What is the point of DMOZ?

well, I really don't get it. Is this a public service supported by volunteers, is this a paid site, or is this a site where editors are monopolizing the process?
Also, why people really fire up to get websites listed in this directory?

According to guidelines and other ref. material, usually a website could be listed between 1-2 months, depending of quantity of sites summitted to the particular category, and the editors available in such category.
Well, either of that is truth.
I listed 3 websites on September 2004, yes, I said Sept 2004. After waiting one month, I decided to apply to becoming a editor. I though if that category goes slow, it is because there is not enough editors to process applications.
I received same day, Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:31:19 -0400 (EDT), the email telling me that application was rejected because:
Thank you for your interest in becoming an Open Directory Project
editor!
Although we would like you to join us as a volunteer editor, you have
chosen a category that is already well represented, or is broader than
we typically assign to a new editor. We would encourage you to
re-apply
for a category that has fewer editors or is smaller in scope, in order
to increase your chances of being accepted.

Feel free to reapply by submitting an application in another area.
If you wish to re-apply, you must fill out another application.
Please do not reply to this email.

Regards,
The Open Directory Project

Well, now is Feb 2005, almost 4 months after this email. The sites are still not listed, the answers when asking for status are soo vage, no to mention the lack of ethic is seems in this website.
Obviously there is two options left:
1- The editors are direct competitors of the websites submmitted, and of course, they don't want more competition to their sites, so if an editor in the computer hardware (for ex.) has a computer hardware website and receive a submision from a direct competitor to his website, he will delay the approval of the site submitted.
2- Editors, Editors supervisors, The SUPERVISOR of editors supervisors, and go on, are out of reality of this site, and later or sooner, it will die.

Now, I don't care at this point if my sites are listed or not, even more, to get my sites in a high position rank, I have a full bag of resources I can employ without the HELP of DMOZ. Problably 6 months ago I was thinking different, but I'm a master now.
But what I really hate, feeling like an stupid is the time I spent filling applications, submitting websites, posting messages, even using the bandwidth of my connection to get this site, just to realize at the end that everything here is a lost of time. I hate so much people try to laugh at my face to keep my mouth shut up. (well my keyboard)
Hope this experience will change minds in the future.
thank you for reading
good luck
simoni

We are not a listing service.

We do not guarantee anyone a listing.

We do not guarantee to review any submitted site, ever. And certainly not within any time period.

We take any claims of editor abuse seriously and you should file a complaint, but ensure you have proof -- failing to review a site within the time period you want is not abuse.

There is abuse, and it is dealt with. Most claims of abuse are simply that no editor has ever reviewed the site.

Thanks for reiterating the messages that we keep trying to get out:

"Review times are unpredictable. The ODP is not and can never be a site promotion service."

odp is like a hand filterted search engine

not much is automated.

Sites come in, people review them and make sure they are basically what they say they are.

With as much spyware/viruses/activeX / misleading sites as their are. Its one of the most useful search engines.

1- The editors are direct competitors of the websites submmitted, and of course, they don't want more competition to their sites, so if an editor in the computer hardware (for ex.) has a computer hardware website and receive a submision from a direct competitor to his website, he will delay the approval of the site submitted.

Click to expand...

Part of becoming an editor is agreeing to be impartial, if your not impartial your not an editor very long.

2- Editors, Editors supervisors, The SUPERVISOR of editors supervisors, and go on, are out of reality of this site, and later or sooner, it will die.

Click to expand...

More and more internet search engines are ranking sites on how old you are. Google for instance won't even include you on a major keyword unless you have been in the "Google Sandbox" for at least 8 months.

Also for you to be included in the Google Directory requires you to be in the Dmoz Directory.

Dmoz is owned by netscape which is owned by AoL. Financiall there is no way possible for them not to afford to keep DMoZ running.

Also the forums and the web traffic is still very active.

Check out Overture and look how many searches go thru Dmoz.

Hi,
Take into kind consideration that the amount of sites being submitted on a daily bases versus how many editors there are I would be patient about getting your site listed into dmoz. I suspect there are millions of sites waiting for review to be listed into dmoz and only a few thousand editors volunteering there time. I have been waiting over a year now and that is o.k.
Regards,
Dan

Obviously there is two options left:

Click to expand...

I can think of at least another nine obvious options. Most of them are covered in the various DMOZ guidelines.

>Obviously there is two options left:

Lack of imagination, the bane of the [...] class.

Part being supported by AOL Time Warner

The problem that I would see is the funding from AOL Time Warner. There is no way public can know if the editors are under the company's pressure to give preference over other. How do we know if the editors are paid by the company? Plus, after Netscape, now become AOL Time Warner Netscape, and after all, AOL has a division to provide Internet Advisting, is it possible, the company used ".Org" to cover up something? For financially purpose, the AOL Time Warner surely would use the DMOZ.org as their money cow. Plus in additonal to current AOL Time Warner finanical performance, the DMOZ.org would seen to be the best way to gain revenue under "AOL" and "Time Warner" advisement division.

Few other posts came from angry website oweners who haven't had their web listed in dmoz.org. Did dmoz.org address the issue? Not after becoming part of AOL Time Warner. Why should they? AOL Time Warner can gain further revenue. Hey people pay to be on the directory. Yahoo, $299 a year for listing in their directory.

My final point is that people understand the hudge work load coming from listing submission. However, the organization's background could cause speculation around the editors and the organization's true intendion. Who know when you say you don't get pay from AOL Time Warner? Is not likely that we are going to see your tax return.

To make the Dmoz a true open directory, Dmoz.org should provide a "waiting list" informaiton, showing what other sites are currently being review. What fair is open to public. Let everyone know your work progress.

What a load of old trollop, as my grandmother would have said.

There are thousands of former editors out there, many of them with axes to grind against DMOZ. Not one, ever, has suggested either that DMOZ is under undue pressure from the owners, not one, ever, has suggested editors have been paid by the owners.

DMOZ is not public property, the public have no rights to know anything. Nor would they be given any information about progress but for the independent work of a handful of editors who set up this forum. So what is fair? You pay nothing to suggest your site, you pay nothing if your site is listed, you pay nothing to check its progress here. You pay nothing at all for anything and therefore the sum total of the DMOZ obligation to you is... nothing! Anything and everything you might get in the way of benefits from DMOZ is a bonus, something for nothing you did nothing to actually deserve.

Read the guidelines, read the social charter - learn what the "Open" bit actually means. You can't have a sensible discussion unless you actually know and understand what you are talking about.

peterpan said:

To make the Dmoz a true open directory, Dmoz.org should provide a "waiting list" informaiton, showing what other sites are currently being review. What fair is open to public. Let everyone know your work progress.

Click to expand...

Well, ODP already has backlogs used by superior editors for viewing inferior editors actions. Also it is project administrators choice to keep it as an internal interface, and we have to show respect to it.

Why to show respect? Imagine this; if waiting sites are listed through a public interface, then it means that they are already being listed to the internet community without moderation.
If this; what you are asking for; happens to come true, then the ODP will lost it's quality to quantity.

Who know when you say you don't get pay from AOL Time Warner? Is not likely that we are going to see your tax return.

Click to expand...

Why should we feel obligated to convince you that we're unpaid volunteers? If you're determined to see conspiracies everywhere, it's not down to us to convince you otherwise. Believe what you want.

oneeye said:

What a load of old trollop, as my grandmother would have said.

There are thousands of former editors out there, many of them with axes to grind against DMOZ. Not one, ever, has suggested either that DMOZ is under undue pressure from the owners, not one, ever, has suggested editors have been paid by the owners.

DMOZ is not public property, the public have no rights to know anything. Nor would they be given any information about progress but for the independent work of a handful of editors who set up this forum. So what is fair? You pay nothing to suggest your site, you pay nothing if your site is listed, you pay nothing to check its progress here. You pay nothing at all for anything and therefore the sum total of the DMOZ obligation to you is... nothing! Anything and everything you might get in the way of benefits from DMOZ is a bonus, something for nothing you did nothing to actually deserve.

Read the guidelines, read the social charter - learn what the "Open" bit actually means. You can't have a sensible discussion unless you actually know and understand what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

Some people might find my post offensive in a way interpreted my thought as an unreasonable and senseless idea. I am not asking DMOZ.org to do anything for me, just a discussion. I just a concern Internet user, a corporation watcher who cares how any corporation uses ".org" to achive its financial objective.

First of all, DMOZ is obligated not to me but to people who have contributed their time and energy into it, if the editors really do it for free, and also to its stakeholders.

Well, ODP already has backlogs used by superior editors for viewing inferior editors actions.

Click to expand...

Huh?

superior editors checking on inferior editors?

How about editors with more experience and permission, helping newer editors grow and take on more responsibility.

No editor, even if they only have one edit, is inferior.

motsa said:

Why should we feel obligated to convince you that we're unpaid volunteers? If you're determined to see conspiracies everywhere, it's not down to us to convince you otherwise. Believe what you want.

Click to expand...

You shouldn't feel any obligation in covincing anyone, but people in dmoz.org should aware of the issue. In one way, Dmoz uses ".org" and "open". Using keywords that is normally applied by many non-profit and open free communities . What am I getting into? Check this from GUN.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

If it is not a conspiracy, from the first thread in this post, why DMOZ.org did that ... and how the member "editor", we are not a listing service??? Of course, you are a listing service, but what kind? Free, for-profit, non-profit or just open to public? I just disappointed of what your editor would reply to other people.

I'm sorry that you misunderstood my statement, spectregunner. I didn't use these words with their real meanings, it was an idiomatic expression.

First of all, DMOZ is obligated not to me but to people who have contributed their time and energy into it, if the editors really do it for free, and also to its stackholders.

Click to expand...

The "people who have contributed their time and energy" would be the editors, not site owners or the public. And the ODP does not have stockholders.

In one way, Dmoz uses ".org" and "open". Using keywords that is normally applied by many non-profit and open free communities.

Click to expand...

What does it matter whether we use a .org address or have the word Open in our name? We've been .org and Open Directory for years and that isn't likely to change so how you feel personally about it really isn't relevent.

Of course, you are a listing service, but what kind?

Click to expand...

No, we are a site that lists other sites. "Listing service" implies we have an obligation or must give a priority to the people who want listings with us when in fact that is not the case.

Your only purpose in coming here so far seems to be to tell us that you think there's something dastardly going on with the ODP and its editors because you don't believe the things that the ODP and its editors have written about the ODP. Great. Consider your point made and feel free to move on.

>Well, ODP already has backlogs used by superior editors for viewing inferior editors actions.

This is a good example of the kind of projective nonsense coming out of the conspiracy mills. "Boy, If _I_ were a storm-trooper captain, I could look at all the personnel records, I could find incriminatory stuff everywhere, I could goose-step across the Little_Guys and downtread the Un-Downtrodden: I could wring Ming for mercy, and squeeze pity out of stones!"

All editors' logs are public in the community. But an editor's real record is in the sites he adds to the directory -- and anyone can see that. Suppose those edits are bad? That is bad for the ENTIRE ODP (and for all its users!) and EVERYONE can see and report problems, for ANY editor who has editing privileges -- smaller or greater -- to fix. The summer after I was given editall privileges, I noticed half-a-dozen fairly major group projects cleaning up, um, "improving", my previous work. Some of those editors were mere dust beneath my tank treads, um, "lacked editall privileges". But where they could edit, they edited -- and they did good work. Who was checking on whom? Nobody; but everybody was trying to improve the ODP.

Where there is a pattern of bad edits -- nearly always shown in the public listings, not the logs, then the meta-editors investigate. And at that point the logs are used to look for indications of whether the editor is deliberately self-serving or merely unskilled. And based on that, they take actions to correct the problem at the source -- preferably by improving skills.

All this is public information -- even the meta-editors' guidelines.

How do you, a member of the public, firmly fantasizing about "the truth out there", tell whether this is so?

Test. Scientific test. Look for examples of sites that shouldn't be listed. Report them, and see what happens. Refine your understanding of the ODP editors' guidelines, watch how the editors react to genuinely reported, genuine problems (as opposed to vague insinuations of suspicions of indications of suggestions of actions that could be interpreted as potentially abusive, which is in fact exactly what we have more of here.)

op.. sorry, that is stakeholders, typo, not stockholders.

motsa said:

The "people who have contributed their time and energy" would be the editors, not site owners or the public. And the ODP does not have stockholders.

What does it matter whether we use a .org address or have the word Open in our name? We've been .org and Open Directory for years and that isn't likely to change so how you feel personally about it really isn't relevent.

No, we are a site that lists other sites. "Listing service" implies we have an obligation or must give a priority to the people who want listings with us when in fact that is not the case.

Your only purpose in coming here so far seems to be to tell us that you think there's something dastardly going on with the ODP and its editors because you don't believe the things that the ODP and its editors have written about the ODP. Great. Consider your point made and feel free to move on.

Click to expand...

hutcheson said:

>Well, ODP already has backlogs used by superior editors for viewing inferior editors actions.

This is a good example of the kind of projective nonsense coming out of the conspiracy mills. "Boy, If _I_ were a storm-trooper captain, I could look at all the personnel records, I could find incriminatory stuff everywhere, I could goose-step across the Little_Guys and downtread the Un-Downtrodden: I could wring Ming for mercy, and squeeze pity out of stones!"

All editors' logs are public in the community. But an editor's real record is in the sites he adds to the directory -- and anyone can see that. Suppose those edits are bad? That is bad for the ENTIRE ODP (and for all its users!) and EVERYONE can see and report problems, for ANY editor who has editing privileges -- smaller or greater -- to fix. The summer after I was given editall privileges, I noticed half-a-dozen fairly major group projects cleaning up, um, "improving", my previous work. Some of those editors were mere dust beneath my tank treads, um, "lacked editall privileges". But where they could edit, they edited -- and they did good work. Who was checking on whom? Nobody; but everybody was trying to improve the ODP.

Where there is a pattern of bad edits -- nearly always shown in the public listings, not the logs, then the meta-editors investigate. And at that point the logs are used to look for indications of whether the editor is deliberately self-serving or merely unskilled. And based on that, they take actions to correct the problem at the source -- preferably by improving skills.

All this is public information -- even the meta-editors' guidelines.

How do you, a member of the public, firmly fantasizing about "the truth out there", tell whether this is so?

Test. Scientific test. Look for examples of sites that shouldn't be listed. Report them, and see what happens. Refine your understanding of the ODP editors' guidelines, watch how the editors react to genuinely reported, genuine problems (as opposed to vague insinuations of suspicions of indications of suggestions of actions that could be interpreted as potentially abusive, which is in fact exactly what we have more of here.)

Click to expand...

Agree, you're right. The DMOZ does a good job of putting a directory with only the relevence links into the directory.

Just when I read this post, "ByeBye" was a real believer of what DMOZ has done. For example, he/she tried to contribute his/her time. I felt his/her viewpoints. And what he/she got is
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not a listing service.

We do not guarantee anyone a listing.

We do not guarantee to review any submitted site, ever. And certainly not within any time period.

We take any claims of editor abuse seriously and you should file a complaint, but ensure you have proof -- failing to review a site within the time period you want is not abuse.

There is abuse, and it is dealt with. Most claims of abuse are simply that no editor has ever reviewed the site.

"from Editor" <- real editor, I assume.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
you get it when I said "stakeholders", (typo, sorry before I was using some other word", and when I post,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DMOZ is not public property, the public have no rights to know anything. Nor would they be given any information about progress but for the independent work of a handful of editors who set up this forum. So what is fair? You pay nothing to suggest your site, you pay nothing if your site is listed, you pay nothing to check its progress here. You pay nothing at all for anything and therefore the sum total of the DMOZ obligation to you is... nothing! Anything and everything you might get in the way of benefits from DMOZ is a bonus, something for nothing you did nothing to actually deserve.

Read the guidelines, read the social charter - learn what the "Open" bit actually means. You can't have a sensible discussion unless you actually know and understand what you are talking about.

from "oneeye" editall/catmv <- somehow mean something, or someone can represent domoz?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm .... some angry there, where's the ethic. People submit their site to dmoz is your stakeholders. I got his/her point, and reply on it.

Dmoz is the best human edited directory listing, but still have to watch how you treat your stakeholders.

From our point of view, "submitting a site" entitles you to be a toothpick holder, maybe -- well, half the time: the other half of submittals entitle one to a stockingful of coal come Christmas.

The trouble is, WE DON'T KNOW WHICH HALF IS WHICH until we review the site. So, treated as a class, submitters can't be considered to have ANYTHING ... either oral grooming aid or fossil fuel lumps ... YET.