"Humans Do It Better"

http://www.dmoz.org/unavailable.html
the bottom of this URL has the tagline in the title.

I have to say, this must be a joke. I have been trying to get a legitimate URL submitted for 6 years. I have followed the submission guidelines to a T, and have always submitted to the appropriate category. Still, after 6 years, no DMOZ entry.

The mail email box for this directory is always full. Overall, this system is extremely inefficient. I cant believe that SEO bases any scoring off the DMOZ at all. I would be embarrassed to be associated with any organization that ran it's business like this, regardless of whether or not it generated revenue.

Thanks for sharing.

> I have been trying to get a legitimate URL submitted for 6 years.
What kind of error message do you receive while submitting your suggestion? We have had a few problems with suggesting sites but not for the whole period of 6 years.

> I have followed the submission guidelines to a T, and have always submitted to the appropriate category.
O, now I see. You did not have problems submitting your suggestion. You have problems understanding our guidelines. Did you notice the part about "suggest a site only ONCE".

> Still, after 6 years, no DMOZ entry.
Well, this could have two reasons. First the site is not listable. Two the site hasn't been reviewed yet.

> The mail email box for this directory is always full.
The mail is not for suggesting sites or asking for status of your suggestion. The fact that so many people spam our mailbox with these requests makes that it regulary overflows.

> Overall, this system is extremely inefficient.
It is working perfectly for what it is designed to do. People can suggest a site and if and when an editor wants he-she looks at the suggestion.

> I cant believe that SEO bases any scoring off the DMOZ at all.
Neither can I as DMOZ is not involved in SEO at all, and we prefer to keep this so.

> I would be embarrassed to be associated with any organization that ran it's business like this
I am very proud to be associated with DMOZ and am content with the way it operates. Although, like most editors, I ofcourse see options to improve its operation.

<bites tongue>

jimnoble said:

<bites tongue>

Click to expand...

As you might have noticed I am not so good at biting my tongue.

Although sometimes I should be more like :zip:
I know, it just isn't how I am. :Omg:

Is there something corrupt going on with DMOZ?

I share your frustration. My situation is similar. I've been trying to get listed by DMOZ for about five years. Clients and complementary businesses provide feedback that the quality of my service offerings is "best in industry" and I get lots of positive feedback from people about my website (that it is informative, complete, well laid out, etc.). I attract national clients which locate me via the internet when most competitors only attract local or regional clients - I think that says something about the quality of the content of my site.

It appears that there is very little transparency with DMOZ. People behind the scenes seem to decide who gets added and who doesn't using very vague and subjective guidelines. I mean - why can't an applicant be told exactly what the status of their submission is? What's wrong with saying "it has been assigned to editor XYZ who will be reviewing it but it is 72nd in line"? What's wrong with requiring editors to provide a written record of specifically why a website was not accepted? What's wrong with saying "the home page was full of misspellings and poor grammar. The site was difficult to navigate and had very little substance"?

Is there something corrupt going on at DMOZ? Is it possible that editors with conflicts of interest are either not reviewing appropriate web sites, or are "blacklisting" sites that they feel pose a real competitive threat? Due to the fact that a DMOZ listing can be so essential in SEO, does the way DMOZ operates open it up for the potential of being shut down for anti-trust reasons if a clever attorney decided to pursue this?

Quite frankly, I'm a little puzzled by the whole thing. Conceptually it seems like a great idea to have a directory that contains listings that have been vetted by volunteers, but it doesn't appear that there is an objective enough of a set of guidelines or procedures to ensure consistency, quality, or fairness. I think it is odd that search engines give so much weight to DMOZ's inclusion when it appears to have the potential for such problems. What happened to Google's motto of "don't be evil" - should they really be relying on a secretive / subjective / non-transparent process as a strong component of their search rankings?

why can't an applicant be told exactly what the status of their submission is?

Click to expand...

The reason why we no longer do that here is conveniently covered in our FAQ.

What's wrong with requiring editors to provide a written record of specifically why a website was not accepted?

Click to expand...

Editors are required to provide a reason for deleting a site and that reason is logged. But for a number of reasons, that information is available only to editors.

Is there something corrupt going on at DMOZ? Is it possible that editors with conflicts of interest are either not reviewing appropriate web sites, or are "blacklisting" sites that they feel pose a real competitive threat? Due to the fact that a DMOZ listing can be so essential in SEO, does the way DMOZ operates open it up for the potential of being shut down for anti-trust reasons if a clever attorney decided to pursue this?

Click to expand...

IANAL but that's highly doubtful since the ODP doesn't have a monopoly on anything -- we don't control anything except what is on our site (i.e. we have no control over how other sites use our data), we're not the only directory on the planet nor are we the only way for a site to be found by potential users. And clearly sites are able to rank quite well in Google without a listing in the ODP so we're hardly "essential".

Quite frankly, I'm a little puzzled by the whole thing. Conceptually it seems like a great idea to have a directory that contains listings that have been vetted by volunteers, but it doesn't appear that there is an objective enough of a set of guidelines or procedures to ensure consistency, quality, or fairness.

Click to expand...

I bet you wouldn't be saying that if your site was one of the millions of sites that have been added to the directory over the years. We have pretty clear guidelines governing how we function and what qualifies as a listable site. But whether or not a category gets edited -- regularly or at all -- is determined by whether or not anyone actually cares enough to edit there. For example, if you were waiting for me to review US politics or folk dancing sites, you'd be waiting a very long time, but thankfully there are other editors who like to edit in those categories. If no one does, then the categories wait for someone to come along who does. It's the nature of how a volunteer directory like this is going to function.

I didn't read your entire post because I was amazed by two of your comments. They show such misunderstanding of what we're about that I'm afraid that I assumed the rest of it would be similar.

What's wrong with saying "it has been assigned to editor XYZ who will be reviewing it but it is 72nd in line"?

Click to expand...

Quite a lot because that's not the model that we work to.

ODP is a volunteer organisation and editors edit where they wish, when they wish and as much as they wish within the constraints of their permissions. We have no system to force people to do work that they don't volunteer to do. ODP is not a free listing service for website owners and it does not attempt to process their listing suggestions within the time scales desired by them.

What's wrong with requiring editors to provide a written record of specifically why a website was not accepted?

Click to expand...

Nothing at all and we do. Those editor notes are confidential however.

You can evaluate for yourself whether or not your website is listable by checking out the editor guidelines that we use to umm guide us:
- If it's listable, we'll list it in time but we can't predict when that might be.
- If it isn't, we won't.

HTH

I appreciate the information. Alternate viewpoint though . . .

Thanks for both of your comments.

DMOZ, of course, can run its organization any way it sees fit. However, from an outsiders standpoint it sure looks to me like there are policies / procedures that could be altered that would be beneficial for all stakeholders.

For example, in your FAQ on why you no longer provide status reports. I certainly don't blame you for not wanting hundreds of thousands of people contacting you for a status report. Responding to such inquiries certainly would not be a good use of volunteers time. However, a simple database system with partial public access could be established that would indicate: 1, whether the site submission was actually received (as opposed to there being a data transmission error); 2, whether there is an editor who has decided to review the site yet; 3, when the editor began reviewing the site; 4, if the site was rejected; and 5, the basic reasons for the rejection. If this system were in place, the number of people who put postings on this site and who email would likely drop dramatically.

One of you indicated that for a number of reasons the basis for the decision to reject a site is not made public. What are those reasons? It seems like transparency would be a positive thing. Submitters would receive feedback that would enable them to improve their sites, making the WWW a better place. I find it puzzling that there is a level of secrecy about why a site would be rejected.

I'm not sure you understood what my concern about editors with conflicts of interest were. Let me elaborate. Let's say that "John" owned a winery that makes Pinot Noir. Let's also say that John applied to be an editor with DMOZ and shared that he was passionate about wine and Pinot Noir in particular, but didn't disclose that he owned a winery. Then let's say that one of the local competing Pinot Noir wineries submits their website for consideration by DMOZ. What would prevent John from saying, "I'll review that one" then proceeding to either sit on it without completing the review for months or years, or creating reasons to reject the site? Are there any checks and balances to make sure that doesn't happen? While you are correct that DMOZ isn't the only factor that impacts website organic search rankings, if you look at many industries and view top Google or Yahoo search results a commonality is often that they are linked to through the DMOZ directory. So while not essential, it can certainly be important.

If DMOZ is so hard-up for editors why does it reject applicants? I applied yesterday - primarily because I am trying to figure out the way your system works. However, I would be happy to act as an editor or screener and would be happy to agree not to evaluate sites where there would be a conflict of interest. I have an undergrad degree from a top-50 school, an MBA, and a significant part of my career involves creating and packaging marketing information. I would think I would be a good volunteer candidate. Yet, my application was rejected.

While you have shared with me the editorial guidelines. I would still maintain that they are fairly vague. I mean, sure, there are some obvious things that will disqualify a site. However, what if the obvious things that result in disqualification aren't present? The other issues are far more subjective.

Bottom line is: I submitted my business sale website for review about five years ago. I have no idea whether it was rejected, whether it was never looked at by any editor, whether the submission was deleted with your 2006 crash, whether an editor felt that it didn't meet an aspect of your submission criteria (which from my reading of the editorial guidelines I would disagree with), whether an unethical editor who works in my industry intentionally kept the site from being listed, or whether my site is currently under review. I realize that DMOZ's purpose isn't to provide a free directory service for website owners, rather it is to provide a directory of vetted websites on a variety of subjects for the good of the public - but it just seems like everyone would benefit from more transparency in the process.

Much of what you're asking/proposing has been asked/proposed and responded to many times here in these forums. I'm too lazy to search out the pertinent threads for you or to rewrite the information in them, but you can search/browse the forums yourself. (Yes, our FAQs need to be expanded -- it's on my ever-expanding "to do" list.)

Bottom line is: I submitted my business sale website for review about five years ago. I have no idea whether it was rejected, whether it was never looked at by any editor, whether the submission was deleted with your 2006 crash, whether an editor felt that it didn't meet an aspect of your submission criteria (which from my reading of the editorial guidelines I would disagree with), whether an unethical editor who works in my industry intentionally kept the site from being listed, or whether my site is currently under review. I realize that DMOZ's purpose isn't to provide a free directory service for website owners, rather it is to provide a directory of vetted websites on a variety of subjects for the good of the public - but it just seems like everyone would benefit from more transparency in the process.

Click to expand...

If that was the only time you suggested your site, assume it was lost and suggest it again. the editors are no so petty as to punish a second suggestion after a reasonable period of time, and the great server grash generally created a pretty broad excpetion to the 'suggest only once" rule.

Here is the deal -- the editors aren't bothered by the slightly overenthusiastic person who suggests two or three times, they are greatly bothered by the "serial" resuggesters, or the "shotgun" resuggesters.

The editors are definitely not going to provide any information -- either on an individual by-request or by database method that facilitates spammers. spammers are a real threat to this and any other directory. Case in point, I just shut down my personal web directory -- and while I have not deleted the files, the URl leads to a parked domain page (waiting for my hosting to expire at the end of the month). I get site submissions every single day from bots that are targeted at my submit page. And this was a piddling little directory that never amounted to anything.

codiligent said:

One of you indicated that for a number of reasons the basis for the decision to reject a site is not made public. What are those reasons? It seems like transparency would be a positive thing. Submitters would receive feedback that would enable them to improve their sites, making the WWW a better place. I find it puzzling that there is a level of secrecy about why a site would be rejected.

Click to expand...

There is no secrecy about why a site can be rejected. All the reasons are provided for public reading. And they all come down to one thing `not enough unique content`.
From our experience almost non of the rejected sites can be improved in such a way that they will become listable. Unless the owner would drop his current site and now create a site with unique content.

What would prevent John from saying, "I'll review that one" then proceeding to either sit on it without completing the review for months or years, or creating reasons to reject the site? Are there any checks and balances to make sure that doesn't happen?

Click to expand...

As DMOZ is not working in the way as you describe it can not happen. A site is either waiting review, listed or rejected there are no stages in between and sites are not assigned to a specific editor to be reviewed. Neither can an editor claim a website to eb reviewed by him.

While you are correct that DMOZ isn't the only factor that impacts website organic search rankings, if you look at many industries and view top Google or Yahoo search results a commonality is often that they are linked to through the DMOZ directory. So while not essential, it can certainly be important.

Click to expand...

Or maybe it is the other way around. Because sites are listed at the top of results from search engines they are noticed by editors and listed by them. Around 50% of all listed sites were never suggested to us but found by an editor using other ways than the pool of suggested sites.

If DMOZ is so hard-up for editors why does it reject applicants?

Click to expand...

Because we prefer to uphold a certain quality in editors. The process is like any job application. If a person can´t write a decent application letter he won´t be hired.

While you have shared with me the editorial guidelines. I would still maintain that they are fairly vague. I mean, sure, there are some obvious things that will disqualify a site. However, what if the obvious things that result in disqualification aren't present? The other issues are far more subjective.

Click to expand...

That is because we don´t look for reasons to reject a site. We look for reasons to list a site (the only reason being enough unique content). If we can´t find such a reason it will be rejected.

but it just seems like everyone would benefit from more transparency in the process.

Click to expand...

Maybe. But this information is of no use to any honest website owner with a real business and real products or services. They always have a unique website (this is me and this is what I do for living) and will eventualy be listed.
But to the many spammers it would provide information we don´t want to have. (damn, they found another of my mirrors or affiliatie websites. quick, create a new one and submit it, maybe they will not notice this time).

What would prevent John from saying, "I'll review that one" then proceeding to either sit on it without completing the review for months or years, or creating reasons to reject the site?

Click to expand...

Nothing. There's nothing on earth that will prevent people from doing nothing.

But what prevents Richard from reviewing it and listing it in the meantime? Only Richard's opinion that some other category needs his help more.

What would prevent John from saying, "I'll review that one" then proceeding to either sit on it without completing the review for months or years, or creating reasons to reject the site?

Click to expand...

Nothing. But that would only be a problem if John had some sort of exclusivity in a given category.

No editors have that exclusivity -- there are more than 200 editors with directory wide editing rights, so even if John decides not to touch a given suggestion, nothing prevents another editor from touching it, or even discovering it and listing it separate and apart from the suggestion process.

Oh, I think there are people who understand the concept of conflict of interest. It's a perpetual potential problem, whether in legislatures, bureaucracies, churches, or businesses.

But here's the real point. Who has the worst conflict of interest? The webmaster. Any process that allows the webmaster a voice in whether his site is listed, is fundamentally, absolutely, not potentially but certainly, nothing BUT conflict of interest.

So, it's simple. The webmaster, as a webmaster, doesn't get a say in the ODP process. There's no process to give him one, and there are several processes to keep him from trying to get one. So what's the point of giving him information he can't honestly use?

And the editor, as an editor, can avoid visibly pushing webmaster interests (his own or anyone else's)--or can cease being an editor. A lot of volunteers, over the years, have taken the second option--involuntarily, so to speak.

Does the ODP occasionally lose a tiny bit of information by this? Possibly. Does it incessantly lose an inordinate amount of grief and wasted time and misinformation and disinformation and noninformational communication? Yes.

So wisdom says, focus on other kinds of communication: those that have SOME possibility of NOT being controlled by conflicts of interest.

jimnoble said:

<bites tongue>

Click to expand...

Very funny !!

Listed or not

I have to admit, I think I tried several times a few years ago to get listed, then just went on about my business when it didn't happen. I realize its a big to do to get listed on Dmoz. But I can only imagine the work involved and the time that is consumed doing this especially if you are volunteering your time. I may sound like I am brown nosing at this point (I am not ) I am just not going to be as "determined" as most people seem to be about getting listed. When and if it happens then so be it.

Voila at least now I can see and read all the "crap" these moderators have to deal with. My goodness some of you people are rude and just not gracious. What happens to be nice and people will be nice back?