Debunking the WebProNews article
Perhaps the most popular directory is DMOZ, an open directory project that employs human editors for the submission/approval procedure.
DMOZ does NOT have a "submission/approval procedure". DMOZ has a system in place whereby the public can suggest sites to category editors. There's no submitting involved.
I came across numerous statements about people having to wait months and even years before their site gets accepted into the DMOZ directory.
Again, this mindset that a site is "accepted" into the directory is wrong-headed. Sites are reviewed and either listed or not listed.
How long should someone have to wait before they are approved, denied, or contacted about either?
If the author had done real research--like read the guidelines for suggesting sites, instead of reading SEO forums--he would know that DMOZ does not contact whoever suggested the site.
users should expect to hear SOMETHING back from the human editors at some point.
He states this as fact, but it's an opinion. A foolish one. Users should read the guidelines, and realize that they'll never hear back from DMOZ.
"I submitted under a heading..."
No, you didn't. No one submits anything to DMOZ. The best anyone can do is suggest that an editor look at a site.
...only to learn 3 months later that the #3 player in my market was the editor. So I picked another heading… at least I am in now. It is not a fair system."
The system isn't fair because one unethical editor didn't review your site? How about this as an explanation for your woes: You suggessted to the wrong category in the first place, and that editor didn't want to bother with a bad submission. When you suggested it in the right place, it was accepted. Or possibly the first editor was managing a very large category, and had 100's of other great sites waiting to be reviewed. Or maybe that editor doesn't want to bother with looking at other people's suggestions, and simply does his own research to find sites. While there certainly is a conflict of interest there, that's not proof that the editor was being unethical. Nor is it damning evidence that "it is not a fair system."
"Dmoz really is a corrupt system. If the editor in the category has a site in that same category, he'll simply deny any application in the interest of defeating competition
That's like saying, "If a newspaper is owned by a person with red hair, they won't report on the bad things redheads do!"
First: Remember, there's no "application" process. People can simply suggest an editor look at a site.
Second: The potential for corruption does not equal corruption.
Third: So you're suggesting that the person who edits the Pinochle category is going to ignore all suggestions for other Pinochle sites in order to hamper all their Pinochle competition? Obviously, you're only talking about the commercial categories. But you're making gross overgeneralizations based on that.
To be fair, every editor that volunteers to DMOZ isn't going to mistreat your submission, although it may be awhile before it gets approved.
No. To be fair, the great delays in listing (especially for commercial sites) is most often caused by poorly described, wrongly categorized, or duplicate suggestions. To be fair, DMOZ has proven that its system for reviewing sites is extremely valuable--as evidenced by the number of other sites who use the DMOZ data. To be fair, corruption in the DMOZ ranks is almost never found outside of the commercial categories. To be fair, DMOZ is not--and does not claim to be--a marketing tool.
Ken speaks about using DMOZ as a search tool
Then Ken is a moron. DMOZ has a very rudimentary search feature, only as a courtesy to users. It is designed to be a directory, not a search engine.
"do you not think you would be even more satisfied if the millions of sites that didn't make it into dmoz were available for you when you search?
No, I would NOT be even more satisfied. And who on earth uses DMOZ to search? That's what Google is designed for.
Think of all the bargains you are missing,
If I wanted to see a hundred sites trying to sell me things, I'd go to Froogle. Or Pricewatch. Or any of a number of other sites that are designed to deliver an improved sales experience.
think of all the information, research and technical data that is NOT available on dmoz due to its behavior."
DMOZ doesn't go for volume. It goes for quality. That's the whole point! The signal-to-noise ration in DMOZ is extremely low compared to the sites that aren't discriminating. I suggest YOU think of all the crap, marketing, and useless data that is NOT available on DMOZ due to its behavior.
DMOZ editor assisting a web site owner in the approval process. The poster had waited about 3 months and still no approval, so they decided to email the category editor. After receiving the mailing, the editor "promptly added [the] site to dmoz." So there is still hope.
This is not hope! This is the only clear violation of the DMOZ guidelines cited in the article.
Sigh.
I should probably mention that I'm not even an editor. I've picked all this up by reading the suggestion guidelines, and reading these forums.
Nareau
