Anyone here a DMOZ editor?

Anyone here a DMOZ editor?

I think one poked his head in the door a few minutes ago.

I think I shot him. :eek:

Sorry. It didn't occur to me that anyone would want him... :o

You can meet a lot of them on their VB forum :p :D

While their job has to be overwhelming, it seems as though a fix could be made to speed up their process. :(

The speed of the process is only one of the problems. The arrogance and the almost whimsical nature of their decisions is another.

To give the short form of my usual rant against DMOZ, let me just say it's a doomed and dying concept. I'd be surprised if 5 years from now anyone except DMOZ editors and old fogies even remember what DMOZ is and noone but the editors will be paying any attention to it at all.

I just cannot see Google continuing to give it the importance it's enjoyed in the past.

I don't even bother submitting my sites/forums to them anymore. To many other quality directories out there...why go through the hassle.

The speed of the process is only one of the problems. The arrogance and the almost whimsical nature of their decisions is another.

To give the short form of my usual rant against DMOZ, let me just say it's a doomed and dying concept. I'd be surprised if 5 years from now anyone except DMOZ editors and old fogies even remember what DMOZ is and noone but the editors will be paying any attention to it at all.

I just cannot see Google continuing to give it the importance it's enjoyed in the past.


Your right. Google needs to move on to something better. It has had its glory.

Yeah - they need some changes there. Mostly in people I think.

I know an editor for DMOZ:) Anyways I do think they need a quick process of approving or disapproving sites. The time period of months is completely ridiculous in an age of technology. Also those who are editors are mostly bias now and rarely choose good sites and choose a good quantity amount of them. By the time they approve one 12 other sites could have already gone through 3 versions of their sites. Many changes should be made on how they approve sites.

I'm a DMOZ editor, but the category I edit has no relation to forums. I agree that things need to be changed there. I think the backbone of DMOZ is O.K.
( How the editing process works. ), however I feel like there's needs to be more relationship with the Members ( People who submit ) and with the editors. The forum, http://resource-zone.com but an extremly successful community that helps members when they ask. Right now it's like " FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES AND WAIT! "...which IMO is not right.

-Danny.

A DMOZ editor told me the other day that some of the business catagories ahve as much as 45,000 sites in the que waiting to be reviewed.

I don't doubt that at all, it's important to have dedicated editors to edit those categories. But humans can only go so quick with picking good content.

Ive applied twice to be an editor - Rejected without reason twice.

Makes it hard to buy the argument that Humans can only go so fast.

Well, the application process must be difficult. We can't have just any person becoming an editor. Imagine someone just deleting everything waiting in a que? Or accepting only sites with bad content? People who have a dedicated interest in being editor would keep applying untill they became an editor.

Well, the application process must be difficult. We can't have just any person becoming an editor.
Nope. DMOZ only wants clones of the editors who already exist. Can't have someone coming in suggesting improvements, now, can we?

Imagine someone just deleting everything waiting in a queue?
How is that worse that just leaving them sitting there for 5 years? Might just as well delete them, if you ask me...

Or accepting only sites with bad content?
Right. Accept only sites with content created by the editor of a category or his friends.

People who have a dedicated interest in being editor would keep applying until they became an editor.
Not if they spend any time at all looking at how many current editors handle themselves and inquiries about the directory they won't. That's half the problem -- most of the applicants who could actually do something useful have scampered and most (not all but most) of what remains is the dregs.

Nope. DMOZ only wants clones of the editors who already exist. Can't have someone coming in suggesting improvements, now, can we?


You make it sound like like DMOZ is some sort of monster, kind of like the matrix. You have to stay away from those movies.

I don't see " Do you have any suggestions for DMOZ?" on the application form...so how would the "DMOZ" know if someone is going give suggestion. Hm?


How is that worse that just leaving them sitting there for 5 years? Might just as well delete them, if you ask me...



DMOZ clearly says that it takes time too have your site reviewed. Why submit if your just going to whine like a little baby?



Right. Accept only sites with content created by the editor of a category or his friends.



That's completely absurd. What your saying is that DMOZ is just one big conspiracy. I'm editor with many friends who have sites. All submitted to DMOZ and I didn't have anything to do with them getting accepted/rejected.
If your going to complain about DMOZ, then just let the google bots spider you or go make your own directory.


Not if they spend any time at all looking at how many current editors handle themselves and inquiries about the directory they won't. That's half the problem -- most of the applicants who could actually do something useful have scampered and most (not all but most) of what remains is the dregs.

Yes, and you know this because you know everything? Yeah. And what do you mean by useful? Review all of the up to 45,000 sites waiting to be reviewed in a day?

Yep. You're a DMOZ editor, all right. No doubt about it.

Yeah, I wouldn't have a valid argument if I were you either. It's okay. ;)

Somehow -- I saw this coming -- lol



Most people who are not editors have the same opinion as Ministrial -



Look here: http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com/


-

Sonny, I have been around that block so many times I am tired of listing all the things that are wrong with DMOZ and the DMOZ editors. There are threads in half a dozen forums if you want to do a search -- try "minstrel DMOZ".

One thing I've learned in that time is it is pointless to argue with DMOZ editors. It's like trying to reason with a cat who doesn't want to take a bath, or an overtired two year old child who doesn't want to go to bed.

:D



Results 1 - 10 of about 3,360 for minstrel DMOZ. (0.37 seconds) (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&ie=UTF-8&q=minstrel+DMOZ)

Sonny, I have been around that block so many times I am tired of listing all the things that are wrong with DMOZ and the DMOZ editors. There are threads in half a dozen forums if you want to do a search -- try "minstrel DMOZ".

One thing I've learned in that time is it is pointless to argue with DMOZ editors. It's like trying to reason with a cat who doesn't want to take a bath, or an overtired two year old child who doesn't want to go to bed.

If you read my first post in this thread, I stated what I thought was wrong with DMOZ. But what your saying is nothing more then the outcries of people who didn't get there site listed or got rejected in an editor application. Now, lets think for a moment. If you got accepted as an editor the first time you applied, would we be having this arguement? I don't think so.

Yikes! Could my kids be right? Do I really talk a lot? :eek:

well - actually - it was me who was talking about not being accepted - and I dont think we're arguing ---

Dont take the criticisms personally Danny - truth is, in my opinion, that the bad editors are only a small percentage of the editors, but they tend to be the more publically available ones and the more takative ones. There is plenty of abuse that goes on - not by every editor, but by some. I was recently at the SES Show in Chicago - and there was one SEO firm there where they touted the fact that both of them were DMOZ editors and could get my sites listed - as part of their service of course.... SO it does happen -


The point you made about having standards for editors is a good one. But when I have suggested that non active editors be replaced - DMOZ people over at their forum jumped down my throat telling me about how its all volunteer and you cant place performance standards on volunteers - Thats just a contridiction, and silly.

Like I said, some of the editors just handle their little catagory and do fine. Unfortunately the rest are either not there or are full of themselves or are corrupt.

Simple example - go over to the dmoz forum and look at how many editors there are and how much chatting they do on the message board there - now think - if they spent that time clearing the backlog of submissions.......There wouldnt be much of a problem.


-

I agree with you 100% that non-active editors should be removed, or that you can reply to a category that already has an editor. My friend brought up a good point in my opinion and said that submitions to DMOZ should be closed for a while in order to get all the backed up sites reviewed, and then start over again.

Here is the main problem, you submit your site, then wait, you are told not to submit it until six months expire before you submit it again.

You get no communication on if your site was even reviewed, accepted, rejected, not even an acknowledgement in any way that your submission was received. That sucks and tells most webmasters that it is a poorly run directory.

If there was any communication a lot of folks would not hate it. I would also wonder if anyone ever uses it to find anything at the same time.

I have never used it to find anything.

It is supposed to be an open directory but is owned by AOL/Netscape, correct?

That's correct, Anthony.

It's not an open directory. It is a selected set of bookmarks assembled at the whim and according to the personal biases and preferences of DMOZ editors. As such, it is no more relevant or important than my private bookmarks on any given subject, perhaps even less so. Except that Google still gives a DMOZ listing some weight -- a situation I fully expect will decline further in due course.

You're also correct in saying it long ago ceased to be a useful or even authoritative resource for individuals seeking information. Its continuing prominence, what's left of it, is based entirely on the desire of webmasters to get their sites listed in DMOZ to increase PR. As soon as Google devalues that property, DMOZ will die a natural and long overdue death.

I take it that you are not a big fan of DMOZ Minstrel, there seems to be a conspiracy brewing here :p :D :)

PS: Where is DB when you need him :eek:

Danny - Maybe you could put an article together for the Article Section -- "How to Get Listed In DMOZ"

Okay, I'll think about it. Then maybe Ministrel can make a " How people should get listed to DMOZ. ;)

Listen, the DMOZ is owned by AOL and mismanaged by volunteers, why not make it a commercial directory and automate the listings so folks can get in the proper category?

It is silly for AOL/Netscape to continue running this directory this way and since AOL is expanding their search services on their portals I do look for a major shake up at DMOZ and soon.

First thing they should do is fire all the editors and start all over with a automated system that will look at a web page just like Google does with no human intervention.

Google only looks at a site with humans when someone complains about spam or the quality of the site in question.

My friend brought up a good point in my opinion and said that submitions to DMOZ should be closed for a while in order to get all the backed up sites reviewed, and then start over again.
Noooo, that's a crap idea.

I have my pet categories and I keep them really tidy. When they're sorted I move onto the other less exciting categories. Remember though, that what I find exciting might be mundane to you, and vice versa.

Plus how do you shut it down. I have areas I edit, I don't want to move beyond them (not much anyway) so if you shut it down when would my part reopen - when I'm down to 0? or when the whole thing is down to 0?

And there are so many spammers that if you emailed everyone every time their site was moved or deleted the viagra merchants wouldn't stand a chance.

I'm definately with Minstrel on this one. DMOZ has moved in a downward spiral for years now, and can't blame anyone but itself. And for Danny.VBT, been there, done that, no doubt Minstrel also. I have sites in DMOZ, some just got there, some got in through backdoors, ie. a little bribe payment to the editor. Don't bloody tell me DMOZ isn't corrupt, because it damn well is.

http://www.seozip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3185 << Also my latest opinions.

Don't bloody tell me DMOZ isn't corrupt, because it damn well is.
Individual editors may be corrupt. I don't believe the system is. I haven't seen the "guidelines for corrupt editors". Where people have a commercial interest then corruption will follow, its almost a rule of business. Find me anything with $$$ attached that hasn't got something nasty happening. Crikey, I'm in the real estate industry, I should know!

Sarah

Yes, not all are corrupt, but lots are. DMOZ had a window for improvement a year or two ago, and it missed it. DMOZ would have to do some considerable work now to maintain their International directory leverage, as there are so many better directories coming up, with paid editors, not volunteers, and the sites are quality, not just editor quality...

Is it just on my end, or is http://www.dmoz.org down?

Is it just on my end, or is http://www.dmoz.org (http://www.dmoz.org/) down?


Working for me.

Individual editors may be corrupt. I don't believe the system is.

I agree that all editors arent corrupt. There are some good ones. But the system is corrupt in that it allows this kind of stuff to flourish.

The system has no checks and balances, no accountability, and no ability to really communicate with those in charge.

DMOZ will cease as we know it sooner or later. Either it will be overhauled, or Google will stop using it. Either way, the current system wont last forever. It simply cant, because it isnt credible due to what is really widespread editor abuse.

Again, not all editors are bad, but it isnt just one or two either. And im not only referring to those who take 'bribes' but also the editors who only take a catagory to get their own sites in and then ignore the catagory, or those who refuse to let competitors in.

Its the system that doesnt hold these editors to any meaningful standards. To coin a phrase, The monkeys are running the zoo.

Its the system that doesnt hold these editors to any meaningful standards. To coin a phrase, The monkeys are running the zoo.
show me an industry where that doesn't happen

The majority of DMOZ editors has absolutely no clue what is going on.
I have started a thread here (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=169097#post169097) about any possible solutions which could be found.

Individual editors may be corrupt. I don't believe the system is.
Perhaps the word "corrupt" is the wrong one to describe the "system" at DMOZ. However, I do think it is an unwieldy organizational structure sitting on top of a flawed concept, and that is the major reason corruption and reality distortion exists at DMOZ.

I think the concept is great - its the management that is flawed

Maybe you're right. Or maybe it's a case of "one from column A, one from column B".

The package doesn't work. I think the organization/management is unwieldy and a lot of the problems stem directly from that. I also think the goals (at least the original ones -- I'm not even sure what the goals are any more, other than hanging on by their fingernails until Google dumps them), while they may have been at least theoretically achievable in the net of 6-7 years ago, are simply unrealistic now -- the net is expanding too quickly for a human edited directory of that scope to remain relevant.

I think we're looking at the dawn of the fall of general directories and, for a while at least, the rise of niche directories.

I think I agree. General directories are way too easy to build and everyone is building them.

I used to be a dmoz editor about 1 year back or so but I lost my internet connection for 3 months so resigned before losing my connection, didnt feel it was worth the effort besides my category was a small one.

about 1 year back or so but I lost my internet connection for 3 monthsand you survived 3 months without the internet? unthinkable!

I used to an editor for DMOZ, I was turned down the first time I asked and a month later I applied again and got it.

Since then I just flaked out..

What does "just flaked out" mean?

Does DMOZ pay their editors or do these guys overwork themselves on a strictly volunteer basis?

It's strictly voluntary.

Anyone knows why DMOZ hasn't accepted more links recently?

Because the site is broken - its well known and been messed up for awhile.

I applied to dmoz and since I was so interested in becoming an editor, it took me a day and a half (off and on) to actually complete the application. I did everything I could to demonstrate my abilities by recognizing sites that fit into the category I was applying to.

I received a reasonably quick response (within a few days) stating I'd applied to too broad a category and would have to re apply. I really wanted to be a dmoz editor prior to that but I'm afraid that I'll have to spend a good portion of my life re-submitting a new application more than once.

I think dmoz could have done better simply by transferring my application to another area where it was needed instead of making me go through the re-submission process. I also think it would have been in their best interests to point me the direction of an area where help was needed given the examples submitted in my application.

Part of me wonders if dmoz is just really chaotic or disorganized so I'm hesitant to resubmit my application.

BTW, this isn't a rant, merely an observation. I don't want to fight to commit my time, either you want to use my resources or not but don't expect me to battle to commit my time to your project especially given there is no pay involved.

Of course I'm not complaining too loudly about dmoz the directory because my main site was listed there in under 3 months. I simply feel they could make the editor submission process a bit more streamlined.

They do not point you to a deader area because the number of dead areas FAR out number the areas that are broad or have enough staff/volunteers.

Your chances are best if you pick a small local/regional category, or one at the deepest recesses of your desired niche. Someplace that's not been touched since google updated (2005) their directory is a good place to start ;)

I wonder now many days or even years or even decades you will reach if you added all of the time together that it took everybody to submit their sites to Dmoz that are still awaiting after years plus how much time it took editors to apply only to be turned down.

Must be century's actually.

I wonder now many days or even years or even decades you will reach if you added all of the time together that it took everybody to submit their sites to Dmoz that are still awaiting after years plus how much time it took editors to apply only to be turned down.

Must be century's actually.

In the case of forums, it likely should not be as long as it is. The trouble is that most editors won't list a NEW forum, as there is a high turn over of them not making it. Though having vB, IPB, or other paid platform can help...what really get's a forum listed is time (assuming in that time you get a good member base, and few hundred threads).

The main thing that keeps other sites out is often Duplicate Content, followed by incomplete content and a lack of an editor. It's pretty amazing how many sites out there that claim to be unique, but are nothing more then copy/paste jobs.

I've submitted 3 of my sites to DMOZ a little over a year and a half ago. Only one of my sites is a forum the others are proprietary, highly custom designed web systems. I've taken great pains to do everything right. (My husband is a programmer/designer...a very good one and my websites are like a classroom for me.) I've never heard a word from DMOZ.

I resubmitted 2 1/2 months ago.

Tick, Tick, Tick....

I look at the majority of other sites listed in my category on DMOZ and what I see are a bunch of very old sites many of them look unattended, few of them look wonderful.

Lets use my vbulletin site as an example. My site is a freebies and shopping site. My DMOZ category is this:

Computers: Internet: On the Web: Free Stuff: Directories http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Free_Stuff/Directories/

There are only 34 listings and NONE of them are new. These sites are all very old sites. Like I said, if you get to clicking around on this list there aren't very many of them that look like anyone really cares about them. My site is better than a lot of those listed, at least I love and care about my site, it's not just sitting there growing mold.

Yet DMOZ ignores me.

I asked to be an editor too. I did it this last time that I submitted. After looking at this list I felt that they might be in need of some help so I offered my services, lol! I'm not kidding...

They ignored that too.

I'd like to think that DMOZ doesn't matter but I hear chatter from programmers and designers that DMOZ still carries a lot of weight because the second that you get your site listed tons of directories will automatically include your listing - cloning?

Now Google says that cloned content is bad. You know what? I hear a lot of things about Google and little of it makes sense.

So the big question here is does DMOZ still accept new sites? Better yet, does anyone know anyone who has had a site accepted over the last 2 years? Is anybody home at DMOZ?

So the big question here is does DMOZ still accept new sites? Better yet, does anyone know anyone who has had a site accepted over the last 2 years? Is anybody home at DMOZ?

I added 5 sites within the last year, lol...

But I was an editor at the bottom rung of the ladder, so *shrug* I also quit after 2 and a half months due to a conflict of interest (http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=3362013).

I can say that there are a handful of active categories, with editors that look at submissions and/or actively look for sites to add.

I'd not worry about, especially if you have a directory...thats competition of DMOZ itself ;)