You are right. It does not change the reality of the situation. The reality is as I stated before poor planning. You can sit here and use the excuse that the editors do this as hobby all you want. And editors have posted this sorry excuse in posts before.
It's not an excuse. It's a fact. Most editors view this as a hobby.
You say it's not meant for businesses in there SEO activities? Then why is dmoz compiling websites? So that the end user can find businesses correct? The whole purpose of SEO is so that a business can be seen on the web. I see complaint after complaint of people/businesses wondering how they can become seen on dmoz.
Actually, I never said it wasn't meant for businesses in their SEO activities. (And keep in mind that the directory doesn't just list businesses. It's chock full of informational sites and pages, too.)
What I said was that editors "became editors to help compile lists of sites, not to help businesses in their SEO activities." Whether or not business owners get any kind of SEO benefit from an editor's editing activities is just a side effect. For example, if I compile a list of sites I like for my own website, I do it because I want to share those resources with other people, not because I have any interest in their owners' business or SEO plans. Any editing work I might do at DMOZ is done for exactly the same reasons and with exactly the same mindset -- a desire to share a collection of hand-reviewed sites with others without any personal concern for anyone's SEO plans. That's fairly typical for an editor.
My concerns are legit and I look at this as anyone else would. I just call it as I see it. A failing model is a failing model. So basically what I see from all this is to get someone to become an editor and have them submit for you? Otherwise you can potentially sit in limbo for years. I thought my one year was bad until I saw this about four years! Wow! That is just ridiculous. Internet is supposed to offer current and quick information that is easy to find. This model is not helping the end user by any means if the information I (yes I am an end user as well) may be looking for may take four years or longer to be found.
Here's the thing: If it truly is a failing model, the directory will eventually die off. Why expend energy hating something that you think is dead, something that at best is really just the merest drop in the bucket compared to all the other SEO tactics a site owner can use?
Again you (I'm going to assume your an editor as well) found a way to ridicule my post. How exactly are you helping me? I use the Internet just like everyone else. I use directories, maps, and apps on my phone to information that I'm looking for.
I assure you that my intention wasn't to ridicule you. I wanted to address some of the comments you made and perhaps explain why you're not likely to see the changes you'd like to see with regards to how the directory is run.
I find it very disappointing that all that is offered is excuses. My dad always told me "excuses don't feed the bulldog." Which means: no matter what excuse you give a bulldog thats about to eat you he's not going to care. He's going to bite you. You can tell him... Oh, I had to jump in your yard because a pitt bull was chasing me and he still won't care.
Actually, editors rarely provide excuses here, mostly because there is no need to excuse something for being the way it is when, from an editor's point of view, many of the things people complain about (such as editors being allowed to decide how often, how long, and where they edit) are things editors are happy with.
Nobody here has ever said that the directory is perfect. There are loads of ways it could be improved (I mean, how great would it be if the directory could keep up with the number of listable sites that exist at any given point in time, across all subjects). But many of the improvements that site owners want to see (such as making editors edit a specific amount of time or in categories picked out for them) are just not in line with how the directory is run. Editors who try to explain that are usually vilified or called rude, but they're just trying to be honest.
The bottom line here is there IS NO STRUCTURE. There is no way for people like myself to get the questions we want answered. Dmoz will continue to get rants from people like myself until there is some kind of support system or verification system in place. If willy nilly is the continued plan of action I will remain disappointed. If you can't see that then yes... The reality of THIS situation WILL NEVER CHANGE.
It's unlikely that any kind of a verification or support system would be implemented any time in the foreseeable future, but that's not to say that it *couldn't* happen. Likewise, it's very unlikely that the nature of the volunteer system used by the directory will change any time soon. So for the time being, it is what it is. Ranting will not change it or make any potential nebulous future change happen more quickly. I understand how frustrating that is.
.