A very nice idea DMOZ gone bad? DMOZ more quality or monopoly of editors??

FOOD FOR THOUGHT!!!!!
Let me start like this, first of all it is very sad that Google and other SE's index and rank sites according to their placement at DMOZ or any other human edited similar portal!

Reason for saying this is, it all started as a beautiful and perfect idea but just as every other perfect idea it has lost its aims and more specificly its goals of making the internet free and more objective in nature, as it was not the idea to make it a monopoly of certain people!!!!!.

The editors have become the absolute authority for judging a websites quality or for that matter any other standard! but what standards if any are in place for checking the quality of the editors? or is it just that buddy brings in a buddy(referers)??? or maybe checking their qualifications is in place and if so how??? Is it so that these editors are representatives of the whole internet community or just a group of individuals and in my case i think extortioners!!!!

Maybe it isnt so! but what i have seen from my experience is that it is a gang owned by the same company, their friends and cahoots(i am refering to
a certain category) which is ruled by the same people who own all similar business and web design company and dont let any one aout of their own little circle to list at DMOZ!!

Well i think it is pretty nasty thing that these people decide to list their own websites only, and as such increase the rankings of their webpages!!! and when others do sumbit webpages which confirm with all the standards i mean all the standards QULAITY (W3C CSS) CONTENT (All Related to the topic) Optimized from tags to footer in other words everything. All this falls on deaf ears, reason ?? well no need to continue if names are named then this thread will be removed pretty quick as well.

Mods and readers plz feel free to comment i am open to any suggestion and advice even if it is harsh!!!!!

>webpages which confirm with all the standards i mean all the standards QULAITY (W3C CSS) CONTENT (All Related to the topic) Optimized from tags to footer in other words everything.

What does ANY of that have to do with ANYTHING?

The ODP is not a listing of sites with Meta Tags.
The ODP is not a listing of sites whose HTML conforms to W3C.
The ODP is not a listing of sites with relevance.
And the ODP is not, repeat not, repeat with as many expletives as you know NOT, a listing of sites optimized for SEO!

And it isn't ever going to be any of those things. None of that ever mattered, none of that is ever GOING to matter.

All that matters is: "significant unique content."

Get over it.

Nice and very informative reply, cheers!!!

Well if you read my post clearly you would have understood very clearly that SEO was a very minor point!!! not the essence of my topic, well the speed of answer and objectivity you have shown shows the level of interest shown by mod(maybe with an s).. maybe after reading the topic, you might be thinking i am on a witch-hunt of the editors, believe you me which is clearly not the case!
Well i clearly think i might not be getting any supporting answers maybe just getting banned..
If i have trespassed or passed on some ones sentiments i am very apologetic, it was just a question for debate, sorry again

cheers be happy

xeren said:

... not the essence of my topic .....

Click to expand...

To be honest I have no clue what the essence of your topic is at all.

May be that we have several millions of friends which sites are listed ?!?

The editors have become the absolute authority for judging a websites quality or for that matter any other standard! but what standards if any are in place for checking the quality of the editors?

Click to expand...

There are plenty of standard in place. The quality of edits are checked. It is not necessary fo us to detail, in a public forum, exactly what there methods are. The methods are known to editors and that is sufficient.

or is it just that buddy brings in a buddy(referers)???

Click to expand...

An editor cannot bring in another editor. Every single editor must go though the application process, and editors not involved in the selection process are specifically prohibited from interfering or trying to influence that process.

Is it so that these editors are representatives of the whole internet community or just a group of individuals and in my case i think extortioners!!!!

Click to expand...

I see you like to use inflammatory languge. And you think this deserves a response?

but what i have seen from my experience is that it is a gang owned by the same company, their friends and cahoots(i am refering to
a certain category) which is ruled by the same people who own all similar business and web design company and dont let any one aout of their own little circle to list at DMOZ!!

Click to expand...

If you have specific evidence of abuse, then properly report it. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke and wasting our time. The fact that your site or sites are not listed is no de-facto evidence of abuse. It may or may not be de-facto evidence of good editing.

Mods and readers plz feel free to comment i am open to any suggestion and advice even if it is harsh!!!!!

Click to expand...

I think you are patently guilty of using broad generalizations to try and tar a lot of honest, hard working volunteer editors.

If you have facts, them report them properly.

If you don't have cold, hard facts, then please don't come into this forum and simply post innuendo.

Merry Christmas!

The editors have become the absolute authority for judging a websites quality or for that matter any other standard! but what standards if any are in place for checking the quality of the editors? or is it just that buddy brings in a buddy(referers)??? or maybe checking their qualifications is in place and if so how??? Is it so that these editors are representatives of the whole internet community or just a group of individuals and in my case i think extortioners!!!!

Click to expand...

Sounds like you've already made up your mind, xeren, so there's no reason for you to be here associating with such rapscallions as us.

Mods and readers plz feel free to comment i am open to any suggestion and advice even if it is harsh!!!!!

Click to expand...

I can think of a couple of suggestions, but, I'm much too polite to voice them, .

I'm afraid it's very hard to explain anything to you, xeren, because everything you've stated is false. Please get your facts straight before you go ranting about things you know nothing about. Have a Merry Christmas, .

Your only point (other than scurrilous personal attacks) was that your standards did not seem to get your site listed. And it is true. Your standards, as you chose to describe them, were all completely irrelevant to us as editors (however much any of us that develop websites might value them as goals of our own work.)

Don't take only the parts of xeren's post you want, consider it all.
He never said his site must have been approved because it was compilant code, he mentioned that, as a quality factor, he also mentioned content.

I agree with xeren here, i have submitted a good website to the correct category, with a well written description, corresponding title, etc and it was not listed, while i can see a lot of awful and crappy sites with almost no content, listed in the same category.
I think it should also be said that no new sites have been added to that category for a long time.
Now i can see that the category was last edited 5 months ago.
When i submitted my website (a lot of months ago) i also saw that the last edited date was very far from that time, and more than 5 months.

That editor is responsible for two very similar categories, coincidence?. I mean in most of cases there is no special knowledge needed to be the editor of an specific category, he could have picked any other but nope, he wants both of the only two categories where that kind of sites can be submitted.

If you have specific evidence of abuse, then properly report it.

Click to expand...

Reporting the problem doesn't help, i did report it

Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke and wasting our time.

Click to expand...

As this page says, the forums are an additional, channel of communication where the general public can interact with ODP editors, and where direct questions about submissions, listings, placement, becoming an editor, and other dmoz questions and issues can be addressed.
I think xeren is addressing an issue he has had, isn't he?

The fact that your site or sites are not listed is no de-facto evidence of abuse. It may or may not be de-facto evidence of good editing.

Click to expand...

You are right. In the case, all this is evidence of bad editing, it doesn't necessarily mean it's abuse, but there are a lot of similar issues and other things that make people think in abuse.

I'm not saying that all the editors are like that. As spectregunner said, i think there are also honest and hard working editors, but bad ones do exist.

I think xeren is addressing an issue he has had, isn't he?

Click to expand...

No, I do not. I think he/she came in here to dump on as many editors as possible.

You do not engender support -- or encourage interaction by broadly painting the editor community as extortioners.

Image the outrage if the editors began a series of posting where the general theme was that all persons engaged in SEO are corrupt and the general practice of SEO was morally corrupt. But, golly, gosh, it once was a good idea.

Well, guess what? Good portions of the community of editors are tired of being called corrupt. And darned tired of being "polite" to the people who are constantly attacking our integrity.

If people have specific evidence of editor corruption, report it. Otherwise, this editor reserves the right to challenge overly broad, slanderous attacks on the editor community. While our editor guidelines tell use we need to be polite in our dealings with the public, it does not say we have to be doormats.

Reporting the problem doesn't help, i did report it

Click to expand...

If something was reported as "abuse", it was investigated by someone who was NOT the editor involved -- abuse reports are seen only by the meta editors.

Now, obviously, "not reviewing a website" is not abuse. If it were abuse, you yourself would have been guilty of 100 million counts of abuse today, because there are 100 million websites which you did not review today (not being an editor at all); and even the most active editors would have committed 99 million, 990 thousand-plus counts of abuse. Which is an absurd conclusion, therefore ... your idea that someone can abuse by not reviewing your website, is equally absurd.

Now, obviously, "not reviewing a website" is not abuse.

Click to expand...

I never said "not reviewing a website is abuse".

If it were abuse, you yourself would have been guilty of 100 million counts of abuse today, because there are 100 million websites which you did not review today (not being an editor at all); and even the most active editors would have committed 99 million, 990 thousand-plus counts of abuse. Which is an absurd conclusion

Click to expand...

As i never said that "not reviewing a website is abuse", that paragraph you wrote has absolutely no sense;

Well, even if ever said that, the paragraph has no sense
Don't make stupid comparisons.

you yourself would have been guilty of 100 million counts of abuse today because there are 100 million websites which you did not review today

Click to expand...

I'm not an editor

and even the most active editors would have committed 99 million, 990 thousand-plus counts of abuse.

Click to expand...

In case you didn't know an editor is responsible for reviewing only the websites submitted to his category.

your idea that someone can abuse by not reviewing your website, is equally absurd.

Click to expand...

You are absurd, saying that i said things i never really said, and building a post around that.

We, at least i, am trying to be serious and realistic with my comments.
Your, 10 years old boy, comparisons are not helping.

In case you didn't know an editor is responsible for reviewing only the websites submitted to his category.

Click to expand...

No editor is responsible for reviewing any site. Ever. Suggested in any particular category or not. Suggested at all anywhere or not.

Whoever told you that an editor could own a category, or that an editor could specified responsibilities to any particular site, or that site suggestions somehow imposed responsibilities on ANYONE, was either wilfully ignorant, or intentionally deceptive. It's just flat too easy to find out what the real responsibilities are.

No editor is responsible for reviewing any site. Ever. Suggested in any particular category or not. Suggested at all anywhere or not.

Click to expand...

So you say your job is to review the internet?
From DMOZ.org

What does an ODP editor do?
Editors select, evaluate, describe and organize Web sites. They are responsible for reviewing submissions to their categories, and list sites according to prescribed editorial guidelines. Editors join the ODP by applying to edit a category that corresponds to their interests.

Click to expand...

You keep saying things i never said.

Whoever told you that an editor could own a category

Click to expand...

I never said an editor could own a category, i said they are responsible for editing it's content, but i never said the word own.

or that an editor could specified responsibilities to any particular site, or that site suggestions somehow imposed responsibilities on ANYONE, was either wilfully ignorant, or intentionally deceptive. It's just flat too easy to find out what the real responsibilities are.

Click to expand...

I never said any of those things

Please, excuse me if i'm being rude. I should have respected you more.
I'm not trying to attact Editors, i appreciate their work very much.
My point is that some categories are not fairly edited, i know you are not the responsible for that, but i'm not trying to judge you.
Gaston

My point is that some categories are not fairly edited

Click to expand...

There is no such concept as "fairly edited categories."

Editors have a responsiblity to follow the editing guidelines, and in writing a title and description that are guidelines compliant. Fairness does not have any role in that.

Editors have a responsbility to not show favoritism in their editing.

Editors cannot use their editing priviledges to only list their own sites (to the exclusion of other sites) nor can they treat competitor sites in a manner not consistent with the editing guidelines.

The fact that someone suggests a site does not obligate the editor to review that site in any given timeline.

And, as has been said before, the failure to review a site is not de-facto abuse. This is worth repeating because the first thing out of the mouths of too many webmasters is: "I submitted my site <period of time> ago, and it isn't listed. The editor must be a competitor."

Or they say, "My competitor's site was listed and mine wasn't. It isn't fair."

Or they say, "The people at <name your favorite forum> say you are all corrupt." as if the people at <name your favorite forum> are the arbiters of all virtue.

Hi gaston

I think we are seeing a misconception of the ODP which is fairly common. From the outside it looks like a single entity. This implies that there is some sort of order and method in how the categories are edited.

However as editors only edit where they have priviliges and are interested then different areas are updated at different rates and times. As a backdrop are automated processes (eg Robozilla) and editor initiatives that help maintain the directory overall. This can mislead people into thinking an editor has done a full update on a category (and thus any sites suggested and not listed must have been rejected) when an editor has just popped in the correct a bad descripion or dead link.

At the moment I am spending my time a Polish Folk Dancing category, ignoring all the other folk dancing categories. In a day or so I will move on to (probably) the Dutch Folk Dance category. Eventually I will get round to the Greek folk dance category but I don't know when and no one can say when. ( If your immediate thought was 'Why on earth is he editing folk dancing instead of my area' then you've missed the point of the ODP altogether ). I am not editing categories 'unfairly', rather 'unevenly'.

Each editor edits in the way that suits them and the net result, seen from outside, will seem eccentric and inexplicable. However this is the most productive use of editors - there is little point in asking me to review sites on web-design, shopping or hundreds of topics and many editors ( strange as it may seem) are not to keen on reviewing folk dance sites.

For suggestors that do not understand the ODP or the internet, it can be downright frustrating. The ODP is just another site which a webmaster hopes will link back to them. Once they've suggested their site, they should move on lookng for other links and ways to promote their website. A webmaster who pins their hopes on the ODP to promote their site is going to be very disappointed.

regards

There is no such concept as "fairly edited categories."

Click to expand...

Fair:
adjective
Marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism.

There IS fair editing, a fair editor is the one who follows the editing rules, which include being impartial, honest, etc.

From DMOZ.org

Are there requirements for being an editor?
Everyone is welcome to join the ODP. All you need is an interest or passion and a computer. While there are no specific pre-requisites, we seek people who have a genuine interest in building a directory that is free of commercial interests and favoritism. Fairness and objectivity prevail here. Those who still believe the Web should be free and accessible to all, without bias and unnecessary noise, will most enjoy the ODP experience. Potential editors should demonstrate a keen eye for spotting quality and useful sites, attention to detail, and possess good grammar, spelling and communication skills.

Click to expand...

Note the word Fairness

Editors have a responsiblity to follow the editing guidelines, and in writing a title and description that are guidelines compliant. Fairness does not have any role in that.

Click to expand...

Yes it has, if an editor is not fair he wont follow the rules and he will not list a site that is ok for the guidelines but not for him for x-stupid reason.

The fact that someone suggests a site does not obligate the editor to review that site in any given timeline.

Click to expand...

It does not obligate the editor, but it is HIS responsibility to review the site. And not in "any given timeline", but as soon as his time dedicated for volunteer work allows him to, that's why editor accounts expire after 4 months of inactivity.

And, as has been said before, the failure to review a site is not de-facto abuse. This is worth repeating because the first thing out of the mouths of too many webmasters is: "I submitted my site <period of time> ago, and it isn't listed. The editor must be a competitor."

Or they say, "My competitor's site was listed and mine wasn't. It isn't fair."

Or they say, "The people at <name your favorite forum> say you are all corrupt." as if the people at <name your favorite forum> are the arbiters of all virtue.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that many people tend to judge DMOZ editors very easily.
There are great editors, but you have to accept that there are bad ones too.

it is HIS responsibility to review the site ... that's why editor accounts expire after 4 months of inactivity.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is not the case. I'm afraid you are still under the very common misapprehension that an editor's role is to review sites suggested from outside the directory. This is simply not true, no matter how much webmasters might wish it to be so.

It is perfectly acceptable for an editor never to review a site suggestion in any time frame at all. There are so many other activities that go into building and maintaining the directory that many editors choose not to look at suggested sites, and that is absolutely OK. The 4 month time-out refers to editing in general, not to reviewing external suggestions in particular.

This seems to be a very difficult concept for webmasters to grasp, perhaps because despite all the public documentation, and all the thousands and thousands of words written on the subject by editors, there remains the erroneous assumption that the ODP is a free listing service with volunteers whose primary purpose is reviewing sites suggested by non-editors. I'm not sure how much more simply we can state that this is not the case.

It does not obligate the editor, but it is HIS responsibility to review the site. And not in "any given timeline", but as soon as his time dedicated for volunteer work allows him to, that's why editor accounts expire after 4 months of inactivity.

Click to expand...

Simply put, you are wrong as wrong could be.

An editor has a responsibility to edit. That does not mean review submissions. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of tasks that can be done, and should be done, that never once involve touching a suggestion.

What we have here is a case of wishful thinking, and you trying to impose your priorities on us. Your wishing it does not make it so.

There IS fair editing, a fair editor is the one who follows the editing rules, which include being impartial, honest, etc.

Click to expand...

I will grant you that, in that context only.

However, there is no fairness that applies to: "Waah, another site got edited before mine. It is so unfair."

There is no fairness that applies to: "haah, my site was suggested first and it is unfair for the editor to review another site first."

There is no fairness that applies to: "Editors need to focus on processing suggestions."

There is no fairness that applies to people who snipe at how many edits any editor does each month.

My point is simple: when an outsider screams fairness they are almost always off the mark.

But let's turn this around: give us your definition of a category that is edited "fairly".