Do you trust DMOZ? - Page 2

stoner3221 · 04-08-2006, 11:35 AM

I have no love for meta editors after being publicly flamed by one and had an abundance of false accusations made about me from him on a forum. He had actually mistaken me for John Scott because at the time I was hosted with him and banned my websites permanently. Considering I was at one of the founding editors of ODP I don’t have a lot of respect for what it has become. I help manage a lot of volunteer editors and nothing like that would ever be allowed.

GeorgeB · 04-08-2006, 11:38 AM

Yeah I have a site onlyriddles that is notches above the rest in both my and my visitors opinions, yet because it's not listed in DMOZ my visitors have to surf to page 6 in google after searching for "riddles" because of all the other non-riddles focused sites that are listed. I submitted it months ago and never really expected to get listed so I'm just kind of venting right now.

But my site is a quality site with PR6 and a nice Alexa ranking for it's age yet it just sits ignored. Fact is it's been proven quite a few times on DP that a lot of editors swindle their way in with nothing mor ethan their own personal gains in mind. I'd volunteer myself but honestly I don't have the time so I choose not to apply then let my category sit idle for years as seems to be the norm on such a "currently" important directory.

**G10** · 04-08-2006, 11:42 AM

I'm sorry to hear that stoner,

I'm sure they didn't all do it though, just a couple of hot-heads who don't know better - (If I am wrong, I apologise)

Judging by your other posts, I for one know you're a good cookie and would not let anyone get away with flaming you here dude.

**John Scott** · 04-08-2006, 12:09 PM

I don't want this to be about individual editors. I know there are good editors there and bad ones too. The thing I don't trust is the policies and the process. It's not transparent, it's not open to criticism, and ultimately it (the process) has failed time and again.

James Trotta · 04-08-2006, 12:47 PM

If the editor can't do a decent job because the hassle is griding them down, they should have been willing to consider me as an editor. And if they won't accept applications to the category they should seriously remove the link - seems like it's only there to waste people's time by fooling them into thinking their application might be considered. A little note that says "New editors should apply to a smaller category" wouldn't be so hard, would it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by G10

I totally understand James but try doing a better job as a volunteer for years where all you get is people hassling you all the time. I know that it would probably start grinding me down sooner or later.

BTW - I am not defending them here, I am just putting myself in their shoes and can totally see how sooner or later, it would begin to grind.

I couldn't do it. - I'll just stick to my side of the fence and keep hassling them

**G10** · 04-08-2006, 01:19 PM

I do agree to that James.

Nobody said it was perfect and I like the rest will vouch for that

sem4u · 04-10-2006, 01:52 PM

Well I have some very good sites which were submitted up to two years ago and none of them are in DMOZ. However, one of my worst sites was accepted in about a month!

ewc21 · 04-10-2006, 03:52 PM

I find it difficult to answer the question because the integrity of DMOZ does not depend on one single person but from more than 60,000 editors. While I believe that most of them are credible enough in their judgments, there are a few who may not possess the same trustworthiness.

**John Scott** · 04-10-2006, 04:20 PM

It's not the editors, it's the policies and the process I question. That collective judgment I do not trust.

veridicus · 04-10-2006, 05:43 PM

I think collective judgement can be trusted. But only if it's open. If the size of the collective is big enough then editing in a public fashion will prevent a few people from getting away with bias or poor judgement.

tantantin · 04-12-2006, 05:47 PM

I had the opportunity of being with DMOZ for 4 months before being locked out. Jim Noble was my approving Meta. (Hi Jim

) He is one of the few Metas I trust and the others. Nah.

Quote:

Originally posted by John Scott
It's not the editors, it's the policies and the process I question. That collective judgment I do not trust.

Its also the Editors most of them are arrogant especially at RZ. While the policies, process and collective judgement needs restructure the arrogant and lazy editors needs some soul searching.

**John Scott** · 02-25-2008, 04:39 AM

Is DMOZ dead? I don't think they are actively editing or otherwise doing anything over there, are they?

Birdie · 02-25-2008, 05:49 AM

~2000 sites a month are being added. How many is your directory adding?

**John Scott** · 02-25-2008, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Birdie

~2000 sites a month are being added. How many is your directory adding?

2,000? I'm impressed. That's progress. How many is that if stated as a percentage of submitted sites? .00001%?

V7N currently enjoys 24 hour submission review time. You thinking of submitting?

budalata · 02-26-2008, 08:20 AM

If you want to believe that DMOZ is dead -its dead, ok.
If you want to believe is not - it isnt, ok.
Depends on your wishes, you can state both

Quote:

How many is that if stated as a percentage of submitted sites?

You have heard that we are not listing service. We also dont list every site submitted.

Quote:

.00001%?

You are joking. Less

e_marketing_india · 03-03-2008, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Just curious here. After reading about Peter D's directory being listed by the founder of the ODP, and then delisted when Doug Heil complained, I gotta ask, do you trust DMOZ's judgment?

Do you believe that they are indeed trying to list as many qualified websites as they can and create "The Definitive Catalog of the Web", or do you believe editors work to not list as many websites as possible?

There are several high quality websites which are kept out of DMOZ. DMOZ seems to be hijacked.

I would surely like to see google coming up with its own version of DMOZ.

DMOZ stinks like for ever. They do not approve links even for upto 8-12 months of submissions.

I wonder if there are some ghosts working in graveyard shifts within DMOZ.

Resonate · 03-03-2008, 04:12 AM

Not at all, i know a few former editors who claim the directory is corrupt, not to mention all the other past & present editors for the directory are saying.

Birdie · 03-03-2008, 01:28 PM

Where are you getting your information on DMOZ from? You seem very confused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by e_marketing_india

DMOZ stinks like for ever. They do not approve links even for upto 8-12 months of submissions.

You are confusing DMOZ with a listing service. DMOZ editors are under no obligation to even look at the submitted site. The role of the editor is to build a category. The editor uses many sources to find sites. Submitted sites are just one source (the worse source), so some editors just ignore them.

When you say "upto 8-12 months of submissions", does that mean you submitted more than once? If you did, then duh! Every time you submit, the new submission just overwrites the previous one with the new date! If the editor chooses to use the the submitted sites, you just keep moving your site to the back. You have no one but yourself to blame for that.

Quote:

I would surely like to see google coming up with its own version of DMOZ

Why would Google want to do that for, they currently get the DMOZ database for free.

sums123 · 03-06-2008, 06:20 AM

I do not like Dmoz it takes a lot of time in approving a site.Last year I submitted 4 or 5 sites to Dmoz and none of them got approved