My concerns

Why is the whole process of site submission run in such a draconian manner, it is stated that DMOZ is staffed by volunteers which I accept as being reliant on their goodwill, however is it really acceptable to wait up to 2 years to be included? Are there no rules on commitment to become an editor?

I note that the process doesn’t operate on a first come first served basis but instead chooses to allow the editor the freedom of choosing which ever they fancy in whatever order they want.

I have read through the forums and noted that the vast majority of correspondence relates to submission status with customers (and I use the word customers correctly) being told to go away, they are instructed to wait and if nothing happens in six moths they will be granted permission to speak.

They are expected to sit happily for six moths wondering what will happen, the unfortunate shame of this process is that the DMOZ data is so vital to a sites success in page rankings etc people are forced to comply until the editor (who may be a housewife in Essex) makes a decision on their nuclear science web site in Glasgow. Little do they now she was an ex CND campaigner and has vowed to never edit their site…you get the idea.

Perhaps DMOZ has reached the end of its evolution and is now ready to suffer the same fate as the dinosaur. I think a replacement would be greatly received by all concerned but hey that’s my view

Why is the whole process of site submission run in such a draconian manner

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it could be made any simpler. You click on the button, type in the URL, suggest a title and description and hit submit. Some people even skip the title and description part.

however is it really acceptable to wait up to 2 years to be included?

Click to expand...

Well let's see, it is a vounteer project, run by volunteers, managed by volunters, and you are complaining that the volunteers won't divert themseleves from their primary goal long of building a directory, to process submissions -- an activity that is often counterproductive to building a directory.

Are there no rules on commitment to become an editor?

Click to expand...

Oh, there are plenty of rules. None of them, however, place a priority on processing or reviewing submitted sites.

I note that the process doesn’t operate on a first come first served basis but instead chooses to allow the editor the freedom of choosing which ever they fancy in whatever order they want.

Click to expand...

I know, it is so totally cool. As a volunteer I get to work when I want, for however long as I want, doing whatever I want to do, and at the end of the day the editorial community says thank you. The pay stinks, but it is a near-perfect working environment.

people are forced to comply until the editor (who may be a housewife in Essex) makes a decision on their nuclear science web site in Glasgow. Little do they now she was an ex CND campaigner and has vowed to never edit their site…you get the idea.

Click to expand...

No, we don't get the idea. The housewife in Essex you are so quick to disparage may have 75,000 edits to her credit and may be a genius when it comes to directory onthology. She may also be the project's only true expert on Bavarian Butterflies.

You also clearly do not have any understanding of how the directory works. For if you did, and knew that more than 200 editors can edit in any given category and that the majority of all edits are done by editors who are not the named editor of the category -- then you would realize just how ill-informed your comments are, and how they border on being offensive.

You're looking at the ODP as a web site listing service. It's not. We're a bunch of people building a directory and providing the data to downstream users. It's that simple. We're not here to process suggestions, we just use those suggestions to help us build the directory. Thanks for suggesting a web site, and we'll look at it and maybe add it to the directory. That's all we've ever promised

You are stuck with the concept that the position in an imaginary queue, somehow dictates the importance of listing a site. I know this is how the supermarket works, but DMOZ does not.

[In fact even the supermarket does not work like that. Mine give me a fast line up for less that 8 items and one for less than 16, other than that, I have to make a guess as to which line up is better to be in. The supermarket system is not as far as it should be. If I'm in a rush to make dinner, perhaps there should be a paid express line to get served faster. Maybe there should be only one line up based on how long people have been waiting to eat]

Yesterday, I ended up seeing a submitted site for a photographer, and publishing it, then I saw two more, so I ended up listing three sites, one submitted back in 2000, one last year, and one from this year.

I also found a site that was not in English that had been submitted to the wrong category so I moved it to be reviewed in another category.

From reviewing one of those sites I discovered another ten sites for photographers that had never been submiitted, so I added those to be reviewed later.

Then I noticed some photographer sites that were not quite in the correct category so I moved tham.

Then I found one site was not working properly so I unreviewed it for the moment and will check later if it's working.

There is no way that you can look at those sites and assign some kind of priority to the order in which they should have been reviewed. If we went strictly by date of submission then the sites that are found by lucky accident [as above] and have never been submitted would not get reviewed.

But perhaps they have better content than any of the submiited sites.

Also note, that when I started to edit yesterday, I never planned to do any of the above, it just happened. It's this freedom of doing what I want that keeps me editing. Tell me that I have to do things according to some kind of schedule, or impose some kind of strict schedule on me and I quit being an editor. That's why there are thousands of volunteers each reviewing thousands of sites.

Perhaps DMOZ has reached the end of its evolution

Click to expand...

Not an original thought, we've been hearing it for years. Search Google for any of the following
dmoz is dead dmoz sucks
dmoz fails

Sorry, we don't offer what you want, but we won't be offended if you seek your needs elsewhere. There are millions of sites that offer instant website promotion services: we don't feel there is a need for yet another one, and so we aren't yet another one. (as you may have noticed.)

So a site that offered what you want wouldn't be a replacement for the ODP. It would be something else, and ... you're welcome to start it right now. We'll send all the unhappy webmasters to you tomorrow; we'll even license all our work to you for free.

You may, if you wish, hire all our editors who are on perpetual slowdown strike and only work to union rules.

You may set up your system so that one obnoxious editor can keep a site from getting listed. We don't have such a thing, and we don't think it would be useful in our endeavor: but you are free to set up your site along whatever lines you wish.

You may try to keep your customers from doing anything else while they wait for your services. We don't think that would help us at all, though: our volunteers do not lose their right to use their free time as they wish, even after they do their first edit or submittal. The rest of their life, before or after they do something for the ODP, still belongs to them -- some of them may even engage in business, charity, or even website promotion in that time, not to mention eating, sleeping, and surfing. So in this respect I don't think your new site could have much advantage over the ODP.

As for sneering at the intelligence of our editors, I'll see your SAT score and spot you 200 points. And ... in the internal forums I sometimes wonder how they slipped up and let me in -- the community includes a wealth of knowledge, freely made available, that IMO deserves respect if not awe.

My dear Editors and Moderators,

My dear Editors and Moderators,

I will be honest with you, I read all responses above - your language used in responses very different from one you asking everyone to follow in "Guidelines".

I will tell you about my experience with DMOZ "free society".

I have applied to become a volunteer in one understaffed category with only few listings there.

I spent few hours reading your guidelines and few days looking for perfect sites to suggest.

I found 3 perfect sites, I compiled 3 perfect titles, 3 perfect descriptions, did a grammar and spell check. I did "perfect submission" according to your guidelines to "understaffed category".

Gentlemen’s, do you think I get approved?

NO. My application was rejected next day. I was wondering why??? Why would you reject someone who wants to help you to build your free society?

I made one mistake - I signed with my Russian name.

Wow!

I was scared that was a truth....and applied after a while with more American name "Bobby Smith" with the same sites, title and description.

))))

Free society approved me! Great!....But...it looks like this is not a "fair society" and really discriminate volunteers, and sites.

Editors here promote sites if they get paid on the side. Editors kill "competitors" sites, even if they 100% better, more professional and objective with excuse of "this is free society and I do what I want"

This is a truth, and you may disagree with me, but this place is corrupted.

What is wrong with "first come, first serve"???? Oh...we could not promote my client sites then…..

You all complain there not enough editors/volunteers.

You do not want new "Editors". They can take your power away.

This is a truth.

Rebut me if you can.

Rebut me if you can.

Click to expand...

Let's see if I understand: we are all a bunch of racist, corrupt, editors engaged in a major consipracy to deprive non-bribe-paying Russians from becoming editors or from getting their sites listed.

Is that what you are saying?

You may well describe yourself. I am one of you. But I am honest and I do "first come, first serve" and respond on every request. Because I RESPECT submitters.

General idea behind DMOZ here well described in original letter - "shut up and wait, I am the God and will do wherever I want"

Your response shows you cannot rebut me and you don't like Russians

)))

try it, show you have b...ls

You are an editor, LOL, no way. You are just trolling for action. Best that we all lgnore you.

Well, Bobrat, you probably good guy, but you dont have b...ls. I saw you response, but your request not to answer only shows me you have nothing to respond, because I am right and you know it as well.

I am doing my best to support FAIR listings and your folks are working for Walls Street $$$ SEO firm(Yea!)

My experience with first rejected application to become an Editor show me this place is full of discrimination and I think submitters should know that.

But now I am part of this " Family" and will rule my category in the way I think fair.

It is very interesting you do not want to review sites first come first serve in the same way I do. That show me your weakness.

I find it strange that you accuse someone else of weakness yet hide behind and alias in a public forum and fire baseless and unfounded accusations around no full well that no one is going to ecourage you more by trying to respond to attacks that are made without any verifiable proof.

Costs you credability in my book, I think they have you nailed down-troll
and I cannot blame anyone for not answering your incitefull babble.

Just my

>But now I am part of this " Family" and will rule my category in the way I think fair.

Um, let me give you a warning. You don't own a category, no editor does: and if you act in any way suggesting that you think you do, ... you will be dissuaded. I recommend that you be dissuaded now.

>It is very interesting you do not want to review sites first come first serve in the same way I do. That show me your weakness.

Second warning. Your job as an editor is to find good sites for the ODP. If you are not actively using multiple resources, you are not being fair -- you are significantly biasing the category and harming the integrity of the directory. And relying only on submittals is not only using a single source, it is the worst and most biased source you could possibly find.

Third, if you are reviewing sites in submitted order, you are being extremely unfair to the best sites. You are being extremely unfair to the honorable webmasters. You are being extremely unfair to the websites that have been available to surfers longest. And you are willingly allowing yourself to be manipulated for sordid gain by the most despicable people on the web.

I recommend that you change your practice. Before someone notices how poorly your approach serves our customers.

Well, first catch me if you can )))

My approach is fair, and here is why:

1. Your job as an editor is to find good sites for the ODP. If you are not actively using multiple resources, you are not being fair -- you are significantly biasing the category and harming the integrity of the directory. And relying only on submittals is not only using a single source, it is the worst and most biased source you could possibly find.

--- I am relying on submittals and other sources - all information accounted and analyzed

2. Third, if you are reviewing sites in submitted order, you are being extremely unfair to the best sites.

---- how do you know if site recently submitted is better then old or otherwise? Reviewing sites in submitted order is not the same as "including sites in submitted order" webmasters submitted sites long time ago deserved their site to be reviewed first.

1. You are being extremely unfair to the honorable webmasters. You are being extremely unfair to the websites that have been available to surfers longest. And you are willingly allowing yourself to be manipulated for sordid gain by the most despicable people on the web.

--- are you referring to promoting sites been longest for surfers? I disagree - it does not matter how long site was available, site may be new but better then one currently listed in directory. A lot of new sites were discriminated, specially in some hot categories. I have seen 2 different sites submitted within same week. One was a poor site another was a good one. Editor responsible for review declined good professional site and listed poor one. How do you explain that?

And last:

explain why when I apply for the same directory with the same sites and same description and keywords You guys rejected me because of my nationality? And when I resubmitted with American name You guys let me in?

Don't you think this is unfair?

catch me if you can!

The problem is this: many many SERP perps want us all to take submittals in order. And this is why. If they knew a submittal would take exactly 6 months, they could submit lots and lots of dead links today, and then in 5 months they would start selling (for $$$) immediate reviews of websites! (They'd just redirect their "submarine submittals" to the guy that paid big corrupt bucks for the immediate review.

We already have people doing this! There's not a big market for immediate reviews, but that's because, so far, enough of us editors are NOT reviewing sites in submitted order.

Is it fair to turn yourself into a mechanical servant for those corrupt SERP perps?

No, it is not fair, but is it fair to reject not native english speaking guy and let him in under more "American name"?

I seen you spend most of you time here, rebutting webmasters request with simple "shut up and wait".

Do you think this is fair to them?

Dont you think it would be better for you edit your category instead?

This is one quote from anotehr editor:

"As for dmoz submission, i think it is quite hard now as some of the directories were controlled by selfish editors sometimes."

And I did not see you even tried to rebutt me RE: "some editors get paid by SEO to promote one sites and downgrade others."

Vaddy, you can make vague unprovable accusations all day long. But until you give details, your insinuation is logically impossible to rebut, and anyone would be stupid to try. How can anyone prove a negative?

I say to you: if you don't really know of such editors, you are a liar. If you know and do not report via the abuse reporting system, you are just as corrupt as the editors you are talking about. In neither case do such allegations DESERVE an answer.

Of cause they do not deserve answer, how can you rebutt on my initial rejection because I am not a native English, but letting me in later with same titles, desription, and sites but with better "American like" name???

I see you cannot say anything because this is a truth.