Metas won't tell you specifics and other editors can only speculate. I will speculate - you seem very focused on web promotion. Nothing wrong with that - it's your job. But DMOZ is somewhere where that kind of focus has no place at all. You have to show you are capable of leaving it at the door. And that might just include here as an unofficial extension of DMOZ. As a website promoter you are obviously contributing from the outside and that is welcome. But is your frame of mind compatible with editing? That isn't correctible in the sense that you can switch it off. But it can change over time. On the other hand I may be way off the mark.
meta hutcheson posts on ODP decline on SEW?
- Thread starter bobmutch
- Start date
oneeye: "And that might just include here as an unofficial extension of DMOZ."
Opps. Does that mean the link drop I just did on Project No Spam In Aylmer Ontario could be seen as web promotion? I confess it was and will remove it!
"You have to show you are capable of leaving it at the door."
I have not done that at other directories, so this is a very good point. I am seeing more clearly that there is more to being a DMOZ editor than being able to pick good sites, and write good titles and descriptions. DMOZ is looking for editors that are noting going to have to be watched for self promotion all the time. Further I am seeing now that when I unfairly promote myself, my sites, or others sites that I am being unfair to the others in the category.
I will just tell on myself. In one of the categories in I gave a well know blog site that I blog for a three stars. The management knew I did it and as have added a good number of sites to the category I did that in, it was over looked. I didn't write in the log that I did it but never the less I did do it. There are other sites below that I would have to say are better quality.
But is your frame of mind compatible with editing? That isn't correctible in the sense that you can switch it off. But it can change over time.
Ok, I will start right now. I will change my past ways of my self promotion in Skaffe and I will correct that by removing any self promotion. As RZ is an extension of DMOZ I will be careful to turn off my self-promotion when I come here and I will start by removing the link drop.
Very very very helpful. Thanks!
[edit1]
Ok I just when to Skaffe and moved 2 of my entries from a 3 to 2. I am not aware of having done any other self-promotion in any other directories. I now will practice this so it will "change over time". Also this is a decision I am making on a fairness level. As I endeavor to maintain the golden rule of doing unto others what I would want them to do to me, I surely would not want my site to be pushed down lower in the list because some one misused their editorship and moved theses higher. So this is not something I am doing so I "can get into DMOZ" but is something that I just didn't see as being unfair before and that I do now.
Opps. Does that mean the link drop I just did on Project No Spam In Aylmer Ontario could be seen as web promotion? I confess it was and will remove it!
"You have to show you are capable of leaving it at the door."
I have not done that at other directories, so this is a very good point. I am seeing more clearly that there is more to being a DMOZ editor than being able to pick good sites, and write good titles and descriptions. DMOZ is looking for editors that are noting going to have to be watched for self promotion all the time. Further I am seeing now that when I unfairly promote myself, my sites, or others sites that I am being unfair to the others in the category.
I will just tell on myself. In one of the categories in I gave a well know blog site that I blog for a three stars. The management knew I did it and as have added a good number of sites to the category I did that in, it was over looked. I didn't write in the log that I did it but never the less I did do it. There are other sites below that I would have to say are better quality.
But is your frame of mind compatible with editing? That isn't correctible in the sense that you can switch it off. But it can change over time.
Ok, I will start right now. I will change my past ways of my self promotion in Skaffe and I will correct that by removing any self promotion. As RZ is an extension of DMOZ I will be careful to turn off my self-promotion when I come here and I will start by removing the link drop.
Very very very helpful. Thanks!
[edit1]
Ok I just when to Skaffe and moved 2 of my entries from a 3 to 2. I am not aware of having done any other self-promotion in any other directories. I now will practice this so it will "change over time". Also this is a decision I am making on a fairness level. As I endeavor to maintain the golden rule of doing unto others what I would want them to do to me, I surely would not want my site to be pushed down lower in the list because some one misused their editorship and moved theses higher. So this is not something I am doing so I "can get into DMOZ" but is something that I just didn't see as being unfair before and that I do now.
Now you see why you have to be squeaky clean and have to be seen to be squeaky clean too.
At any time someone could have started a thread in a Skaffe forum (if there is such a thing).... "Corrupt editor gave his site a gold star, but my unlisted site is much better.. and I submitted it 2 years ago".
Does that thread title sound familiar to anyone who ever read back through previous RZ posts? Well, meta editors will always take a look at the history of the site in question (and everything an editor does is logged, so there is no "forgetting" to note it), as well as looking at which editors have "touched" the entry and what else they have been up to.
On many occasions, it was just that the suggestion hadn't yet been looked at, but sometimes there was an editor who had actively supppressed competition, or boosted his and friends sites. The editor is soon an ex-editor when that is discovered, and out of 60 000 people who have edited at the ODP in the last 7 years there are probably at least few hundred that have been removed like that. However, the damage they will have caused is low: new editors get only a limited category to edit, and have to earn the priviledge to edit in wider categories.
Even if there had been 5000 corrupt editors who had made 5 fake entries each, then that would mean there were 25 thousand problems in over 6 million listings (a very small % even so) - but that would be the total number over a period of 7 years, the number visible at any one time would be vanishingly small.
The good thing is that every editor log, every category log, and every site log can be looked at by any editor at any time, so if you do something wrong, it will eventually be picked up by someone, and reported. Sometimes problems are obvious just from looking at the public listings. There are several ways to report such problems. This action used to be just an internal editor thing, but there is now an RZ thread for reporting such problems, and over 1000 entries have been corrected since it started, using that thread.
At any time someone could have started a thread in a Skaffe forum (if there is such a thing).... "Corrupt editor gave his site a gold star, but my unlisted site is much better.. and I submitted it 2 years ago".
Does that thread title sound familiar to anyone who ever read back through previous RZ posts? Well, meta editors will always take a look at the history of the site in question (and everything an editor does is logged, so there is no "forgetting" to note it), as well as looking at which editors have "touched" the entry and what else they have been up to.
On many occasions, it was just that the suggestion hadn't yet been looked at, but sometimes there was an editor who had actively supppressed competition, or boosted his and friends sites. The editor is soon an ex-editor when that is discovered, and out of 60 000 people who have edited at the ODP in the last 7 years there are probably at least few hundred that have been removed like that. However, the damage they will have caused is low: new editors get only a limited category to edit, and have to earn the priviledge to edit in wider categories.
Even if there had been 5000 corrupt editors who had made 5 fake entries each, then that would mean there were 25 thousand problems in over 6 million listings (a very small % even so) - but that would be the total number over a period of 7 years, the number visible at any one time would be vanishingly small.
The good thing is that every editor log, every category log, and every site log can be looked at by any editor at any time, so if you do something wrong, it will eventually be picked up by someone, and reported. Sometimes problems are obvious just from looking at the public listings. There are several ways to report such problems. This action used to be just an internal editor thing, but there is now an RZ thread for reporting such problems, and over 1000 entries have been corrected since it started, using that thread.
giz: "Now you see why you have to be squeaky clean and have to be seen to be squeaky clean too. "
Yes! And it is one thing to make some quick changes, lay claims to changing your ways, but it is another thing to get people to believe that.
Well I think I have got lots to work on. At least I now know why I was not accepted. I have a number of things I still have to clean up. I have some pages with parsed titles and descriptions from DMOZ that I need to either have rewritten or fulfill the license agreement by placing the attribution requirement on the pages.
I like the fairness idea and not taking advantage of a position you have been entrusted in to better yourself unfairly above others. I agree with that 100% and I am embracing in the other directories.
At this time I don't see anything wrong with being a DMOZ editor and offering pay or free DMOZ submissions via the public interface and using the clients email. Long as you clearly noted that no special preference was given and the submissions would be done form the public form using the clients email and DMOZ wouldn't know that it was for an editor.
So now I am clear there is 0% tolerance for self promotion within the director. I think I knew that already but I am clearer on that now.
So I think I have the following to clear up before I reapply.
1. Comply fully with DMOZ license on all sites I own.
2. Get clear on DMOZ submission for pay (or for free).
Steps I have taken.
1. Completely turn off self-promotion when I come to R-Z or if I were to get a DMOZ editorship when I enter the realms of the directory I have to turn the off.
2. Remove any self promotion I have done in other directory at the expense of others.
I want to engage with pvgool and windharp more on the issue of doing pay or free DMOZ submissions and being a DMOZ editor at the same time.
Yes! And it is one thing to make some quick changes, lay claims to changing your ways, but it is another thing to get people to believe that.
Well I think I have got lots to work on. At least I now know why I was not accepted. I have a number of things I still have to clean up. I have some pages with parsed titles and descriptions from DMOZ that I need to either have rewritten or fulfill the license agreement by placing the attribution requirement on the pages.
I like the fairness idea and not taking advantage of a position you have been entrusted in to better yourself unfairly above others. I agree with that 100% and I am embracing in the other directories.
At this time I don't see anything wrong with being a DMOZ editor and offering pay or free DMOZ submissions via the public interface and using the clients email. Long as you clearly noted that no special preference was given and the submissions would be done form the public form using the clients email and DMOZ wouldn't know that it was for an editor.
So now I am clear there is 0% tolerance for self promotion within the director. I think I knew that already but I am clearer on that now.
So I think I have the following to clear up before I reapply.
1. Comply fully with DMOZ license on all sites I own.
2. Get clear on DMOZ submission for pay (or for free).
Steps I have taken.
1. Completely turn off self-promotion when I come to R-Z or if I were to get a DMOZ editorship when I enter the realms of the directory I have to turn the off.
2. Remove any self promotion I have done in other directory at the expense of others.
I want to engage with pvgool and windharp more on the issue of doing pay or free DMOZ submissions and being a DMOZ editor at the same time.
Sorry to say there was much truth in the "fake"
Sorry to say - The "fake" post expressed some of the frustrations I experienced as a onetime ODP novice editor and longtime submitter and user. Please bear with me.
ODP could and should serve a very important function if it were freed from some of its major faults. Its main use is not as a search engine - Google and others now do that better. It's use is as a quality filter and a means of boosting good new Web sites and pages in search engine rankings - those that would otherwise need to wait months before people saw them in the top 10 listings of popular Google queries. Its use is also in helping to get rid of the endless stream of garbage and exploitation sites that people put up for "black hat" Seo purposes.
Human beings being what they are, ODP probably will not improve in its present format. Volunteers want to be rewarded in some way for their services - advance their political views or their commercial interests. People who are bigoted never realize they are bigoted of course. They think they are being objective.
A better version of dmoz would require intervention of paid reviewers or quality checkers, or use of only paid reviewers. These would spot and fix proliferation of duplicate pages that suit political opinions and commercial and political directories that have been slanted to suit a particular political viewpoint or include only friends of the editor.
I wrote an article about it here <URL Removed> after reading Cris Crum's article about declining number of viewers in dmoz. Statistics only lie a little bit. If you love the ODP you will take the criticism in the way that it is meant, and try to save this great project. If not, you will dismiss it all as sour grapes of disgruntled spammers.
Respectfully...
Sorry to say - The "fake" post expressed some of the frustrations I experienced as a onetime ODP novice editor and longtime submitter and user. Please bear with me.
ODP could and should serve a very important function if it were freed from some of its major faults. Its main use is not as a search engine - Google and others now do that better. It's use is as a quality filter and a means of boosting good new Web sites and pages in search engine rankings - those that would otherwise need to wait months before people saw them in the top 10 listings of popular Google queries. Its use is also in helping to get rid of the endless stream of garbage and exploitation sites that people put up for "black hat" Seo purposes.
Human beings being what they are, ODP probably will not improve in its present format. Volunteers want to be rewarded in some way for their services - advance their political views or their commercial interests. People who are bigoted never realize they are bigoted of course. They think they are being objective.
A better version of dmoz would require intervention of paid reviewers or quality checkers, or use of only paid reviewers. These would spot and fix proliferation of duplicate pages that suit political opinions and commercial and political directories that have been slanted to suit a particular political viewpoint or include only friends of the editor.
I wrote an article about it here <URL Removed> after reading Cris Crum's article about declining number of viewers in dmoz. Statistics only lie a little bit. If you love the ODP you will take the criticism in the way that it is meant, and try to save this great project. If not, you will dismiss it all as sour grapes of disgruntled spammers.
Respectfully...
You're welcome to your opinions. I trust you'll not begrudge others the same privilege. I do find aspects of your perceptions baffling: the concept of "supervising editor" is alien to the ODP, for instance--and there is no such thing as putting anyone "in charge of" any category.
If you were that uncomfortable working within the current guidelines and the community, everyone would be better off with you focusing on your own website, built to your own exacting specifications, and about whichever field of science you have that doctorate in. (Or contributing to the peer-reviewed journals....teaching....) Thus the ODP's loss would be more than compensated through society's gain.
I can't imagine, though, why someone with a Ph.D. in a scientific field would be involved in SEO -- isn't that a bit like an open-heart surgeon working night shift as a security guard at Walmart? There are so many more productive, more rewarding, and more remunerative things someone with real intellectual skills could be doing!
If you were that uncomfortable working within the current guidelines and the community, everyone would be better off with you focusing on your own website, built to your own exacting specifications, and about whichever field of science you have that doctorate in. (Or contributing to the peer-reviewed journals....teaching....) Thus the ODP's loss would be more than compensated through society's gain.
I can't imagine, though, why someone with a Ph.D. in a scientific field would be involved in SEO -- isn't that a bit like an open-heart surgeon working night shift as a security guard at Walmart? There are so many more productive, more rewarding, and more remunerative things someone with real intellectual skills could be doing!
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
> Its main use is not as a search engine
Correct. A directory is not a search engine.
> It's use is as a quality filter
In a way it is. Although DMOZ does not judge the quality of a website nor of its content.
> and a means of boosting good new Web sites and pages in search engine rankings
That certainly is not true. DMOZ does not want to be such a system and it never has been.
> those that would otherwise need to wait months before people saw them in the top 10 listings of popular Google queries.
Just one slight problem. Only 10 sites can be listed in the top 10. Maybe the others have just done not enough to get their websites found.
One thing is certain. A DMOZ listing will not get you a top 10 place. Only the website itself can.
> Volunteers want to be rewarded in some way for their services
And as an editor I am. Just not in the way most people think.
- I am part of a global community, which has brought me friends from all over the world
- Managing many different subjects has given me knowledge of subjects I knew almost nothing about before, giving me a broader view on the world and people
- I am proud that I have been given the privilege to help other people find good websites
> I wrote an article about it here <URL Removed>
Yes, I already read the article before I saw your posting here. I am sorry that you as an ex-editor have such a twisted view of what DMOZ is. No wonder you felt that DMOZ was not the place for you. But that is no problem. People should only do things they feel confortable about. As a result I am an editor and you are not. Fine. Let us each do what we like to do.
Correct. A directory is not a search engine.
> It's use is as a quality filter
In a way it is. Although DMOZ does not judge the quality of a website nor of its content.
> and a means of boosting good new Web sites and pages in search engine rankings
That certainly is not true. DMOZ does not want to be such a system and it never has been.
> those that would otherwise need to wait months before people saw them in the top 10 listings of popular Google queries.
Just one slight problem. Only 10 sites can be listed in the top 10. Maybe the others have just done not enough to get their websites found.
One thing is certain. A DMOZ listing will not get you a top 10 place. Only the website itself can.
> Volunteers want to be rewarded in some way for their services
And as an editor I am. Just not in the way most people think.
- I am part of a global community, which has brought me friends from all over the world
- Managing many different subjects has given me knowledge of subjects I knew almost nothing about before, giving me a broader view on the world and people
- I am proud that I have been given the privilege to help other people find good websites
Seems you realy do not understand what DMOZ is and wants to be,
> I wrote an article about it here <URL Removed>
Yes, I already read the article before I saw your posting here. I am sorry that you as an ex-editor have such a twisted view of what DMOZ is. No wonder you felt that DMOZ was not the place for you. But that is no problem. People should only do things they feel confortable about. As a result I am an editor and you are not. Fine. Let us each do what we like to do.