Is DMOZ a star chamber?

I wouldn't care so much that DMOZ is understaffed and unresponsive - but it is a highly regarded directory (at least by reputation). If your website is not listed, there is an onus attached to this. Yet DMOZ does not appear to have any clear accountability for why, what, where, when or how they list sites or choose their editors.

I have read a number of the posts, and am concerned that the editors' replies sound a bit sarcastic. At least let one know whether his or her site has been rejected and why - I believe that would be the right thing to do.

My other suggestion is DMOZ should publicly post a disclaimer that a website's lack of inclusion is no statement about the quality or utility of the site - and that submissions can in some cases take years to be reviewed.

Comments please.

I have read a number of the posts, and am concerned that the editors' replies sound a bit sarcastic. At least let one know whether his or her site has been rejected and why - I believe that would be the right thing to do.

Click to expand...

The announcement posted at the top of every forum here clearly states that we don't give status checks here. It's not a forum policy that is up for discussion. Sorry.

As to your second suggestion:

(1) If you're interested in making a change to the website at dmoz.org, then you should address it to the dmoz.org management.

(2) But this forum is both sponsored and administered by the editing community, and suggestions for it might be made here. So: do you think there have been forum posts that led you to believe either (a) reviews of suggestions happen in any particular time frame, or (b) the ODP editors feel that the directory is finished and all worthy sites have already been added?

We can't be responsible for the ignorance of people who don't listen to the information that's widely available. But I think we ought to be responsible for the accuracy of the information we give out. And the truth, as I've attempted to convey, is that (a) in my opinion there's a great deal more work to be done before the directory contains all listable sites, and people are adding good sites all the time; (b) editor or not, nobody can know how long it will take to list any particular site.

Yet DMOZ does not appear to have any clear accountability for why, what, where, when or how they list sites or choose their editors.

Click to expand...

We are accountable, just not to random webmasters. Harsh, but true.

The reverse is also true, random webmasters are not responsible to ODP editors for the content on their sites. Probably a good thing.

Is DMOZ a star Chamber?

No, not in any of their forms (e.g. we do not act as a supervisory body overseeing the operations of lower courts). Otherwise we would have announcements concerning spammers such as 'For .. deceits and falsehoods they were sentenced ...to wear paper [specifying their offence]...to lose either of them an ear ... and to pay one hundred pounds'.

I have read a number of the posts, and am concerned that the editors' replies sound a bit sarcastic. At least let one know whether his or her site has been rejected and why - I believe that would be the right thing to do.

Click to expand...

I think this illustrates one of the problems. The editrs here are bending over backwards to explain aspects of the directory - what its for, what expectations are reasonable and so on - and as a result the forum is full of posts covering almost everything.

At the top of each thread is an announcement of the discontinuation od status check and a good proportion of the postings cover the issue of status checks. A good proportion of other messages purport to be about something else but ultimately head to issues that have been dealt with 'ad nauseum' (like status checks).I think people who post genuinely hoping to be pointed in the right direction are always treated well even if the question is extremely basic.

If someone posted a message asking what color the background colour of the forum was, it would be hard to respond politely.

People who want to debate should really do their background reading up front and already be aware of the pros and cons of the issue and have something new to contribute which is relevant to the debate. Too many people confuse 'opinions' with 'fact' and feel that, having stated their individual opinion, things should change to accomodate them They ignore the fact that the way the ODP operates is the summation of thousands of peoples views over time combined with practicality and experience.

Essentially they state if everyone involved in the ODP does not change to what they feel is important, then the ODP is operating a communist/ fascist/repressive/secret society or even a star chamber. Oddly enough they can be quite dismissive about even the idea that the people whose lives they want to rearrange should have a say in the matter.

They often start of with a sarcastic remark (Is DMOZ a wife-beater?) and proceed on the assumption they have therefore proved their point.

regards

John

If your website is not listed, there is an onus attached to this.

Click to expand...

Then there are a lot of sites with an "onus" attached to them then.

Most of the web in fact considering that ODP only contains a fraction of an estimated 60 million active web sites (and more every day) a large number of which do quite well without inclusion in (or often never having even heard of) the ODP.

but it is a highly regarded directory (at least by reputation). If your website is not listed, there is an onus attached to this.

Click to expand...

We list about 5 million sites. How many sites are there out there on the web?

According to Google they index 8,000 million pages @ say 4 pages average a site - 2,000 million. [60 million???]

So we list just 1 in every 400 sites - if you are not listed then in the great scheme of things it is not that important.

a website's lack of inclusion is no statement about the quality or utility of the site

Click to expand...

If it is one of the 1,980,000,000 we haven't yet reviewed then its lack of inclusion means nothing. If it is one of the 15,000,000 odd we have reviewed and found to be spam and lacking in unique content then its lack of inclusion is of significance to those who care about such things.

that submissions can in some cases take years to be reviewed.

Click to expand...

Good point.

concerned that the editors' replies sound a bit sarcastic

Click to expand...

Many editors are likewise concerned. It doesn't do the image much good but then a good majority of visitors to this site in particular are not entirely honest when they ask questions here - it kinda gets on your nerves continually dealing with the liars and cheats and the innocent sometimes get caught in the crossfire. It shouldn't happen though.

DMOZ does not appear to have any clear accountability for why, what, where, when or how they list sites or choose their editors.

Click to expand...

Actually it does but we seem not to be able to get the message over very effectively. It is a question of who we are accountable to really. Whether you think it is right or wrong editors do not see themselves as accountable to webmasters, end of story. We are accountable to our fellow editors and there is an incredible audit trail of everything we do, 99% of that available to every editor from Day 1. If an editor joins tomorrow they can see every single one of the 23,000 odd logged editing actions I have done complete with dates and times. We are also accountable to the owners, Netscape/AOL to manage the project according to guidelines they oversee - if we don't they can pull the plug on the servers. And we are accountable to our users. Those who use us directly and those who use our data. Accountable for the integrity of the listings. If we fail to satisfy them then they stop using us.

Oddly enough they can be quite dismissive about even the idea that the people whose lives they want to rearrange should have a say in the matter.

Click to expand...

Perhaps we don't explain ourselves clearly enough - I suspect many people think we are a website listing service and editors have set tasks and targets like in 99.9% of conventional, even voluntary organisations. DMOZ is quite unique and therefore it is hardly surprising if people don't understand the concepts.

They often start of with a sarcastic remark (Is DMOZ a wife-beater?) and proceed on the assumption they have therefore proved their point.

Click to expand...

It is up to us to persuade them they are incorrect - there is a lot of misinformation about us out there, sometimes maliciously distributed, which clouds peoples perceptions. Trolls apart, responding to sarcasm with sarcasm or flames is not the way to really get over the true message, all it does is harden misconceptions.