sites in, there will be no point in listing the directory. And it will be deleted. This will probably happen sometime today, but no guarantees. This is an extremely disturbing post. What it says is "If you submit your site to DMOZ, a DMOZ editor may simply decide to copy all of your content and throw away your submission." If this is not considered an ethical violation -- then I have no idea what could possibly be.
old_crone Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 If this is not considered an ethical violation -- then I have no idea what could possibly be. You can't be serious. Editors mine links all the time and from many resources. If you think it's an ethical violation than all search engines and directories are in violation .... sheesh!
Meta pvgool Posted January 22, 2005 Meta Posted January 22, 2005 This is an extremely disturbing post. What it says is "If you submit your site to DMOZ, a DMOZ editor may simply decide to copy all of your content and throw away your submission." If this is not considered an ethical violation -- then I have no idea what could possibly be. No, we will never copy any content. But we (as any visitor of a site can do) will follow the links that go to other sites and if we think the other sites to be any good we will list them in ODP. And from those other sites we might follow the links also and find many more sites to list. For me this is a very common way of working. The result: 1 suggestion processed and maybe several dozen new sites listed. I will not answer PM or emails send to me. If you have anything to ask please use the forum.
motsa Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 This thread has more than served its purpose in alerting us to this situation. This forum is not here to discuss specific instances of suspected abuse -- general discussions of types of abuse, yes, but not specific sites. Thanks.
Recommended Posts