what stops?

I'm a noob, so ignore me for my stupidity!!!

What stops someone from becoming an Editor and then submitting their own site into a category for SEO googleness? :icon_ques

Nothing, but if the site didn't belong there such an action is unlikely to go un-noticed. The site would be removed, and the editor would probably receive a strong warning not to do similar things in the future. Continued abuse of editorial privileges can and does result in editor accounts being permanently removed.

For more details see what the guidelines have to say about Conflicts of Interest and Editor Abuse and Removal.

Hello blindnoob.
To expand on what chaos127 has said, there is no problem at all with someone listing their own site, as long as they follow the ODP Guidelines when doing so.
New editors generally have access to only one relatively small category, so if the site did not actually belong there, it would be removed or moved, and they would initially receive advice from senior editors about editing in accordance with those guidelines. Further self-interest would result in disciplinary action in accordance with the Conflict of Interest section linked above.

Unfortunately there are people who join as editors solely to list their own site(s). Provided they follow the Guidelines, there is no reason to remove the site, but it is very unfortunate, and selfish, if that is the only interest they have in helping to build the directory.

Good morning, blindnoob, good question.

I, and probably a lot of other editors, originally joined the ODP for just that purpose, to get our own sites listed, and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you stay totally impartial and treat your own site the same way that any other site is treated.

In my case, once I became an editor and saw what it was really all about, my goals changed and I wanted to be a part of such a great community of people and what they were trying to do.

Even though I had the right to list my own personal site in the category I had permission to edit in, I didn't. In order to show complete impartiality to my own personal site, I asked a meta editor to review my site suggestion in my place, and she was happy to do so. Meta editor mapfan, I believe.

What I did wasn't neccessary or required, but that's how strongly I feel about impariality and fairness in our editing responsibilities.

If my site had belonged in a category that I didn't edit in myself, I would not have requested a review for it, it would have been treated just as any other site suggestion is treated, and it would have waited right along with all the other site suggestions in that category.

I think this is another one of those questions that sounds reasonable, but really isn't.

In your home planet, what keeps ANYONE from doing the immoral, unethical, or socially unacceptable thing? Fact is, much of the time nothing does -- other than the person's own sense of what kind of person he'd like to be. And sometimes (but not always) the only thing that does is the intelligence to recognize that a malicious action might not actually accomplish anything anyway.

So (1) we look for evidence of what kind of person a prospective editor would like to be; (2) minimize the damage someone can do until they've shown a track record of reliable work; (3) ensure that everything an editor does can be undone by another editor.

The combination of those factors raises the difficulty of abusing, and reduces the potential profit (which, as even an intelligent SEOer knows, isn't all that high anyway.)

In practice, we worry about abusers so you don't have to. But if you want to investigate abuse -- the ODP listings are public. Investigate all you please, and if you find out anything, please tell us about it.

IF you find evidence of a systematic problem, then we can change our guidelines as needed to handle it. If you don't -- well then, so far as you know, there isn't anything to worry about.

"crowbar" said:

I, and probably a lot of other editors, originally joined the ODP for just that purpose, to get our own sites listed,

Click to expand...

I find this post to be inaccurate and am, personally, offended. Nineteen months ago I submitted an application to be an editor at the ODP - because I was personally interested in (and already researching) a topic! I found that I was finding sites with valuable information to me that weren't listed in the ODP - therefore, I felt my interest and need to know would contribute to the Directory.

For two years I have operated an online business that does not have any connection to ANY category in which I have permissions to edit, or any category where I have requested permissions to edit.

IMHO - statements like these contribute to the misunderstandings we, as editors, fight on a regular basis.

I didn't join to list my site either. I had a successful niche directory which was already listed when I discovered ODP in 1999. But I realized that I knew of hundreds of sites which weren't listed. So I applied and was accepted as an editor. And I never made any money from my site pre- or post-ODP listing. It is now gone, since I don't have time to keep it updated.

Perhaps it was an unfortunate choice of words. But many editors do indeed initially sign up as editors because they have sites that could be listed in a particular category. It's not taboo to have a site that you would like to see listed in the category you apply to. But joining only...or even primarily...to get your site listed is never acceptable.

I first stumbled across the ODP as I was looking for places to list my informational site. I saw that the category where it should be listed needed a lot of TLC so figured I could chip in to help. Over six years, several tens of thousands of edits, and thousands of hours of editing later, I think I've demonstrated my commitment to the ODP but I may never have come across the ODP, let alone applied to be an editor, if I hadn't been out looking to get my site listed.

gloria,

Thank you, as I (think) we are saying the same thing.

motsa,

I had no intent to disrespect people who, like you, started with their own sites and moved on to bigger and better . . . My annoyance was with the implication that many of us decide to join only to list our sites and do no other good.

Just call me cranky - Hey, it happens!

I don't mean any disrespect to anyone either, but there is a misconception that the only reason that people become editors is to list their own site. So I felt the need to add my experience. There are a lot of people who are like motsa. They find ODP either to list their site or when looking up info on their favorite subject. They find a category where their site could be listed but also join to improve the category. And sometimes, like many of the editors who post here, they find a happy match with the goals of OPD and find more and more to do.

No disrespect felt. I had just wanted to clarify for potential new editors that the mere fact that you might have a site that belongs in the category you apply for does not in and of itself disqualify you as an editor.

I, and probably a lot of other editors, originally joined the ODP for just that purpose, to get our own sites listed, and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you stay totally impartial and treat your own site the same way that any other site is treated.

Click to expand...

Easy guys, I said, "I, and probably a lot of other editors"

Don't read something into it, that isn't there, .

How many editors have you seen that join, do 5 edits, and let themselves time out 4 months later? I have to question their original motives.

Then, if you look at the total number of editors over the years, 74,719 editors, and the total number of current editors, 7295, don't you wonder where the other 67,424 have gone and why the number is so high? (Perhaps they allowed themselves to time out? Perhaps many of them joined for one purpose?)

There's nothing in my post that's false or misleading, but if you disagree, you should give your own differing point of view without being disrespectful to mine.

Consider that speculating about the motives of other editors without knowing anything at all about those tens of thousands of editors is probably not a wise choice. Feel free to talk about your own situation and say "I joined to list my site", but try to avoid making generalizations, even prefaced by "probably".

I did not join specifically to list any of my sites. However, the category I asked for is where one of my sites belonged.

"Why did I apply there?", you ask.

Because it was an area I know something about and because, as DesertJules already said, I felt I had something to contribute. Those are the same reasons I have the site. The chance to list my own site was on my mind, but not primary. Not even secondary.

Did I list my site once I was accepted? You bet I did! But only after I cleaned up the category a bit, listed all the others I had bookmarked for the category and suggested all the other bookmarks to other categories (just my own way to avoid any accusations of conflict/self-promotion.) ... and ... because my site, like the others, has something to offer.

Now, generalizations aside, and at the risk of further offense, I think Crowbar made a valid point. I also think some of us tend to be a bit too sensitive at times.

I'll lawyer up before I post again, .

... if the shoe fits ...

My annoyance was with the implication that many of us decide to join only to list our sites and do no other good.

Click to expand...

Many editors do join just to list their own site(s) and do no other good. Witness the high percentage of editors removed for abuse.

Well, people who join only to list their sites, probably wouldn't get removed, they'd time out. The effect is pretty minimal: assume each such person added one sites (adding more would make removal and repair much more likely.)

Assuming 100% of the editors joined for that reason (an obviously high estimate) you're looking at 75000 sites out of over 6 million (counting sites added and removed). That's less than two percent of the total. In contrast, I'd estimate at least two million listings added and then removed: so OTHER DISCOVERED quality problems are 15 times greater than this.

So, at worst, this is a pretty insignificant factor. Its biggest effect on quality is that some meta-editor wasted time reviewing that non-editor's application--time that could better have been spent somewhere constructive.

Assuming 100% of the editors joined for that reason (an obviously high estimate) you're looking at 75000 sites

Click to expand...

You're also assuming that 100% of the editors joined had only one site (an obviously low estimate).

I have two sites, myself, and if there were ever any question about my impartiallity, I'd be happy to remove them from the Directory myself, . They just aren't that important to me. It wouldn't make any difference in my editing, so it's a non-issue.