news letter/ can it be true ?

Hello Guys

I was email this today and im a little shocked, can it be true ?

The Open Directory Project is the largest human edited directory of web sites and documents existing online at this time. While many search engines such as Google, Yahoo, Ask and MSN maintain largër databases of electronically spidered sites, the volunteer editors at the ODP read, sort and classify all submitted content before it is added to their search-database. Started in 1998 in reaction to difficulties webmasters had getting their content into Yahoo's then human edited directory, the Open Directory Project was a simple and effective idea

Founded in June 1998 by Rich Skrenta and Bob Truel, the ODP drew its early inspiration from the first major open-source cooperative initiative, the GNU Project. It was even originally named after the GNU project, launched as GnuHoo. The name was quickly changed to NewHoo in order to avoid confusion between the two projects. Over time, the NewHoo morphed into the more organized Open Directory Project. The ODP is owned and operated by AOL's Netscape division which has pledged to keep the directory 100% frëe as part of Netscape's social contract with web users.

Over the years, inclusion in the ODP became increasingly important, especially after Google began using it as the primary database for a Google directory. Getting a site listed at the ODP almost guaranteed a beneficial visit from Googlebot as a listing there was seen as a vote of confidence from a live-human reviewer.

For the past twenty-four months however, webmasters and search marketers have expressed extreme frustration while waiting for their sites to get listed in DMOZ. The Open Directory is a volunteer driven initiative, and like other non-paying projects they often have a hard time finding good help. Submissions to categories are backed up for months and in some cases, even years with many of the over 1500 unique directory categories lacking volunteers assigned to edit them. A backlog in sites awaiting review is one thing but recently, accusations of bribery, favouritism and editors lashing out at critics have caused many to lower their previously favourable estimations of the Open Directory.
The submission backlog, incidentally, grew so rapidly that the ODP editors opened a discussion forum known as the Resource Zone specifically to address questïons and concerns from webmasters. After operating for over a year, the collective of ODP editors that ran the Resource Zone elected to close down the most used service available on the forum, the Site Submission Zone. While the forum was established to discuss ODP issues in an open and public space, the Site Submission Zone took far too much energy to maintain and moderate. Editors felt it did not offer users enough relevant information as much of what could or perhaps should be said to site owners would fall into the confidential category.

For several months, there have been accusations that some ODP editors are accepting payments for faster attention. Stemming from the Blog, Corrupt DMOZ Editor which was started in December 2004 by DMOZ editor Ana Thema, the blog lists several entries detailing systemic corruption throughout the Open Directory editorial structure. In her February 8 posting, Ana states, "Links are a commodity. Links from DMOZ are a hot commodity. Everything in this world is a commodity: everything. If you disbelieve that someone would be so corrupt as to sell submissions into the ODP, then Dorothy, this is your wake up call." In other posts she claims she uses at least a dozen unique editor names and maintains a network with dozens of other ODP editors. Reading Ana Thema's blog is much like watching one's first episode of the corrupt-cop drama, The Shield .

Another issue critics have had with editors at the Open Directory Project is one of favouritism. Editors have almost total control over their sections of the directory. While there is a hierarchy of editors with Meta-Editors having the power to re-edit categories that have received complaints, most meta-editors don't have a lot of spare time. This has led to some "fixing" the listings to favour their friends and associates. There are stories of search engine marketers becoming editors at the ODP and then gently favouring sites that would benefit their clients. A more sophisticated story tells of a search engine marketer manipulating ODP results to generate stronger Google page-rank scores for his clients. Another tells of ODP editors networking with each other to provide reciprocal favours
In a case of reverse favouritism, Ana Thema posted a story at corruptdmozeditor.com from another DMOZ editor that states, "My arch competitor had a dupe content subdomain that they set up for traffïc overflow and I changed their dmoz listing to the subdomain with duplicate content and it slaughtered their rankings for a couple of months. Speaking as someone with 4 years of sabotaging experience, switch their listing from www. to non-www from time-to-time. Switch them from www.example.com to www.example.com/index.html, stuff like that."

After complaining about abuses and neglect, some webmasters might expect an apology or a reasonable explanation from the Open Directory Project. None has been forthcoming though the Resource Zone was intended to be a space for DMOZ editors to communicate with DMOZ users. A growing problem for the ODP is the lack of patience users and editors are showing with each other in various search related discussion forums. A post over at the Search Engine Watch Forums likens the accountability of some ODP editors to Seinfeld's character, the Soup-Nazi. According to the post, criticize these editors and, "NO SOUP FOR YOU! NEXT!"

In its defense, the Open Directory Project is staffed by volunteers, all of whom are humans with real lives, real jobs and other responsibilities. Given the backlog of submissions and the deterioration of the directory, it is rather difficult to see them being able to straighten out the mess quickly or easily. While many DMOZ editors put up with a lot of abuse, almost all of them (with the possible exception of Ana Thema) take great pride in the size and scope of the Open Directory Project.

For search engine marketers however, the question of relevance vs. effort comes into play. At one time, a listing at the Open Directory was mandatory in order to guarantëe strong listings at Google, Yahoo and other search engines. Today, while still helpful, the strength of a Open Directory listing has been diluted by the search engines themselves. In an article titled, ...Time for The ODP to Close?, Search Engine Watch editor Danny Sullivan suggests three ways the venerable DMOZ could reorganize and revitalize itself. Whatever it does, it should do it soon as the importance of the largest human edited directory of websites is decreasing as quickly as the backlog of submitted sites is increasing.


About The Author
Jim Hedger is a writer, speaker and search engine marketing expert based in Victoria BC. Jim writes and edits full-time for StepForth. He has worked as an SEO for over 5 years and welcomes the opportunïty to share his experience through interviews, articles and speaking engagements. He can be reached at jimhedger@stepforth.com.

if this is true what a shame some editors spoil this for everyone else

Regards

In the eyes of the author it probably is true.

The most import lines from this article are

For search engine marketers however, the question of relevance vs. effort comes into play. ..... Whatever it does, it should do it soon as the importance of the largest human edited directory of websites is decreasing ...

Click to expand...

We don't care if so called "search engine marketers" find our project of relevance. I wish the day that these people think DMOZ isn't worth using for their own benefit is here today. It would make our task a lot easier and worthwhile.

The author starts from a point where he has misconstrued, deliberately or otherwise, the ODP and its concepts. To which he adds the theories of mischief makers who have been touting the same tired nonsense for years and assumes them to be truth coz it suits his purposes. And arrives at a conclusion that owes as much to fantasy as anything else.

The truth is that editors don't have a problem with backlogs*, there is no evidence of large-scale systematic corruption (that is the theory that explains why we haven't listed their spam and syndicated content), and that we have no interest in webmasters or web marketers and their views. We do not exist to serve their interests or list their sites.

The interests of spam-merchants and unscrupulous SEO firms is in destroying the concept if not the entire ODP since they cannot manipulate it through clever use of keywords and other techniques. So they trot out lies and misunderstandings and rumours and other nonsense to that end - it is the only weapon they have available. Really very sad.

What will eventually perhaps make the ODP redundant is when the likes of Google work out how to eliminate SEO techniques in determining the order of search results. When the search engines return 50 completely unique non-affiliate results to every query then we no longer retain our own edge. There will also at that point be no money in spam and nothing for SEOs to do. A perfect world.

* backlogs. To have a backlog implies a workload that is increasing faster than it is being processed. In this context it assumes that a pile of submitted sites not yet reviewed is the workload. If you make that (incorrect) assumption then there are spam-magnet categories where the pile is growing and no-one is clearing it.

But here is the reality. Take any topic - knitting patterns for example. There may be 1000 sites on the subject, 100 have been submitted to us. Our aim is to list those that provide the most comprehensive unique content. Our pool of sites numbers 1000 not 100 from which to pick. 90 of the 100 best sites will be in that section of the pool that have not been submitted. So where is our best source of sites? Not the submitted ones! Eventually we have the 100 best sites and increasingly we are looking at dross and repetition. Editors lose interest, that pile of unreviewed submissions doesn't move. New additions come when someone independently spots an unlisted quality site or does a little category maintenance and a real gem stands out amongst those sites most recently submitted.

So why do we allow submissions. Sometimes I wonder. It was, and in some cases remains, to give the public a way of helping us by suggesting great sites with unique content that they have discovered themselves. Of course that was interpreted as an invitation to webmasters to submit their own site. Which is fine if they suggest great sites with unique content. But along comes the spammers and the SEO tricksters to abuse the system. When it doesn't work they shout and scream. Tough and long may they continue to shout and scream because while they do that it strengthens editors resolve that they are doing the right thing.

Well said

Both of you stand your ground well, and it a shame in every walks of life that we will get a few rotten eggs.

Keep up the good work, even if you dont list my site : )


Ps oneeye

you win hands down being the longest talker for sure. : - )

Late to the party as usual.

There's no point in my accepting or denying the email because if it's false, I'll deny it and do the same if it's true .

Instead, as is advisable with all information sources, check its credibility. Do a little digging into the provenance of the information. Is it verifiable as fact or is it unsubstantiated hearsay? Are the numerical facts it states correct?

Have fun

>> The Open Directory Project is the largest human edited directory... <<

It is.


>> For the past twenty-four months however, webmasters and search marketers have expressed extreme frustration <<

In that time, the directory has grown by over two miilion listings, and if we have kept the marketers at bay, with their spam, unlistable sites, multiple submissions, doorways, and other junk then I'll say to all the other editors "job well done, long may it continue to be that way".


>> Submissions to categories are backed up for months and in some cases, even years <<

Some catoegories are rarely edited, or are edited but without looking at the suggestion pile, and that is often a direct consequence of something like 90% of the waiting suggestions being for things that we will not ever list. Does an editor spend three hours deleting spam, or three hours elsewhere adding useful sites? Most editors will take the latter option. Do you find that surprising?


>> The submission backlog, incidentally, grew so rapidly that the ODP editors opened a discussion forum known as the Resource Zone <<

Linking two facts together and assuming that one caused the other is a very dangerous assumption, and in this case is very wrong. In fact there was a long period of time that the suggestion pile was decreasing in size, due to a team project to find unreviewed spam and mass delete it.


>> After operating for over a year, the collective of ODP editors that ran the Resource Zone elected to close down the most used service available on the forum, the Site Submission Zone. <<

It was open for waay more than a ear, and as well as being the most used, it was also the most abused too. It was closed partly as the spammers had moved in, and many people tried to game the system or find ways around the spam filtering.


>> Stemming from the Blog, Corrupt DMOZ Editor which was started in December 2004 by DMOZ editor Ana Thema,.. <<

Like that's a real name? or anathema ?


>> In other posts she claims she uses at least a dozen unique editor names and maintains a network with dozens of other ODP editors. <<

It would be very difficult for anyone to have two identities, let alone more; and this "network" is a figment of the posters fervent imagination.


>> Editors have almost total control over their sections of the directory. <<

They do not have total control. There are many people that can edit almost anywhere, and they do. Problems are soon spotted, both by the public and by other editors. There is a thread at RZ specifically for reporting such problems, as well as a "report abuse" link on every category. If people are seeing problems and are not reporting them, then they become a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.


>> For search engine marketers however, the question of relevance vs. effort comes into play. <<

Yes, we would like nothing more for the ODP to be too much work, for too little relevance, such that these marketroids would go somewhere else. Much of their output is of much less use to us than the excreta of the male bovine.


>> At one time, a listing at the Open Directory was mandatory in order to guarantëe strong listings at Google, Yahoo and other search engines. <<

mandatory? More bovine I am afraid. I would like to find whoever started that false rumour and cause them some permanent physical damage to their typing abilities.


>> Today, while still helpful, the strength of a Open Directory listing has been diluted by the search engines themselves. <<

Yes, please pass that message on to every marketroid out there. Spread the word!


>> Search Engine Watch editor Danny Sullivan suggests three ways the venerable DMOZ could reorganize and revitalize itself. <<

Re-organise? It doesn't need no stinking re-organisation. Thousands of sites are added per week. That is faster then any other directory, and covering far more topics than other directories. The marketroids want it to fulfil their aims. Editors at the ODP are not interested in their marketing strategy, hence the wholesale ignoring and deletion of their multiple unwanted submissions. Volunteer critics who write commentry without inside knowledge really have no clue as to what really goes on; it is as if they haven't read any of the thousands of things already written by ODP editors on this subject.


>> Whatever it does, it should do it soon as the importance of the largest human edited directory of websites is decreasing as quickly as the backlog of submitted sites is increasing. <<

As long as its relevance is decreasing to marketroids and their hangers-on then the ODP will continue in the same direction it has been going for the last 7 years. The ODP gets better, bigger, and more diverse as time goes on. No-one could hope to get this amount of quality sites listed, covering so many diverse topics. Several others have started rival directories, and most have withered or barely exist.

And, editors care nothing for the backlog. Much of it is unlistable. If you're focussing on the backlog, then you are looking at the wrong thing. You seem to have ignored what is actually listed, and that is our actual deliverable product. It is what we have built, and it is what is improving, and growing at a massive rate. Nothing else comes close.

The writer sounds like the person who would criticise a new housing development by counting the number of bricks left in the bulders yard, rather than looking at the whole housing estate that has just been built where community is thriving.

Sorry, but that article contains a narrow and biased view of how things are; and takes rumour and guesswork and tries to build a solid conspiracy theory from. It fails miserably. The real world is nothing like that depicted in the "story" above. It is mostly a work of fiction.

oneeye said:

The author starts from a point where he has misconstrued, deliberately or otherwise, the ODP and its concepts. To which he adds the theories of mischief makers who have been touting the same tired nonsense for years and assumes them to be truth coz it suits his purposes. And arrives at a conclusion that owes as much to fantasy as anything else.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I believe the article listed above makes a few very valid points.

The ODP guidelines state the following:

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/

While there are definitive polices given here, many guidelines are sufficiently generalized to allow for unique and special circumstances. While it is critical that you follow these guidelines, it is equally important that you not apply them so rigidly that you sacrifice user-friendliness for the sake of editorial purity.

Click to expand...

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html

In short, editors should select quality sites and lots of them.

Click to expand...

Some editors clearly do not follow these guidelines.

The truth is that editors don't have a problem with backlogs*, there is no evidence of large-scale systematic corruption (that is the theory that explains why we haven't listed their spam and syndicated content),

Click to expand...

The editor(s) overlooking our particular section in Dmoz have been caught deleting competing sites for arbitrary reasons and false accusations, and favoring their own sites. If you like I can email you the proof privately, as it seems to be against forum rules to present the proof out in the open right here. The editors in question clearly have broken the following ODP rules in regard to their own sites:

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html

-Do derive a concise title from the site's contents if the title is
ambiguous or would give the appearance of spam.
-Do not include superfluous keywords
-Do not include excessive and unnecessary keyword repetition
-Do not excessively repeat the category name, keywords, phrases, or
overuse adjectives.

Click to expand...

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html

Selecting, evaluating, describing, and organizing all web sites
fairly and equitably are key components of the editing process.

Click to expand...

And in regard to the sites of their competitors:

http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html

It is contrary to the goals and policy of the ODP for editors to add
only their own or affiliate sites, to engage in self cooling or other
forms of self promotion, or to exclude or disadvantage a site that
belongs to a competitor for the purpose of harming the competitor.
Inappropriate actions may include excluding competitors' sites from
the directory simply because they belong to a competitor or
intentionally editing their titles or descriptions in a manner that
distorts their content or diminishes the chance that users will find
or view those sites.

Click to expand...

Although this proof has already been sent through the online complaint form, nothing has been done about it, which only reinforces the view from the outside that corruption at Dmoz is being accepted (or at least ignored) at the highest levels.

and that we have no interest in webmasters or web marketers and their views. We do not exist to serve their interests or list their sites.

Click to expand...

That may be true for some idealistic editors, but it is equally true that there are a number of editors who joined Dmoz for the singular purpose of having power over a section where they can delete competing sites and favor their own.

To deny that fact would be just as wrong as to say that ALL editors are corrupt. But the fact that SOME editors are corrupt is undeniable. It's not just a matter of web promoters "misinterpreting" the objective of Dmoz. It's a matter of editors clearly favoring their own sites and deleting the competition.

There is a "report abuse" link in every category. File that report.

As I said above:

Although this proof has already been sent through the online complaint form, nothing has been done about it, which only reinforces the view from the outside that corruption at Dmoz is being accepted (or at least ignored) at the highest levels.

Amok, your allegations (although intrinsically and inevitably falling far short of anything a logician could call "proof") were specific, and (even though clouded by your own ulterior motives) raise issues which can be and should be investigated. (Of course, as I've already told you, your own massive abuse has made matters much more difficult for the investigators.)

But your case is in no way related to anathema's -- which is just McCarthy-like character assassination, an emotional rant totally devoid of actual details that may be confirmed or denied, as any reader can plainly see by trying to pick out ANY significant fact -- of good or ill.

Of course, its moral tone is the best indicator of its own credibility, and commensurate with that is its intellectual acuity. So what does or doesn't happen in your case has nothing to do with this.

I never denied the existence of editor abuse - I've picked it up and reported it myself more than once. Virtually all relate to isolated editors sitting out on an obscure twig trying to look inconspicuous. I denied the existence of large-scale systematic corruption as alleged by anathema and elsewhere in webmaster forums. If it existed then I would know about it and so would hundreds of other editalls and above and we would all leave immediately - that sort of thing can't be brushed under the carpet and neither would it be tolerated by editors - abuse degrades everything we do and we wouldn't waste our time like that.

However I have seen plenty of examples of allegations which I have looked into personally and found absolutely nothing other than vivid imagination on the part of the accuser. Generally it goes along the lines of that editor is a competitor and is manipulating listings - I look and see numerous edits by a dozen or so editors with no possible self-interest in the category (because I know they are a civil servant or priest or student or teacher located thousands of miles away).

Any directory with 4 million plus listing will have some quality control issues - listings that precede the current wordings of the guidelines and could do with a re-review and new title and description. It contains sites that have been hijacked or otherwise changed in nature, e.g. travel agents becoming affiliates. We do our best to correct these when discovered. Quality control issues are a very different matter to corruption or abuse though. The public are our eyes and ears for this and there is a section of this forum to report such matters. A couple of times, directly as a result of this forum I have reduced a category by 75% because someone has indicated a problem with it. The listings were perfectly fine when listed but a few years on three quarters of them no longer meet guidelines - it doesn't indicate corruption!

I don't think there can be any doubt that the intentions of the ODP and indeed its service to the community have been very valuable to many down the years. I do believe that it's very model will attract a certain number of bad-egg editors who i'm sure over time will be found out, albeit possibly too late for some people. That's unavoidable even when you "employ" in business.

I work in a very tricky area - a moral hotbed dominated by affiliates i'm sure. It's not pron, but its equally as competitive with thousands of sites out there - and to be fair, many are copies of copies with hand-me-down content and little thought, so it must be a nightmare to administer.

However, two things that i've noticed in the past year trying (unsuccessfully) to get my highly-prized DMOZ listing (I've even travelled to meet fellow marketeer s with DMOZ listings in my category to find out what i need to do to get in!). Firstly, my category only has 19 entries, despite the numerous sites out there (it does have an editor btw). Secondly, despite re-creating my site from scratch with mostly manually researched info (no copying reviews etc), unique content and 6 months of real hard work, it still gets rejected, probably because there is so much content (700 pages and counting) that the unique stuff is harder to determine and the individual reviewing it, (according to my log showing an admin edit cgi entry from the DMOZ backend), only went to one page.

If it was a hobby, i wouldn't care so much in my pursuit. But as it's now become my "business", i have to care. Also, i believe that a manual directory such as DMOZ is way more important to someone like me than an automated SE like Google. I think a site thats been included through manual reviewing speaks volumes and i myself would use a DMOZ site over a G or Y site to find what i want anyday.

Not having a go - I think DMOZ editors on the whole do a very worthy job and provide a great service to webmasters. Just joining in this potentially healthy debate.

Cheers

Simmo!

As well as being a journalist/editor of 30 years experience, I'm a member of another forum where dozens of website owners have huge issues with the ODP. This follows a massive cull of sites from one section of the "human" directory. At least 34 sites got the axe, practically overnight, from this section alone.

These directory sections are being edited by parttime volunteers who often own or operate sites that are in competition with the ones they are making these arbitrary life and death decisions on.

Like it not fellow editors, there is growing unease and concern outside the gates of the ODP that a few rotten apples among you are succumbing to the temptation of misusing their positions to enhance the positioning and placing of their own and their friends' sites, while operating the rules to cut down the competition. I am personally aware of dozens of website owners who believe the ODP is at best operating an unfair, arbitrary and unjust editing system, and at worst tolerating a level of abuse and corruption by volunteer editors that is doing great harm to a once great directory.

I think the ODP was once a great directory, operated mostly by enthusiastic, honest and reliable people. But it may have grown too big to continue to be operated by unprofessional volunteers some of whom don't always appear to follow fair policy guidelines or be properly or fully accountable for what they do – at least that's the perception of a growing number of critics.

I believe if the ODP doesn't clean up its act, adopt work practices more in tune with the 21st century and designed for an organization its size, then it's doomed. It will ultimately lose credibility and confidence with the search engines that use it.

I think that hiring unpaid volunteers who own and operate websites to stand in judgment and edit other people's sites (some in competition with theirs or their friends) is a recipe for abuse. It is causing serious harm to the reputation of ODP as an effective, useful and honest directory.

If editors have or run similar websites to those they are making judgments on, surely that constitutes a serious conflict of interest. It's very surprising to me that the ODP tolerates this.

Would it not be preferable that the ODP have paid professional editors who are fully answerable to their employers to carry out this work? They know they can be fired if they abuse or break the rules, like I can from my job. Should there not also be strict rules against allowing anyone with personal involvement in websites become editor of similar or competing websites.

That said, I really do hope that the ODP sorts out its problems and these issues. Ignoring them and burying the head in the sand is not going to make them go away. The ODP may be big and getting bigger, as someone pointed out, but the dinosaurs were big and they became extinct. I hope the ODP is not so big that it can't reform, listen to valid criticism from the internet community, and adopt modern-day business and work practices.

TomC said:

Would it not be preferable that the ODP have paid professional editors who are fully answerable to their employers to carry out this work? They know they can be fired if they abuse or break the rules, like I can from my job. Should there not also be strict rules against allowing anyone with personal involvement in websites become editor of similar or competing websites.

Click to expand...

No, we will never have paid editors. But all our volunteers can and will be fired if they abuse the rules. This has happened in the past and I'm sure will happen in the future as some people always will try to break the rules.

For all those other accusations. We have a very good abuse system. Give us the details and the meta's will look at the situation. But you must give us evidence (which category, which sites and what has happened). And not these imaginary ones like "the editor must be a compititor because my site didn't get listed". The way ODP internaly is mangaged with several 100 editors capable of working in a category this is very unlickely.

Would it not be preferable that the ODP have paid professional editors?

Click to expand...

There is a version of a directory that does that - it's called Yahoo.

Seriously - who is coughing up the money to pay the editors - you can't charge for listing sites.

And just because an editor is paid does not stop abuse. It seems that someone who is only an editor because the want to get paid, is more prone to being influence by offers of more money.

and the individual reviewing it, (according to my log showing an admin edit cgi entry from the DMOZ backend), only went to one page.

Click to expand...

See, this is where some of this kind of stuff gets started. A site owner looks at his or her logs, see an etry from DMOZ that only visited one page, and jumps to some totally erroneous conclusions.

The logs mean nothing for several reasons, and I'll give you the two best right off the top:

1) The entry does not mean a human editor visited, it could have been something as simple as an editor tool checking to see if the site has gone bad. Many editors routinely run such tools against pools of unreviewed so they can clean out the dead sites before doing any other work. It does not mean they will visit any given site on that editing session, only that they wanted to take out the garbage.

2) Many experienced editors do not visit sites from the ODP editor interface, they browse anonymously using their own ISP. Combine that with the fact that editors can and do use multiple browsers, multiple systems and sometimes multiple IPSs it is very often next to impossible to determine with any great degree of accuracy if an editor visited, and if they did visit, where did they go on their visit.

Yet, what will invariably happen is that a webmaster will see something in their logs, make an ill-informed assumption, and promote that is if it were the Gospel truth, when in fact they simply do not know what they are talking about. However,the rest of the tin-foil-hat-DMOZ-is-satan-brigate pass it on as proof of our widespread corruption.

Frankly, a lot of these DMOZ haters need to go get a life.

pvgool said:

Give us the details and the meta's will look at the situation. But you must give us evidence (which category, which sites and what has happened). And not these imaginary ones like "the editor must be a compititor because my site didn't get listed". The way ODP internaly is mangaged with several 100 editors capable of working in a category this is very unlickely.

Click to expand...

Would it violate the rules if I post screenshots of the public Dmoz directory here? I'd be more than happy to post the proof here.

In the meantime, let's look at a "hypothetical" situation:

Let's pretend for a minute that there was a webmaster, let's call him/her webmaster X, who was member of a forum. On that forum webmasters discuss how to make money with your website. They discuss affiliate programs and search engines. Webmaster X asks the other webmasters how to get his/her site high up in Google. He/she learns that in order to get into Google, you need a lot of incoming links, or a good listing in Dmoz.

So he/she suddenly decides to become a Dmoz editor, and adds his/her own sites. So far so good.

Eventually he/she gets banned from the other forum and now is on a personal vendetta to delete as many of those people's websites as possible. Especially those listed before his/her own site in Google.

After a few days practially everyone of those competitor's websites has disappeared from the Dmoz directory for the most arbitrary reasons. Meanwhile Webmaster X's website is suddenly #4 in Google. Why? Because of his/her double listing in Dmoz, with quadruple keyword repetition. Take the quadruple Dmoz keywords away, and the site disappears into nothingness.

But that's not enough. Webmaster X has many other websites, so he/she highlights another one of his/her sites by creating a brandnew category and places one singular site there: his/her own. We all know self-cooling is prohibited. What about creating a brand-new category all for yourself, for one single solitary site?

But Webmaster X is not alone. He/she has a partner, who happens to be the other editor in the category. Let's call that one Webmaster Y. Webmaster Y helped Webmaster X get his/her sites listed, and competing sites removed.

They use the most arbitrary enforcement of rules. Some sites are deleted for "not having unique content" while other sites with absolutely NO unique content are specifically kept in, and Webmaster X even makes a comment in the edit logs that states the site contains no unique content but should be kept in as a benchmark for all other sites anyway.

Other sites get accused of "spammy bait and switch" - yet there is absolutely no bait & switch to be found. Other sites get accused of "submission spam" simply because the webmaster owns more than one site. According to Webmaster Y it's submission spam if you own more than one site and submit them to Dmoz. Meanwhile Webmaster X and Webmaster Y have several sites of their own listed in Dmoz. Webmaster Y, so adamant about "submission spam," has submitted plenty of deep-links to his own site. Currently his site has 8 deep links in Dmoz, although the content on his site can be found on plenty of other sites. One of his deep-linked pages can be found on 17,000 other pages, but thanks to his deep-link his site shows up first in Google.

So, let's summarize:

1) Webmaster X has a site listed with QUADRUPLE keyword repetition. The same 2-word search term is repeated 4 times.

2) Webmaster X also has a site listed in a category created entirely for his/her own site, although the site should have been listed with all the other similar sites in a different category (in fact other Dmoz editors had rejected this particular site in the past.)

3) Webmaster Y deleted plenty of high quality sites by claiming they were "bait and switch, spammy" sites or the webmasters were guilty of "submission spam" simply by owning and submitting several different sites, meanwhile his own site has 8 deep-links, for content that can be found on at least 17,000 other sites.

Would you say those 2 editors acted in good faith? Or would you say those 2 editors abused their powers to eliminate the competition and enrich themselves through their position at Dmoz and the resulting high rankings in Google?

Whatever else they may have done is pretty irrelevant in my opinion. The fact that we can prove point 1), point 2) and point 3) with screenshots should be reason enough to get them banned.

I'll be happy to send any investigating editor those screenshots or links straight to the pages on Dmoz.

TomC, I agree that there are many people whose beliefs are a hundred and seventy nine degrees and odd minutes out of whack with reality. I agree that such people can get together on the internet (in forums, even), ignore reality and share their fantasies.

Since I've reviewed hundreds of thousands of sites, including thousands of already-rejected ones, I think I have a fairly good feel for what is likely, and is not likely. And that conviction of mine is firm enough not to be shaken by the "beliefs" of any number of people who collectively haven't had ANY of that experience and therefore could have no possible basis for any credible assertions about the "overall picture."

But I find those unfounded and unfoundable assertions extremely valuable, in telling me exactly how credible and knowledgeable the speakers are. And THAT'S useful information.

This follows a massive cull of sites from one section of the "human" directory. At least 34 sites got the axe, practically overnight, from this section alone.

Click to expand...

I've culled categories of at least that number. Sites that no longer meet guidelines - no informational content only adverts and/or affiliate links. That's what happens when a quality control issue raised here gets addressed. It does not mean that any abuse has taken place, or that decisions are arbitrary, or that the editor has any personal interest whatsoever. It does mean that webmasters were very lucky their sites were listed for so long. It does mean they will have to up their game and provide real useful original unique informational content to get back in.

I am personally aware of dozens of website owners who believe the ODP is at best operating an unfair, arbitrary and unjust editing system

Click to expand...

Most of the people whose sites are rejected think that - it is natural. Instead of addressing their site's deficiencies they attack us. A small minority use the rejection as a prod to revisit their site and turn it into something we would be very happy to list.

I hope the ODP is not so big that it can't reform, listen to valid criticism from the internet community

Click to expand...

Another one who has entirely missed the point. Your "Internet community" is webmasters and marketeers. We aren't interested in that community, we don't now or ever past and future serve or have the least interest in the opinions of that community. Our Internet community consists of Internet surfers for whom we endeavour to provide a selective catalogue of original sites rich in unique informational content. I have never ever seen one single complaint from a genuine surfer disappointed at our work, one who misses being presented with 25 pages of affiliate spam every time they do a search engine search before coming to the one site they want. Editors can think of very many reforms that would fit our own aims and objectives as a Directory - most of them would go down like a lead balloon with your Internet community but serve ours extremely well.

jokaroo said:

About a month ago, I posted about Jokaroo.com not being properly listed in DMOZ, and my post lasted for 1 day before it was moved into a private forum where I couldn't add my 2 cents in anymore. And no one could clearly give a valid explanation.

If you ask me, DMOZ definitely needs to fix things, and fast.

If Yahoo chooses to list us in a certain directory, we should be added into the same directory at DMOZ without hesitation. But ofcourse, as the article pointed out, there is favoritism and problems within the DMOZ that prevent valid listings.

AmokENT: You are RIGHT on the money! These are problems, as much as the editors don't want to believe it, they are problems.

Click to expand...

This is dmoz, not yahoo.

Your analogy is like saying because you're listed in yahoo in Category X, you should also be listed in Overture, dmoz, MSN's new search, google, and so on just automatically. Things just aren't like that.