Multiple submissions to DMOZ?

[jimnoble]

WebmasterWorld has like 21 listings in DMOZ.

They currently have 4, and if you think they 'suck up to DMOZ', you haven't been paying attention.

As to the so called black list, we discussed this ad nauseam some time ago. I expect John can find the thread reference. Apart from reiterating that it isn't a black list, I don't have anything further to add.

I find it odd that DMOZ editors have so much free time to put Internet-Marketing-Research in here...

Editors are volunteers and, within their permissions, do whatever work they want to do. There is no chain of command that instructs individual editors what their priorities are. I could have listed half a dozen sites in the time it's taking to compose this. Is it also odd that I choose to do so?

I swear Jim, how can you associate yourself with that organization?

Because it's challenging, fun (mainly) and useful to the community.

name one instance of my spamming the ODP

Our privacy policy prevents me from discussing individual editors or ex editors in public .

I wonder if Jim Noble will come back.

If he can provide help, assistance and clarification, yes.
If it's just to act as an ODP apologist and Aunt Sally, probably not.

ODP is what it is and whinging here is unlikely to change it's policies. What whinging does do, is alienate the very people who are willing to help and also discourages potential new editors. That's an unproductive lose lose situation.

My best advice is this. If you want listings in ODP, concentrate on producing unique content rich websites and submitting them to an appropriate category with guidelines conforming titles and descriptions.

Jim
Volunteer ODP meta editor
http://dmoz.org/profiles/jimnoble

[John Scott]

Our privacy policy prevents me from discussing individual editors or ex editors in public.

So be it. Then ask yourself this, where did one John Scott ever spam the ODP? Then you can answer yourself, never. The only ones abusing their power are kctipton and the others who use their positions at DMOZ to hinder the listings of good quality sites like this one.

[jimnoble]

If it's just to act as an ODP apologist and Aunt Sally, probably not.

Bye John.

[John Scott]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...e%3AAunt+Sally

At least we agree on the futility of defending the ODP.

[Fruit & Veg]

http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-aun1.htm - I think Jim meant he can't be arsed with pedantic bitching.

[John Scott]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...define%3Aarsed

[John Scott]

pedantic bitching

Bitching. Not pedantic. Just bitching.

Let's set the record straight. DMOZ is crap. 100% crap. Just because it's the best directory on the Internet doesn't make it anything other than crap.

I could be the best graphic artist on the Internet - but I'd still be crap. Being the best simply means that there isn't a better one around.

That's the case with the ODP. It's crap. It's the best directory simply by virtue of lack of a competent web directory.

It's like being the best of a toilet full of turds. Being the best really doesn't say much because they're still floating in the crapper.

[PhilC]

Do I detect a tiny bit of bias here?

[John Scott]

A web directory is there to serve as a listing of all related sites for a given topic. People don't go to a web directory to search. They go there for a list of sites which have been reviewed by humans. It's supposed to be one-better than a search engine for quality.

Instead, the meta editors treat it as their own personal bookmark directory. Sites they like, or sites that suck up to DMOZ - like WMW - get lots of listings, and sites which are owned by people they don't like don't get any. (And, yes, WMW sucks up to DMOZ. Almost every post I ever posted in the Web Directories forum got deleted because kctipton felt "unwelcome" or "offended".)

The ODP has one problem after another. For months (a year or more maybe?) it was almost always inaccessible duie to server inadequacy. Now the server is up, but the submission errors remain.

And, after consistently declining the editor apps of good editors, they complain about not having enough editors. Irony.

[PhilC]

Alright, we're being serious. DMOZ has never been crap. It's a bunch of people who give their time to building an excellent directory, and most of them are genuine. Yes, there are some who abuse it, and there are bound to be some who think of it as their own but, generally speaking, it works as well as it is able to work, and the data in the directory is good.

But there are problems. One of them is that they don't have enough editors and there are reasons for that. Many people have become editors for their own ends; they sort their own site(s) out and don't do much else. DMOZ can't be blamed for that. Another reason is that they turn down many potentially good editors and, to some extent, they are to blame for that because they don't normally encourage good applicants to try again when they apply for categories that are too large, and things like that. They just reject the apllication and the person doesn't try again. That's a mistake. I had this out with them at resource-zone and I believe the thread is still the longest and most viewed of all the threads there. Many, possibly most, applications are rejected because of bad grammer, bad spelling, etc. They cannot tell people the reason for those rejections because they would try again and make sure that everything was in order - even by getting someone else to write the stuff for them. Then DMOZ would end up with editors who can't spell or write well enough, and that would be bad.

Yet another reason for the lack of editors is that people join, intending to do a good job, but get bored with it and stop doing anything. So DMOZ always has too few active editors. Unlike some of the other well-known directories (GoGuides, JoeAnt and Zeal), where new editors cannot add sites to the directory but can only suggest sites by writing the Titles and Descriptions, new DMOZ editors can add sites to the live directory straight away. Therefore, they need to be good editors from the start.

Originally Posted by JS

A web directory is there to serve as a listing of all related sites for a given topic.

Each directory decides what sites to include. For instance, Gimpsy has decided to include only sites that provide an online service. Purely informational sites aren't accepted. It seems odd to me, but that's their policy. DMOZ has decided to accept only sites that contain unique content, which means that a lot of sites can't get in because they are not offering anything that isn't already in the directory. So directories are not there to list all related sites. They are there to list the sites they choose to list.

Originally Posted by JS

Instead, the meta editors treat it as their own personal bookmark directory.

It is quite possible that some metas treat the directory as their own, especially if they've been around a very long time, but I don't believe that it's the norm. Having said that, who is there who can think of the directory as their own in the way that you mean? Certainly not the owners, because they've hardly ever had anything to do with it. The staff (who are above metas)? Yes. The metas (senior management)? Yes. The staff and metas run it as they see fit. Why shouldn't they feel that it's their directory? It is their directory inasmuch as they are in complete charge of it, although none of them actually own it.

But you mean that there are metas who do favours for their 'friends'. Maybe there are, but I seriously doubt that it's widespread. I'm pretty sure that metas have been dumped in the past for abusing their position.

The problem is that people at DMOZ (editors and metas) make decisions that are sometimes not liked by some people, and those people think that DMOZ is corrupt in some way. Whilst there will often/always be corruption at all levels in such organisations, on the whole, DMOZ is pretty clean.

[John Scott]

Phil,

No, DMOZ doesn't include a lot of good quality sites. It would be the equivent of a phone directory which doesn't include the majority of useful phone numbers.

Would such a phone directory be useful? No. And DMOZ is what it is due to decisions made by the DMOZ meta community itself. They have noone to blame but themselves.

[PhilC]

I didn't suggest that DMOZ contains all possible, and suitable, sites. No directory gets anywhere near matching the phone book. That's why it's still being built.

... DMOZ is what it is due to decisions made by the DMOZ meta community itself. They have noone to blame but themselves.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "what it is". Do you mean that DMOZ is as good as it is because of....

[John Scott]

Dead links. Multiple links from the same category to the same site (parked domain). Not including good sites because of personal issues. Terminating editors who've worked hard. Terminating some editors who've put years into it. Terminating editors in a way that could only be described as cowardly.

There are some categories in DMOZ which may be useful. The vast majority of categories are not. They don't even include a half-assed attempt at a good representation of suitable sites.

[PhilC]

Dead links aren't there because of the decisions of metas. They are there because websites move or are taken down.

Multiple links from the same cat to the same site is an abuse that nobody in DMOZ could get away with. Can you show me any examples? Again, if any exist, it isn't because the metas decided that they are allowed to exist.

Not including sites (that merit being listed) for personal reasons is also an abuse that nobody can get away with if it's found. Not a decision by the metas.

Editors are terminated for a number of reasons. Usually they simply time-out by not doing any edits for a while, but you mean sacked. It's quite possible that some editors have been sacked for unscrupulous reasons. It would be amazing if it hadn't happened. But I don't believe that it's a meta policy to do it.

The above examples are not the norm at DMOZ and do not exist because of "decisions made by the DMOZ meta community".

It's a mistake to think that the vast majority of categories are not useful, and it's a mistake to think that they are not useful because of decisions made by the metas. If any are not useful, it's because of the lack of editors. And the charge that "They don't even include a half-assed attempt at a good representation of suitable sites" is unwarranted. If any categories are lacking in content, it's because of the shortage of editors and not because of any meta decisions.

I know that you had a bad experience, John, but you are taking things to an unwarranted extreme here.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by PhilC

Dead links aren't there because of the decisions of metas. They are there because websites move or are taken down.

In fact, those dead links are there because the meta editors, in a continued fit of paranoia, decline new editor applications. The reason for declining those applications are often extremely silly - like the IP of the applicant being the same as the IP of an ex-editor.

kctipton recently went off on a fit of paranoia saying that I must have a new username. It's paranoia like this that doesn't belong in a good web directory. But DMOZ has no intention of cleaning house. The old, abusive, paranoid editors are entrenched and they'll take DMOZ down with them.

Originally Posted by PhilC

Multiple links from the same cat to the same site is an abuse that nobody in DMOZ could get away with. Can you show me any examples? Again, if any exist, it isn't because the metas decided that they are allowed to exist.

They are there because DMOZ meta editors refuse to let good editors in. I know of some great people who've been declined. You, Phil, were declined. And you're one of the smartest people I know. Think about that.


As for an example, I'm not often at dmoz, so I'm not very up to date. But let me just visit one category at random.

http://dmoz.org/Business/Constructio...s/Directories/

Hmmm. This category lists:

http://www.architects-in-america.com/
&
http://www.canadianarchitecture.com/Archi/archi00.htm

Looks like the same site to me.

It also lists www.architect-guide.com which is in fact ContractorGuide.com, which is listed in DMOZ several places under several domain. Starting to get a feel for the absolute incompetence of DMOZ?

http://www.electrician-guide.com/

Yup there it is, listed in:

http://dmoz.org/Business/Electronics...ews_and_Media/

And using another domain in:

http://dmoz.org/Business/Constructio...United_States/

It's also using a dozen or so other domains, and listed elsewhere. If DMOZ meta editors allowed competent editors in, they'd be able to build a half-way decent directory. Instead, they spend their days trying to track down my "new username".

Within that same category:

http://www.architectsusa.com/
http://www.architectsworldwide.com/

Are just two sites I'm familiar with, and are known to be listed several times throughout the directory in the same way ContractorGuide is - by using several domains.

Originally Posted by PhilC

Not including sites (that merit being listed) for personal reasons is also an abuse that nobody can get away with if it's found. Not a decision by the metas.

No, Phil, kctipton has been not listing my sites for personal reasons for quite some time now. He is still a meta editor. Concrete-Home.com was listed in the ex-editors cat, and was initially declined a listing because of it. kctipton has every intention of blocking inclusion of my other sites as well, and that's why the little twat listed Internet-Marketing-Research in the ex-editors cat.

Originally Posted by PhilC

Editors are terminated for a number of reasons. Usually they simply time-out by not doing any edits for a while, but you mean sacked. It's quite possible that some editors have been sacked for unscrupulous reasons. It would be amazing if it hadn't happened. But I don't believe that it's a meta policy to do it.

Meta editors often see DMOZ as a path to greatness. They fail in real life. They are often pathetic losers, who see climbing to the level of meta in the DMOZ hierachy as a "great achievement".

Each new editor is a potential meta editor. They see this as a threat, and attempt to block all new apps.

These are not my words. They are the words of a meta editor.

Originally Posted by PhilC

The above examples are not the norm at DMOZ and do not exist because of "decisions made by the DMOZ meta community".

It's a mistake to think that the vast majority of categories are not useful, and it's a mistake to think that they are not useful because of decisions made by the metas. If any are not useful, it's because of the lack of editors. And the charge that "They don't even include a half-assed attempt at a good representation of suitable sites" is unwarranted. If any categories are lacking in content, it's because of the shortage of editors and not because of any meta decisions.

The shortage of editors is directly caused by the actions of meta editors, and they are solely to blame.

Originally Posted by PhilC

I know that you had a bad experience, John, but you are taking things to an unwarranted extreme here.

And here we get to the crux of the issue. The first metric I use measure the worth of any organization is, its integrity. QWe're talking about honesty. Honorable behavior. Respect and respectability.

I don't care if a hosting company is cheap; I don't care about the speed of their connections, as long as they have integrity.

I don't care if a graphic artist is the best on the Internet. I don't care if a programmer is the best on the Internet. If they don't have integrity, honesty, and respectability they are nothing.

http://www.traffick.com/story/06-2000-xodp.asp

However, when I tried to log on to the dmoz.org server that fateful Wednesday morning, I was informed that my ODP login had been inactivated. I then checked the ODP Categories where I had previously been listed as an editor in residence, and I found that my byline had been removed from each and every one of them. Basically, this is akin to coming to work one morning and finding out that your employer has changed the lock on your office door.

The same thing as happens to many hard working, honest editors who have sacrificed hundreds of hours working for the greater good.

This is a perfect example of cowardice.

Phil, I am not going to turn a blind eye to the DMOZ incompetence for the sake of this forum. I will not suck up. They have issues - serious issues. They need to grow up, take the gloves off, and clean house.

DMOZ could be great. They have the potential.

[PhilC]

Most of the problems you pointed to are because of the shortage of editors which, as you point out is partly because many potentially good editors are rejected by the metas (some metas - not all). The problems are there, not because of concious decisions by metas to have the problems, but because of a secondary effect of new editor rejections. On this we can agree.

FTI, I found fault with some rejections and had a long discussion with them about it at resource-zone ( http://www.resource-zone.com/postlis...lapsed&sb=5&o= - it's the 5-star thread near the top of the page. It may still the longest and most read thread over there.). To summarize it:- I applied to become an editor and was rejected without any comment as to why. So I made an even bigger effort with the application and applied again for a tiny category (different to the first application's cat). It was also rejected without any comment as to why. I took offense because I thought it was rude not to tell me why after all the effort I'd put in and, although I'd decided that I no longer wanted to be an editor after being treated so rudely, I started the discussion at resource-zone.

I was certain that my application was good so, during the discussion, I decided to do an experiment by submitting the identical application again - without any changes whatsoever. This time it was accepted, even though I really did not want to be an editor by then. But because I'd volunteered, I got stuck into it and a few months later I was the joint winner of the "Best New Regional Editor" award.

So, John, it demonstrates that their dealings with the applications of what appear to be potentially good editors do cause them to have fewer editors than they could have had, and I accept that the problems caused because of too few editors are ultimately caused by meta decisions - at least in part, because it is probable that there could never have been enough good editors to keep the directory ship-shape.

It may be that a particular meta is going around removing sites that editors add, but no meta can block a site's inclusion. You know how it works over there. An editor can add any site that s/he wants to add. There's nothing to prevent that. If an individual is spending time removing sites for personal reasons, then it's wrong and I don't believe that it is acceptable to the meta community as a whole. And I don't believe that it is acceptable to the meta community to remove sites just because they belong to ex-editors.

Meta editors often see DMOZ as a path to greatness. They fail in real life. They are often pathetic losers, who see climbing to the level of meta in the DMOZ hierachy as a "great achievement".

Each new editor is a potential meta editor. They see this as a threat, and attempt to block all new apps.

People become editors for 3 reasons:- (1) they want to get their own sites in, (2) they see it as having a bit of power, and (3) they genuinely want to help build the directory. You are referring to the 2nd reason which applies to all levels of editors and not just to metas. Clearly metas do not see all new applicants as threats, otherwise there would be no new editors, and there are. Whoever said that, I just don't believe it because (a) new editors keep on being accepted and (b) it's too stupid.

I may be mistaken but I don't accept or believe that the meta community as a whole is intentionally causing problems at DMOZ. There are individuals at all editor levels who see their position in terms of power. That's bound to happen because it's a common trait in human nature. The article at traffic.com was very interesting but it is just one side of the story. My experience of life has shown that, when listening to both sides of a story, it is sometimes impossible to realise that they are talking about the same thing, so I'd like to hear more of that particular case. Even so, I have no doubt that people have been treated wrongly and for wrong reasons, but it doesn't mean that it's the norm. Without going into details, I have found the opposite to what the author of that story found in some respects.