2 Years and Counting Still Not Listed

I may try it again as soon as I get a chance.....Thanks

The project needs good editors who are experts in their fields. So please do apply again. But don't be in a hurry. All submissions must be reviewed by humans. It takes time.

I have similar concerns as the first poster, though "competitor" is probably not quite the right word. Over the years I've submitted various relevant sites to a category regarding a particular business and none have ever been added. Indeed there seems to have been no change to the 4 sites in the category as long as I've been watching it. The category of "opposing views" on the other hand as a list of 17 websites.

I'm more than happy to be an editor, however there seems to be no option to apply.

I'm more than happy to be an editor, however there seems to be no option to apply.

Click to expand...

Categories that have been closed to new editors are generally categories that are (a) much too large or complex for a new editor, (b) too spam-ridden or abuse-prone for a new editor, or (c) not potentially home to a lot of sites (e.g. http://dmoz.org/Business/Real_Estate/Agents_and_Agencies/Residential/ is a not an appropriate category for a new editor because residential real estate agents and agencies are listed in Regional and there'd be little for a new editor to do in that category). If the category that you want to edit (presumably the one where your site would be listed) is not accepting new editors despite only have 4 listings, then you can bet it is a category that is not at all suitable for a new editor. Chances are that few sites but the listed sites are actually listable in the category.

"IBOFightBack" said:

I'm more than happy to be an editor

Click to expand...

That's great! We always welcome new editors.
If your first choice of category is unsuitable, why not have a look around for another one of interest to you? There are a lot to choose from.

Of course you won't be able to apply until the technical problems are fixed, but in the meantime, you are well-advised to read the ODP Guidelines and the FAQ and Advice provided here for applicants.

Being accepted as an editor is not at all difficult provided the person is honest, follows the guidelines and the instructions on the form, and takes care with site selection, titles and descriptions. Good Luck.

motsa said:

Categories that have been closed to new editors are generally categories that are (a) much too large or complex for a new editor, (b) too spam-ridden or abuse-prone for a new editor, or (c) not potentially home to a lot of sites (e.g. http://dmoz.org/Business/Real_Estate/Agents_and_Agencies/Residential/ is a not an appropriate category for a new editor because residential real estate agents and agencies are listed in Regional and there'd be little for a new editor to do in that category). If the category that you want to edit (presumably the one where your site would be listed) is not accepting new editors despite only have 4 listings, then you can bet it is a category that is not at all suitable for a new editor. Chances are that few sites but the listed sites are actually listable in the category.

Click to expand...

Ok, i think I'll be more explicit. Perhaps it's even a problem with there being no relevant category?

There is -

http://dmoz.org/Business/Opportunities/Opposing_Views/Amway_and_Quixtar/

But there is no "supporting views" category, and the http://dmoz.org/Business/Opportunities/Networking-MLM/Amway_and_Quixtar/ has only 4 sites listed and is apparently not accepting anymore or editors. This is a field in which I am "expert" and there are way way more than 4 relevant sites to that category, even if we just look at corporate ones, let alone "supporting views".

So it appears that "opposing views" are listed, but only a tiny number of corporate sites are listed and there is no category for "supporting views". What gives?

IBOFightBack said:

This is a field in which I am "expert" and there are way way more than 4 relevant sites to that category, even if we just look at corporate ones, let alone "supporting views".

So it appears that "opposing views" are listed, but only a tiny number of corporate sites are listed and there is no category for "supporting views". What gives?

Click to expand...

Within DMOZ we prefer 1 company - 1 site. So if the company created many corporate sites we (normaly) wouldn't list them.
And within MLM we only list the companies that offer the opportunity, we don't list any of the many sites that are their affiliates. As we have very bad experiences with these people and sometimes it is very difficult to see that they are affiliates only experienced editors are allowed in these categories.

This is a field in which I am "expert"

Click to expand...

While not at all a requirement for an editor, this can help in finding good new sites, so I hope you read my post above.

Ok, i think I'll be more explicit. Perhaps it's even a problem with there being no relevant category?

Click to expand...

You didn't have to be explicit - I knew which category you were talking about.

But there is no "supporting views" category, and the http://dmoz.org/Business/Opportuniti...y_and_Quixtar/ has only 4 sites listed and is apparently not accepting anymore or editors.

Click to expand...

No MLM categories are accepting new editors because they are too prone to spam. And, given that we no longer list actual representative sites, very few sites will actually ever belong in those categories besides the official corporate ones.

This is a field in which I am "expert" and there are way way more than 4 relevant sites to that category, even if we just look at corporate ones, let alone "supporting views".

Click to expand...

It's not a matter of being an expert. Let's face it, it doesn't require expert knowledge of a company to be able to list sites related to it in a Business category. In fact, it really only requires a demonstrated ability to edit. The MLM categories are really not appropriate categories for a new editor. One someone has some experience as an editor, they can move onto other categories, perhaps including those.

So it appears that "opposing views" are listed, but only a tiny number of corporate sites are listed and there is no category for "supporting views". What gives?

Click to expand...

Listable supporting view sites would be listed in the Business category. There is no need for a "supporting views" category. But until someone has an urge to wade through the junk to pull out the gems, any listable suggested sites will take some time to get reviewed.

Well, Quixtar and Amway IBOs are not allowed to spam or even have personal sites promoting their businesses, so that shouldn't really be an issue, though I can fully understand the guideline from an MLM-wide industry perspective.

However, the situation remains that there is a specific category devoted to sites critical of Amway and Quixtar and there is effectively no category for sites offering a supportors perspective. Any person wishing to research Amway and/or Quixtar utilizing a dmoz-based site will quite evidently get a "biased" perspective.

What is the justification for this approach?

If there are no supportive sites listed than we didn't find any (until now) that fit within our guidelines.
Are there any supportive sites that at the same time are not affiliates of the MLM. Not that I have ever seen.

I think virtually by definition any "supporting" site will be somehow affiliated with the MLM, since anyone who thinks its a good idea would likely join or somehow otherwise be affiliated, even if just to buy the products. You'd have to be pretty stupid to support the idea/products and then not use it in some way, wouldn't you agree?

I think the defining issue regarding whether a site should be listed or not is whether the site is primarily there as a recruiting tool for the site owner, and there are many sites I am aware of that are supportive of MLM and not recruiting tools. My own interest is obviously with my site, <URL removed> (or <URL removed>) and if you review it you'll see it's not a recruiting site.

As you might have read on the catdescroptions
from http://dmoz.org/Business/Opportunities/desc.html

Independent representatives, distributors, or resellers of multi-level marketing (MLM) systems or pyramids are not listed in the directory.

Click to expand...

from http://dmoz.org/Business/Opportunities/Networking-MLM/desc.html

The ODP does not list sites from Independent Representatives of these programs.

Click to expand...

This means that if a site is an independent representative, distributor, or reseller it won't be listed at all. Not if it is the primary goal of the site, not if it is the second, 3th or 100th goal of the site. It won't get listed.

Well, Quixtar and Amway IBOs are not allowed to spam or even have personal sites promoting their businesses, so that shouldn't really be an issue, though I can fully understand the guideline from an MLM-wide industry perspective.

Click to expand...

And, let's be honest -- "are not allowed" doesn't mean people don't do it.

However, the situation remains that there is a specific category devoted to sites critical of Amway and Quixtar and there is effectively no category for sites offering a supportors perspective. Any person wishing to research Amway and/or Quixtar utilizing a dmoz-based site will quite evidently get a "biased" perspective.

Click to expand...

Did you read my post properly? I said that listable supporting sites would go in the Business category. I'm not going to remark about the listability of your site in particular (and please don't put the URL here) -- that's just a general comment.

And let me be clear here -- I allowed the discussion of the specific category to continue because others had already responded. We're now drifting into territory that is much too specific for this forum. Please do not post your URL again and, please, take the information I've already given you as being pretty all we can say on the subject.

>What is the justification for this approach?

As one of the last standing defenders of listing MLM representative sites, I can say this:

The community fully considered, for a long time, the issues of equity and practicality and efficiency and usefulness and integrity, with respectful and thoughtful consideration of opposing views.

The current guideline reflects that consensus. And I fully support it.

Now, you may feel that some particular search method contains a bias.

This may concern some people. It doesn't concern me at all, since I am persuaded on both practical and philosophical grounds that ALL search methods contain systematic biasses.

And in this case it absolutely doesn't concern anyone at all, since it is so obvious that the entity that SHOULD be MOST concerned (that is, Amway or whoever) has absolute power to counteract the bias whenever they wish! That's right, Amway can include--on its own site and therefore easily reachable by ODP surfers--links to any representatives or supporters that it wishes.

If they aren't concerned enough to take that simple step, then it's obvious nobody else should be concerned in the least.

pvgool said:

This means that if a site is an independent representative, distributor, or reseller it won't be listed at all. Not if it is the primary goal of the site, not if it is the second, 3th or 100th goal of the site. It won't get listed.

Click to expand...

Sure, but I don't think that would cover the type of sites I'm talking about. I'm talking about information/analysis type sites where recruiting isn't the first, second, third or millionth goal - it's not the goal at all. Who the author is should not be the prime concern - the concern should be the nature of the site, should it not?

hutcheson said:

And in this case it absolutely doesn't concern anyone at all, since it is so obvious that the entity that SHOULD be MOST concerned (that is, Amway or whoever) has absolute power to counteract the bias whenever they wish! That's right, Amway can include--on its own site and therefore easily reachable by ODP surfers--links to any representatives or supporters that it wishes.

Click to expand...

Which would make the site even less independent!

I agree that all methods effectively have bias, but that does not mean approaches should not be taken to minimise that bias as much as possible. I am also fully supportive of not including "recruiting" sites. I think the problem is that it seems to be that if a site is by someone who is a supporter, then by definition they are likely a member, then it is assumed they are trying to recruit and it should not be listed - no matter whether the site has that purpose or not.

In other words, the guidelines as they seem to be interpreted now are such that sites in support of an MLM will effectively never be listed. I get the impression the guidelines seem to be referring to a site of a representative, but are being interpreted to includes sites by a representative. These are not necessarily the same thing.

The argument that a site of a representative might serve other purposes was, I can assure you, adequately presented and fully considered. In the end it was judged an inadequate justification for what was in our experience a counterproductive and ethically dangerous activity.

incidentally, is there a list of categories needing editors? Or should I just wait until the tech problems are sorted and then check out areas of interest/expertise? As I said, I am more than happy to get involved.

hutcheson said:

The argument that a site of a representative might serve other purposes was, I can assure you, adequately presented and fully considered. In the end it was judged an inadequate justification for what was in our experience a counterproductive and ethically dangerous activity.

Click to expand...

Ethically dangerous? You wouldn't happen to have a link to the discussion would you?

In any case, it seems you are confirming that any site by anyone apparently associated with an MLM is automatically disqualified, no matter if the author is unidentifiable, the site is not used for recruiting, and the site has value. Am I interpreting that correctly?

IBOFightBack said:

incidentally, is there a list of categories needing editors? Or should I just wait until the tech problems are sorted and then check out areas of interest/expertise? As I said, I am more than happy to get involved.

Click to expand...

No category is in need of an editor.
But all categories can use the help of an editor if a person thinks (s)he could give such help.