Site removed for no reason

That is not the point. The point is WikiPedia actually responds with listing errors in the form of a reason why the article or edit was declined. There are also more than one editor in a category.

Click to expand...

There are 150+ editors who can and do edit anywhere in the directory. But, again, they are volunteers who choose where they edit (and what form that editing takes) in any given editing session.

Users (as we are all users/surfers), would like to see good resources for services and/or information on the web.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But a "listing service" is a service to site owners/webmasters that implies an obligation on the part of the service provider. Since we allow site owners to suggest their own sites as a courtesy not as a service, we really have no obligation to site owners. Sure, it would be great if all listable sites were listed in a short amount of time (regardless of whether or not they were submitted), but as long as the editing we do as a group results in the net growth and improvement of the directory, we're doing what we as editors are supposed to do.

Also, the domain has been in existance since 2002. The content of the site contains ZERO ADVERTISMENTS, ZERO HIJACKS / REDIRECTS, ETC. There is no pornography. Applied category was Software Consulting. Description was the same description displayed in google now. All meta-tags are in order. There isn't an over abundance of keywording.

So explain to me again -- what exactly are the reasons for rejection ? My site is clearly something that "users/surfers" desire. Site rank is 3 even without your "help", and I receive around 2000-4000 unique hits/day, with visitors who stay on average between 2minutes to an hour.

Click to expand...

The fact that a listable suggested site might be unlisted after many years really says very little about either the quality of a site or the quality of the suggestion. Unless and until an editor decides that editing the category where you suggested your site should be his/her priority *and* decides that the time they're going to spend editing in that category should be spent reviewing suggested sites, a suggested site will remain unreviewed.

I am sorry, but after such a long time and watching over 200 domains over a period of 10 years never get listed (even through paid DMOZ submission services who guarantee the accuracy of the selected category with description, etc), I feel that the entire software and telecommunications trees are filled with either defunct or corrupt editors.

Click to expand...

A defunct editor isn't taking space that another editor could be filling so if little editing is being done in an area or a category, then it just means that the topic hasn't interested someone enough in that timeframe for them to edit there.

WikiPedia has way more information to sift through than your editors do, and yet their system works -- with viable response times, and turnaround for the entity that made the original edit / entry. They also have a multi-level editing system in place which means that some editors may have permission to edit, but not remove, where other editors have access to edit -- so yes, there is a tiered review service. Turnaround time for a Wiki entry -- 4 hours. Turnaround time for DMOZ --- 2 weeks to never -- with no response back to OP!

Click to expand...

We're not Wikipedia. We don't function like Wikipedia and we've never claimed to.

I would strongly suggest reviewing all editors in the Software and in the Telecommunications trees. I am sure there are some good ones, but at appearance and with all of the data I have gathered over the years, there is definitely something VERY fishy going on there. Some of the categories don't even have an editor nor is there any application to become one.

Click to expand...

Since we don't "assign" categories to editors, reviewing a specific node of the directory to find out how many editors there are there isn't going to be of much help.

What about popular categories such as
Last update: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:05:43 AM EDT
Computers/Software/Consultants/ . No consultants since 2007 ? Really ?

Click to expand...

"Popular" is in the eye of the beholder and usually means something different to surfers than to editors. Every category is popular with someone, but that doesn't mean that an editor will want to edit there on a regular basis.

The list goes on and on. I understand that it is Volunteer time, however, I could sift through ALL your data in way under 1 year single-handed! So whats with the delays ?

Click to expand...

I guarantee you that you couldn't, not and be doing any kind of a decent job of it.

We've already explained to you in various threads about the duties imposed on our volunteers (pretty much none) and the meaning of the 'last updated' date (pretty much none).

If you think that the world needs a directory that works according to your opinions, go ahead and start one. If you'd like to seed it from our database, it's free so go ahead (giving the required attribution).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got something useful and constructive to do.

microvb said:

What about popular categories such as
Last update: Friday, September 28, 2007 11:05:43 AM EDT
Computers/Software/Consultants/ . No consultants since 2007 ? Really ?

Click to expand...

The dates at the bottom of categories are not correct as the result of a bug. Most dates have been reset to somewhen in 2007. AOL is aware of this bug but it has no high priority.

Since we don't "assign" categories to editors, reviewing a specific node of the directory to find out how many editors there are there isn't going to be of much help.

Click to expand...

A quick database query could determine a numerical percentage of threads reviewed overall.

"Popular" is in the eye of the beholder and usually means something different to surfers than to editors. Every category is popular with someone, but that doesn't mean that an editor will want to edit there on a regular basis.

Click to expand...

By the term "Popular" i meant submission-wise. I am pretty sure there are more than 271 Consulting agencies that have been submitted -- a quick scan of google, yahoo, or bing would reveal that (domain list only), of which the majority are quality listings.

So just consolidating all of the information I have been provided
You really don't care what the user wants.
You only care what the "editors" feel are oh-so-worthy of their noteworthy attention in their otherwise busy lives (probably checking paypal for random payments).
There is no real conditions imposed on what really makes a site acceptable -- sort of a random flow of how the wind blows thing.
Double submissions in a period of 2 years is considered spam (1 submit / year).
You officially don't take any payment --- ... you can fill in the rest!
Time Warner/AOL is blamed for the pages showing outdated dates ---- for over 4 years now .... nice.
You have 200+ people who can pretty much mess around with anyones listings (if ever accepted), as well as manipulate the structure to their own free will, eg.. adding their own personal clientele / affiliations.
There are no internal investigations done -- either because you yourself are corrupted, or because of another reason such as you are aware of the problem, and simply don't care how this effects the "users"
Anyone can apply to edit any category, but of course those applications about as under reviewed as the listings themselves, not mentioning the fact that there are several unmonitered listings which I really don't care the reason why -- if no one is editing them because they decided to sit on the toilet for 62 months with a dirty magazine eating chips, someone else should be allowed to take over and/or edit -- which you see no reason to do that.
All listings submitted generally never get listed since no one is reviewing as everyone is asleep, dead, or otherwise in some sort of trance-like coma which incapacitates them of doing anything outside of their own personal clientele.

Does that pretty much sum everything up in a nutshell I may have missed a few points, but I think that is pretty much the uncaring gist of the situation at DMOZ/Time Warner/AOL.

jimnoble said:

We've already explained to you in various threads about the duties imposed on our volunteers (pretty much none) and the meaning of the 'last updated' date (pretty much none).

If you think that the world needs a directory that works according to your opinions, go ahead and start one. If you'd like to seed it from our database, it's free so go ahead (giving the required attribution).

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got something useful and constructive to do.

Click to expand...

In between posts, reading e-mail (37 mailboxes), checking facebook|twitter|linkedin|skype, various messenger systems, my non(useful/constructive) things I have been doing included 4 websites with complex data structures and web service integration, and 17,000 lines of code updated to a telecomm crm/rebilling database. I know that you have been busy on the forums --- how many listings did you look over -- don't answer that as I probably already know the answer. Zero.

What the "world" needs, is not my personal "opinion" as you wish to imply. A quick search through your forum, and major search engines clearly indicate there is a serious problem with the way things are handled at dmoz. I do not wish to "seed" a directory from your system whatsoever. Every site I have seen is so far outdated, there is no relevant information for todays technology outside of a history lesson in the decade past, and how NOT to design a website (unless you are building it for optimal display in Lynx, or IE 1.0).

What the "world" needs, is for dmoz to stand up and take responsibility for the position the world has given it. Just because Time Warner/AOL owns it, does not mean that by general demand your site can be rendered useless, and no longer an ideal source of base urls for major search engines.

Be accountable
Be responsible
Don't be corrupt

I am pretty sure that these are really basic concept with which you are familiar. Volunteers in any organization are taking a position of responsibility. They can still be fired like at a regular job for not fulfilling those duties, or only doing them in a self-propelling manner that does not benefit the organization as a whole. Since it is clear in the guidelines that dmoz editors should not accept money and if they do, they get their account deleted and such, then the benefit to be provided to the directory as a whole would be good, clean links with content users might find useful. Who's sites do you think you are listing ? Users blogs --- or businesses. Listing businesses is not a "courtesy" you extend. IT IS THE DRIVING FORCE OF YOUR ENTIRE SYSTEM!! Further, businesses are also "users", in fact : many users.

The audacity that WE the public have LET dmoz grow to the point it has become so corrupted and selfish is asinine. All big companies fall, so I hope the bread you are savagely extorting from the community is worth it become there will be a day -- and it's fast approaching -- that dmoz's usefulness will have worn out in the eyes of the shareholders at companies such as google, bing, yahoo, and yes, your trusty sidekick AOL. Perhaps that day has already come in 2007 with the "time/date stamp" bug, and how something so simple, yet critical has been placed on the back-burner even til this hour in the year 2011.

I know that you have been busy on the forums --- how many listings did you look over -- don't answer that as I probably already know the answer. Zero.

Click to expand...

You are infinitely incorrect

ODP wise, I've sorted out an abandoned category, processed around 50 websites elsewhere, handled 6 applications to become an editor and also one request for further permissions - about 5 man hours in total.

I've also taken a couple of breaks, taken the dog for a walk on the South Downs and wasted a few minutes on you.

microvb said:

By the term "Popular" i meant submission-wise.

Click to expand...

Yes, we know of such categories.
I'll tell you a little secret. Those are exactly the same categories almost no editor wants to look at.
In such categories we have to reject some 95 to 99% of suggested websites.
We like to work in categories where we are not spammed to death.

> You really don't care what the user wants.
Wrong. We care what users want. It is just that we do not qualify people who suggest websites as users. They are providers. Most of them providing us with the things we are not looking for.

> There is no real conditions imposed on what really makes a site acceptable -- sort of a random flow of how
> the wind blows thing.
Wrong. We have very clear guidelines that all editor need to follow. And these guidelines are available to anybody to read.

> Double submissions in a period of 2 years is considered spam (1 submit / year).
Wrong. One resuggestion is not spam. Continous suggestions soon can become spam.

> Time Warner/AOL is blamed for the pages showing outdated dates ---- for over 4 years now .... nice.
Wrong. The dates were reset during an update. Not 4 years ago. They just changed to a date in the past.

> There are no internal investigations done
Wrong. Internal investigations are done everyday and always.

I just don't get it that when someone thinks so negatively about DMOZ that they still want to become an editor.
If I had such thoughts I never would want to join such an organisation.