what can I do to Help?

I applied to be an editor for a category that needed a bit of help, I understand I was declined because an editor felt that the category was to big for a rookie. However, the category still needs help. I have some suggestions, and would like to help. So I hope this is the right place.

First, the financial sections are a mess, Many of the sites listed (I wont name any site, however I complied a list) do not maintain the appropriate licenses to be listed in there current category. If consumers contact these sites at best they will waste there time, or at worst be swindled.

Several site listed are not compliant with the appropriate regulatory, I realize the ODP does not make any claims about the accuracy of websites; however a competent editor with experience in Financial planning should notice the largest of these flaws.

Third, several not for profit organizations that support consumer advocacy, and issue designation for planning professionals are not listed. In there place exist several pseudo organizations run by for profit companies for the benefit of their sales staff. If the ODP mission is to enhance the internet for consumers it is imperative that they are not mislead by unregulated, unlicensed websites.

I will admit as a member of the financial service community I have a vested interest in seeing that the ODP report accurate well categorized information. However, I wouldn’t benefit anywhere near as much as the consumer, who should have right to assume ODP editors conducted as much due diligence as possible.

Please let me know what I can do to help?

There are many things you can do to help. Thank you for asking.

Any time you run across a dead or hijacked site, or a bad link, we would appreciate a report in the thread linked here. This thread is a very powerful quality control tool and we have a team of volunteer editors who pay very close attention to any reports that are made there.

If you are aware of sites that shold be listed, feel free to suggest them to the appropriate category -- just check to see if they are not already listed elsewhere before suggesting them again.

With regards to licensing -- that is not what we do. If there are sites that do not meet an individual jurisdiction's licensing requirements, and should, then perhaps a report to that jurisdiction's licensing authority will do. It is important to realize that we are not the Internet Police, and while we abhor dishonest webmasters, it is simply not our lot in life to take action against those sites -- if for no other reason than we are simply not qualified. If you are a member of the financial community that does care about those things, then perhaps you have trade associations and the like that can be of assistance.

We've run into this with real estate agents who are not members of the National Association of Realtors and thus are not allowed to use the word Realtor to describe themselves. On an informal basis, many Assoction members check our listings and non-members whose websites suggest otherwise are taken to the proverbial woodshed. That is the consistent thing about cockroaches: shine the light on them and they always scurry away.

However, the category still needs help.

Click to expand...

Have you thought of applying first for a smaller category? (Does the category you're interested in have any sub-categories, for example.) Once you're an editor and have demonstrated your ability and integrity, you can ask to take on additional (larger) categories.

spectregunner said:

There are many things you can do to help. Thank you for asking.

With regards to licensing -- that is not what we do. If there are sites that do not meet an individual jurisdiction's licensing requirements, and should, then perhaps a report to that jurisdiction's licensing authority will do. It is important to realize that we are not the Internet Police, and while we abhor dishonest webmasters, it is simply not our lot in life to take action against those sites

Click to expand...

I realize the Dmoz is not an internet police in fact I even mentioned it in my post. The problem is not so much that the sites are out of compliance its that editors listed the sites in the wrong categories. For example Only individuals licensed to give investment advice are allowed to call themselves financial Planners, however you have Stockbrokers listed in Financial planning. Some of the mistakes are blatant others are error of the editor. However, for the ODP to grow and remain valid, this errors need to be fixed. If searches cannot assume reasonably reliability then they will stop using the ODP.

Now that is something that we can look at.

Gather up a bunch of the ones that are problematic and make a posting in the thread I linked to in my first reply. Your posting will definitely get reviewed. Naturally, I can't predict what the outcome will be -- but sometimes postings that describe generic structural problems have led to significant directory changes (many months) down the line.