Confused

Hello Editors,

Please don't take this post as me bashing editors because its not my intent. Moreover, I'm a bit confused with some of the responses in the forum. It seems there are a lot of frustrated website owners trying to list their sites. Many of them have being waiting multiple years. The responses that I read seem to say that there is no time limit to review submissions, this is a hobby, we do it at our own pace, etc...

I find these responses to be counter intuitive to concept of dmoz. If the idea is to make the "web a better place" shouldn't there be some accountability? How much future affect can dmoz have on the web if its not holding editors accountable for the respective categories or responsibilities. Shouldn't sites that have original, relevant and organized content be listed as opposed to slipping through the cracks because there is no accountability or sense of urgency?

Even more interesting, is that I looked up a total of 4 random editors. 2 of which posted their own sites in their profile page. Their sites were not only listed in DMOZ, they were listed in multiple categories. The 3rd editor had a blog which I didn't check to see if it was listed in the DMOZ but on the blog he pointed out his frustration with the DMOZ and lack of support to change and improve. It seems this person is still listed as a editor of DMOZ but on his blog he states that he's is switching to botw to "a place where he could be appreciated". The 4th editor didn't have much information posted so it was impossible to vet him/her.

These are examples of 4 random editors. I'm sure they are many good editors but the fact that I can choose 4 random editors and receive these results is scary. If the DMOZ and its editors are trying to "make the web a better place", than why diminish an editors' responsibility by saying "its only a hobby". Otherwise, you're not making the web a better place, you're just making dmoz less relevant over time.

> It seems there are a lot of frustrated website owners trying to list their sites
The reason for their frustration is the fact that they are under the impression that they are listing their website
But reality is that they are not. They can not even try to list their website. Because DMOZ is not about listing websites.
That might sound very strange for a directory of website
DMOZ is about creating categeories around a subject.
In those categories we list a number of websites that all have content about that subjectnt
We want to provide information to our users. Our users are the people visiting our website to find info, website owners are not our users/customers.
As a result many editors are much more interested in categories with informational subjects and not so much in commercial subjects.,
And guess what, most website owners are more interested in the commercial subjects as their website is commercial
Our experience is that the majority of the enormous amount of commercial websites is not worth looking at. Editors, like me, are interested in listing well established websites for such subjects, not those who will disappear again in a few months. A website owner should first prove that they are able to run that website and make it a succes on their own. Why waste my time reviewing a website that will disappear soon. If I focus my attention on a category with commercial subject I most of the times do not look at the suggest sites at all, I look for well established websites using other resources. Remember that try to improve the category for our users not to be a marketing source for webmasters.

> shouldn't there be some accountabilit
There is. Each editor is accountable to their peers. Editors are constantly checked by other editors. And those who misbehave are warned or removed.

Hello pvgool,

I appreciate the feedback.

I can imagine that DMOZ receives a tremendous amount of submissions from commercial sites that do not provide any real substance. However, based on what your writing, people's assumptions that their site is not being reviewed is possibly correct. Why have a submission process if editors aren't going to review them.

You mentioned why review a site that may come and go. Just because a site is new doesn't mean it doesn't mean that its information is lacking. In fact, many new sites may have more updated information as opposed to stale old content. If everyone thought that way then the internet would never grow or evolve. Also, being added to dmoz may help a new site with good information stay on the internet.

Personally, I have submitted several sites to DMOZ. The funny thing is that only one site ever got accepted was a site with very little information. The other sites that I submitted have great information for the respective category In fact, I would go as far to say, they had better information than most of the other sites listed.

If DMOZ is truly trying to make the internet better than instituting a process with some of the following in mind would make sense:

• Allowing people to understand why their site was rejected.
• Setting up a minimum number of sites that must be reviewed by an editor

Instituting these processes would help people develop better websites with more pertinent information. If the DMOZ is only looking for established websites than its not creating a better web, it's really just another alexa.

dross321 said:

• Allowing people to understand why their site was rejected.

Click to expand...

This is already available: http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html#notinclude

Setting up a minimum number of sites that must be reviewed by an editor

Click to expand...

We already have a (very low) minimum.
What would you have us do if an editor does little work? Firing him/her would merely result in even less work being done.

If you think there's a problem, perhaps you'd like to become part of the solution by applying to become an editor .

pvgool said:

> It seems there are a lot of frustrated website owners trying to list their sites
The reason for their frustration is the fact that they are under the impression that they are listing their website
But reality is that they are not. They can not even try to list their website. Because DMOZ is not about listing websites.
That might sound very strange for a directory of website
DMOZ is about creating categeories around a subject.
In those categories we list a number of websites that all have content about that subjectnt
We want to provide information to our users. Our users are the people visiting our website to find info, website owners are not our users/customers.
As a result many editors are much more interested in categories with informational subjects and not so much in commercial subjects.,
And guess what, most website owners are more interested in the commercial subjects as their website is commercial
Our experience is that the majority of the enormous amount of commercial websites is not worth looking at. Editors, like me, are interested in listing well established websites for such subjects, not those who will disappear again in a few months. A website owner should first prove that they are able to run that website and make it a succes on their own. Why waste my time reviewing a website that will disappear soon. If I focus my attention on a category with commercial subject I most of the times do not look at the suggest sites at all, I look for well established websites using other resources. Remember that try to improve the category for our users not to be a marketing source for webmasters.

Click to expand...

I have to agree here! On a personal level, I am immediately turned off by overtly commercial websites. I have been using DMOZ for years, and I appreciate the cleanliness of the hierarchy and just the whole way it's organized. I hate spammy websites with an over- abundance of banner ads. I also agree with the statement about these sites coming and going. So I agree; commercial sites should be kept to a minimum with only the ones with long proven track records allowed in the directory. For full disclosure, I am not currently an editor, but I have recently applied (fingers crossed).

dross321 said:

Why have a submission process if editors aren't going to review them.

Click to expand...

Ahh. A misunderstandment. DMOZ does not have a submission process.
DMOZ does have a suggestion process,
The difference might seem small but for DMOZ it is a major difference.

Submit: here is my site, please review it
Suggest: here is a site, i think it is worthwhile maybe you also think so