The DMOZ mob strikes again...
This weekend I was reading about Shoemoney being extorted by a DMOZ editor. I thought: heck, I'm a DMOZ editor, I don't want to be associated with stuff like that, let's see if I can do anything to help. So I posted something like that in the commentthread to the above post, and I added a note to Shoemoney's URL in DMOZ asking why the URL was removed.
Now pay attention: within 36 hours after doing that, my account was disabled!
I'd put quite some work into that account; I was editing 9 categories at the time my account was disabled. I did NOT put all that hard work into it for some meta to come along and ban me on sight when he sees something he doesn't like, without sending ANY email or other notification.
If AOL is serious about wanting to improve DMOZ, this would be a good place to start. For now, I'll join the crowd of people saying Google should stop using DMOZ. Of course there are editors who do a good job, but these mob like practices make it impossible to work with and for.
Login removed screenshot
Screenshot of my DMOZ profile
Update: Having seen some of the discussion in the DMOZ forums, it looks like I was banned because I had BOOKMARKED shoemoney.com, with the simple reason of wanting to add a note to it... My god.
Related posts
- DMOZ and Wikipedia: how it should work
- You can add your URL's to DMOZ again!
- SEO Link Analysis Firefox Extension
- Make the scrapers work for you!
fathom Aug 28th, 2007 at 16:45
Now pay attention... If you were a DMOZ editor that don’t want to be associated with stuff like that...
1. why didn't you check out the sent emails first? - I'd want to see those including the tcp-ip paths. (surely you don't just take every strngers' word at face value.
2. why didn't he "report it" using the abuse form? ... and where are those emails? ...and why didn't you aid him in report the abuse?
3. did you look at the time stamp on archive.org 20070306 - why did he wait almost 5 months to post publicly? Since you knew yourself the listing added in March 2007 was deleted in April 2007 for public bribery way back in 2005.
4. Since shoemoney discussed this with OPD I'm sure he can also provide you those emails.
5. I find it hard to believe that you would simply throw caution to the wind and "jump into a shit-pile" for a complete stranger without so much as "checking your facts first"... smells like ... well ... it "stinks"!
Joost de Valk Aug 28th, 2007 at 16:50
fathom: first of all, thx for replying here and having the guts to take it out in the open!
secondly: timestamps on archive.org are always way in the past.
thirdly: shoemoney is not a complete stranger, in fact, he's a good friend of a friend.
and fourthly: where is the reason in all this to delete my account?
Jake Cop Aug 28th, 2007 at 17:05
This whole thing stinks eh? Dmoz has really dug itself a hole so deep it might even be enough to bury the corruption. Fathom has been defending the Dmoz practises for a while now at the seochat forum, but alas it's all for nowt.
Jarrod Aug 28th, 2007 at 17:14
I know what you mean, I'm also an editor at DMOZ, and I just wrote about how corrupt it is. Really, no one can deny that DMOZ is important to google and to rankings, but I think google needs to drop them and discount the entire directory. I wonder how long it will be until I get my account removed? :)
Anon Aug 28th, 2007 at 17:30
Hell, I'm an editor for DMOZ and was editing 4 categories. Now I'm editing only 3 ...
One day some webmaster wanted to get his site listed which i had to deny. His site was a banner farm and I mailed him to tell him that he shouldn't use that many ads. He replied and offered me $500 for a listing. I rejected that offer ..
Something about 3 hours later a Meta removed me from the category and that banner farm site was suddenly listed.
DMOZ is corrupt :/
dink Aug 28th, 2007 at 17:57
Interesting story, anon. Too bad you don't provide any details about the site. Did you submit an abuse report? And now I'm curious: why would anybody offer to pay $500 for a listing if his friend the meta can list it for free?
fathom Aug 28th, 2007 at 18:11
>>>Something about 3 hours later a Meta removed me from the category and that banner farm site was suddenly listed.
Jake Cop Aug 28th, 2007 at 18:21
I wouldn't let one obviously suspect tale from Anon detract from the bigger issue here Fathom.
Resonate Aug 28th, 2007 at 18:22
Its official, DMOZ is truly corrupt seems to be a rightful case of throwing out the honest editors in room for more greedy corrupt noobs!!!
!! DOWN WITH DMOZ !!
Joost de Valk Aug 28th, 2007 at 18:31
Thx for all the comments, but I agree with Jake Cop: Fathom: you know what the issue is here, I hope you'll fix it.
fathom Aug 28th, 2007 at 19:09
Archive.org timestamps are accurate - it does however, take 6 months for any data to appear.
It was quite obvious that you had a relationship with shoemoney...
I cannot speak for Metas (the minimum privilege required to revoke your account) - I'll take a fair guess though...
As a DMOZ Editor you are required to disclose all your affiliations, this would include your friends domains that you have actual knowledge of...
I'll "assume" (for the moment) you did not since shoemoney claims most of his domains are in OPD and as he also proclaims to bribe editors clear none of his domains would be in OPD "IF" you followed your obligations to OPD.
This is merely some friendly advice -- your own logs tell a story and the more 'light' you two bring to this whole thing the more inside interest you'll acquire...
Candidly, there are some pretty dumb junior editors at OPD but that fall for 'bribes' but at the other end there are volume of pretty smart cookies ... from where I sit you're the key, you and your SEO practices because "what are friends for but helping each other out".
Nonetheless, I got nothing to lose by taking it out in the open... sure sounds as if shoemoney does. (well a little anyway since "it's just a link of two).
xixtas Aug 28th, 2007 at 19:24
The dmoz.org guidelines say "The content of the ODP Editor Forum, Editors' Notes, and Editor-to-Editor email or Feedback are private and intended only for internal use by ODP editors. Editors may not publish or disclose quotes from these sources to anyone other than other editors or the ODP staff."
You punched your own ticket when you typed in that editor name and hit submit.
fathom Aug 28th, 2007 at 19:31
>>>Something about 3 hours later a Meta removed me from the category and that banner farm site was suddenly listed.
I commented earlier -- not sure what happened?
In any case:
1. What was the category
2. What was the banner farm
3. who was the Meta?
Joost de Valk Aug 28th, 2007 at 19:39
xixtas: could be, well if that was my mistake, it was my mistake, but does that give ample reason for deleting a login? My god...
nony Aug 28th, 2007 at 20:26
"but does that give ample reason for deleting a login?"
The guidelines xixtas quoted also say "Violation of ODP email or forum privacy will not be tolerated and is grounds for removal and possible legal action." From http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/communication.html#privacy
Joost de Valk Aug 28th, 2007 at 20:29
Hehe, well, it was a known fact already, DaveN posted about Jim Noble a while back for the same reason. If something is already out in the open and I still can't talk about it in a comment, the rules are lame.
robjones Aug 28th, 2007 at 20:35
Let's translate some of this from BS to English:
=========================
>>shoemoney is not a complete stranger, in fact, he’s a good friend of a friend.>I’d put quite some work into that account; I was editing 9 categories at the time my account was disabled.>I added a note to Shoemoney’s URL in DMOZ asking why the URL was removed>I posted something like that in the commentthread to the above post
Joost de Valk Aug 28th, 2007 at 20:37
@robjones: calling what I write BS probably isn't the best way of getting me to react kindly.
robjones Aug 28th, 2007 at 20:46
I could care less how you react. My post garbled as it transmitted, so to repeat the gist of it: You were using edit privs to to favor inclusion of a site by "a close friend of a friend". Doing so you expose another editor to harrassment. Your "note" to editors was a rant that included a word that'd get you kicked out of any workplace.
But you don't know why they pulled the plug?
Try stepping back a bit and noticing that his entire laughable story was just bait to draw hits as the terminally gullible rallied to his support.
Joost de Valk Aug 28th, 2007 at 20:49
rob: the disrespect you show me now is way worse than what I've ever shown to any DMOZ editor. Think of that.
robjones Aug 28th, 2007 at 20:58
Not true in the least, but then I can't publish your edit note and you know it.
Joost de Valk Aug 28th, 2007 at 21:01
I can though, I said something like "are we so childish as to prevent people from being listed because they offered a bribe once?"
And I still think that's childish, even though there's this so called "zero-tolerance" policy on bribes. The sad truth is there are editors who ask money, I'd way rather have people fight that, than blame the people who give in to that nonsense because they want the listing.
fathom Aug 28th, 2007 at 21:15
What he said was likely the closest to the truth than you care to admit... and while you may not wish to hear it your opening line "The DMOZ mob strikes again…" is a good "truth headline".
People that abuse the system whether that is intentional or unintentional - are the problem "not the solution"... the great rant here, at Shoemoney, and a bunch of other portals is focus on "corruption" and that (in this particular case) is you... your the cause.
The one thing I've learned from my submarines days "nobody ever believes they'll get caught"... and that stems from an honest belief that you (meaning 'you' in general) are smarter than everyone else... and you set yourself up for a fall because it is really bad odds "1" against the whole world of dmoz (when dmoz has all the tools) and with those odds you'll lose everytime.
It's unfortunate that your friend put you in such a compromising position... hopeful it was worth it.
robjones Aug 28th, 2007 at 21:15
You're being modest now Joost, or does this forum have a filter that removes profanity?
Other editors were simply following guidelines. Your visceral reaction was the first sign you weren't unbiased, and now it turns out the guy that got himself banned and on whose behalf you were acting is a close friend of a friend. Funny how that makes you the unbiased one.
Meanwhile this is a prime example of why people shouldn't believe every innocent "I don't know why I was canned" story. This is actually a good example of the system working as it should.
Joost de Valk Aug 28th, 2007 at 21:24
Well I must say it's funny to see so much people from DMOZ out in the open :P I didn't do anything else than adding a note to the URL asking why it wasn't listed.
Even though it's a friend of a friend, I honestly think that because of the status of his site in the community, it SHOULD be listed. Adding that note was not done on his request, and I would never have done that. It was done out of the anger of seeing that somebody had denied listing to one of the most well read blogs in the affiliate marketing sphere, over a stupid line in the DMOZ rule book.
What's lacking here, IMHO, is a good way of DMOZ looking at itself. DMOZ is good for nothing else than search engine rankings, believe me I know, I've got a few sites listed, and if you get 2 hits a year from it it's a lot.
So I do know a bit about why I was denied access now, I still think it's nonsense, and I still think it's no way to deal with people, to let me guess about the reason for deletion. Let this post be a warning to all those hard working DMOZ editors out there: you can loose your rights in an instant, just by making one remark that doesn't fit the meta police.
Rob and Fathom: I respect you guys for coming out so openly and reacting to me. You're probably hard working DMOZ editors as well and deserve respect for that. I had just hoped other DMOZ editors would have given me the same respect. I would have accepted a reprimand, account deletion though, makes it sound like a big fat cover up.
xixtas Aug 28th, 2007 at 21:26
Please understand that I had nothing to do with your removal and have no more knowledge of it than anyone else. I'm guessing, but I'm pretty sure I'm guessing right. I know that the policy has been consistently applied ever since I've been an editor. You put something in quotes and attach an editor name to it, you're out.
Joost de Valk Aug 28th, 2007 at 21:27
@xixtas: I know who banned me, don't worry, I won't blame you. The policy just stinks.
robjones Aug 28th, 2007 at 21:41
Just to be clear, I'm not privy to the removal discussions. Though the profane the edit note was a violation of communication guidelines, probably you'd have had your hand slapped for it. Don't know, never tried that.
OTOH, exposing a fellow editor to abuse (and trust me, abuse to editors has been vicious at times) would more likely be a termination worthy offense. I think you know you violated more than just the rules of decorum there.
If you back away and look at this I think you'll notice you went to war to get a policy changed on behalf of someone you had some familiarity with knowing he'd broken our rules. That isn't an unbiased methodology, and that isn't how we do business.
The rule has a purpose:
Whether corruption exists or not there will always be some to claim it is there. Not listing those that offer bribes is a logical way to avoid appearing to accept them. That's pretty simple, and it has to be zero tolerance or we're playing favorites.
If the guy is as sharp as you think he is, he'd understand that. You're the one that took the fall, and his site is getting ample hits for passing his lie off as the truth. He profits, you pay the price. If I were you I'd track him down to discuss it, but you may have a kinder heart than I do.
Joost de Valk Aug 28th, 2007 at 21:46
I did not expose Jim Noble, that had happened way before I did it, for the same reasons.
Though I understand people created the rule for this reason, that would only work if corruption did not or hardly existed. Nothing is less true though, it's so widespread that people see no other way than offering a bribe to get in. Once that's the case, and whether you agree it is or not doesn't matter, it is what people think, the rule is stupid.
There's one thing we agree on here. I do think I have a kinder heart than you do :)
robjones Aug 28th, 2007 at 21:50
In reality I have the heart of a small child.
I store it in a jar on my desk. :-P
Joost de Valk Aug 28th, 2007 at 21:52
Hehe, ok, you made me laugh there :)
fathom Aug 28th, 2007 at 22:11
1. It matters not whether rules are stupid or not or even obsolete... until they are democratically (or unilaterally) changed we follow them... and we tend to know what happens when we don't.
2. [[My position only]]... Shoemoney might be the best example of its kind (in content) unfortunately OPD wasn't built for just the "best examples". Shoemoney may indeed be the leader in its field but this (in itself) doesn't meet OPD listing criteria. The issue of "why Shoemoney doesn't have and will never have a listing to simple"... there are OPD rules for everyone to follow and then there are Shoemoney rules... unfortunately OPD Only rules apply.
Jack Aug 28th, 2007 at 23:01
lol - here you can see what happens if some "free speech open source wikipedialover"-hippies get a chance to make money without any work.
dmoz is corrupt!
robjones Aug 29th, 2007 at 00:51
A fine example of the type of critical thinking we're so used to seeing from detractors. Who could possibly argue with that?
I'm glad all the children here got to see that. Not only was it to the point and heartfelt... it was also a prime sample of *authentic* internet gibberish.
*** feels urge to re-watch "Blazing Saddles"... wanders off ***
Alex Aug 29th, 2007 at 03:25
DMOZ is not efficient anymore. It is declining day by day. People go for several other alternatives since you have to wait for ages to list your site.
Alex
http://www.egold-directory.com
Lisa Aug 29th, 2007 at 03:27
some people never ever make it to get a dmoz listing. Yahoo paid listing is million times better and works for me. Traffic is relatively higher too.
Lisa
http://www.prankvideoz.com
Robert Aug 29th, 2007 at 03:42
I've been submitting my website for addition into DMOZ for about 2 years and have had no response ever (or addition). I've even submitted an "abuse" form (which was impossible to find in the first place) and heard nothing back. DMOZ is a joke. Whoever is running the category probably doesn't want any more competition in it, or just as bad -- no one is editing it.
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 04:14
For all those that "dmoz is dead", "it's a joke", or "not efficient anymore"... what does it say about you that you can't let the dead dog lie?
You're absolutely 'side-splitting'... "dmoz is so dead... I need to ensure I keep the death discussion going".
Robert Aug 29th, 2007 at 04:52
I forgot about how terrible it was until I read this. Instead of arguing with me -- why don't you offer some way for DMOZ to be accountable? The IDEA is right, it's just the implementation that's wrong. I would like my site to be listed, as it belongs in there, but obviously something needs to change on DMOZ's end before we should care about it again.
Robert Aug 29th, 2007 at 04:57
Sorry to make this a second post but as for why I'm bitching about it on some blog: This is the first time I've found a real way to catch the ear (and get any response) of anyone at DMOZ. How about a big "CONTACT US" page? Customer Service?
Don't tell me because you're solely volunteer based and can't carry the load, because that's a load. I work with open source groups that have millions of users and they do just fine supporting them.
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 05:25
I'll be happy to remove the link http://Dmoz.org.Suckered.Us when someone explains to me why I haven't been listed in entertainment / reviews area after applying countless times. I also note an influx of dmoz traffic to my site and to that domain in particular which doesn't include my 500,000 pageviews daily.
If dmoz would be interested in listing my site as I've applied numerous times (At least 5 times) and it's in the correct catagory, then I will remove the link. There are sites in there that are far less valuable. If DMOZ wishes to deal with the editors who are extorting funds from individuals It might be a good time, and put some people who actually will do a proper job in the places.
I even applied to edit the catagory mentioned above with my vast experience and nothing for a reply when obviously the editor isn't doing thier job..
So when DMOZ contacts me to discuss, I'll be more than happy
admin @ suckered.us ..
Until then the link gets 500,000 views per day and increasing.
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 05:32
[quote]The dmoz.org guidelines say “The content of the ODP Editor Forum, Editors’ Notes, and Editor-to-Editor email or Feedback are private and intended only for internal use by ODP editors. Editors may not publish or disclose quotes from these sources to anyone other than other editors or the ODP staff.�
You punched your own ticket when you typed in that editor name and hit submit.[/quote]
I see now where the traffic panic has come from. So you're well aware of the domain. Good. Now do something. It's easy to make go away. Show some tact and list some real sites and fire the extorting editors.
Steve Aug 29th, 2007 at 06:20
It's well-known that DMOZ is corrupt and it has only gotten worse. People in the SEO industry know all too well how the 'pay for inclusion' system works with DMOZ. Call it a bribe if you will, but it's so standard that some companies just charge for DMOZ submission and then pay the editor with it. The only reason anyone cares about DMOZ inclusion is Google's ties to it and rankings. Whenever Google wises up and dumps DMOZ, the whole situation will be moot.
randfish Aug 29th, 2007 at 08:36
Joost - I'm sure I've told you in the past, but in 2005 and 2006, we had several clients who wanted in to DMOZ and were able to find editors to pay who could get them included. I'm not sure why that's so bad, though - Yahoo! is a for-pay directory, and most of the others are pay-to-play as well. I suppose the hypocrisy is frustrating, but as long as you're aware of the rules and how to play the game, DMOZ is just another paid directory. There's no particular reason that I can see for complaining about it - from our measurement, the links from the vast majority of categories no longer send much traffic, and many pass very little link juice either. I'd say that at this point, from an SEO perspective, the ODP can simply be ignored.
Joost de Valk Aug 29th, 2007 at 08:39
@Rand: it can be a good link, like there are thousands of others to be had. Stupid thing was I was actually having some fun doing the DMOZ work :) Well I'll have to think of something else to spend my time on now ;)
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 08:55
>>>I would like my site to be listed, as it belongs in there,
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 09:10
Not sure why my posts get scratched after the first line...
Ranfish -- [we had several clients who wanted in to DMOZ and were able to find editors to pay who could get them included. I’m not sure why that’s so bad, though]
Well "what if" you had an employee that managed a dozen clients but on the side had a dozen of his own... and because the workload of 2 dozen clients is too much your dozen got the short end of the stick and far less effort... to the point that you clients question your capabilties.
Your clients are totally dissatisfied with your performance record ... while that wasn't directly cause by you, you hired the employee and his shortcomings are yours...
What do you do... tell 12 clients to stuff it and protect the employee?
You view OPD as "just a directory" and rules are seemingly unimportant -- unlike your own business where "rules must be followed"... or you you actually allow employees to do whatever they desire and still provide them the privilege of have secured employment?
For a guy that sounds so intelligent Rand - you're pretty dumb if you can't understand that large orgs can only survive with formal rules and policies...
Show me any large org (for profit or NFP) whose foundation is built on "whatever blows your hair back"?
randfish Aug 29th, 2007 at 09:15
Joost - I have no fear you'll find great ways to spend your time. :)
Fathom - Rules work two ways. If they exist and they work and they're applied universally, that's great, but clearly a lot of people inside and out of DMOZ don't play within the rules, and I fail to see the nobility in giving clients 2nd rate service in the hopes that the ODP will reform its editors.
Random J. Webmaster Aug 29th, 2007 at 10:20
Incompetence, hypocrisy, corruption: these are the new by-words of DMOZ. The sooner this hive of corrupt editors, gets delisted by Google.
I'd normally be brave enough use my real name and url but it strikes me that with the petulance and nastiness displayed thus far by the editors, that would be an extremely bad business decision.
Kai Aug 29th, 2007 at 11:05
i dont know why fathom is putting a lot of effort in defending the dmoz, you guys should put your efforts in throwing those corrupt editors out od dmoz instead.
and is see so much crappy sites listed in the dmoz, so i dont see any reason for not listing shoemoney. guidlines are good, but sometimes its better to use your common sense.
so all want to be listed in the dmoz because the listing is so valueable..... moooot.... its just because every beginner seo thinks it brings him to the top in the search engines.
so if the dmoz ist still so valueable for the users why not make the outgoing links nofollow? because google also thinks that paid links are bad links... and nobody can tell me that there are no paid links there. when you make your links nofollow thers no value in passing link love to sites, so all the seo guys and pr junkies dont want to submit anymore, and the corrupt guys dont get money anymore.
but the other side would be that no one wants to submit their sites anymore or visits the dmoz at all and the dmoz would slowly die.
Curt Monash Aug 29th, 2007 at 11:08
OK, I'm getting to this party late, but:
1. I'm a DMOZ editor. In fact, I edit the category of SEO blogs (different category name than that, but that's what it amounts to).
2. Back in January, when I got assigned the category, I went on a binge and added the several dozen best SEO blogs I could quickly find. This was easy, as there are various rankings of same, and lots of cross-listings.
3. Shoemoney's couldn't be added, due to the bribe-related red flag.
4. When I posted about that exclusion, WITHOUT mentioning the name of the editor who placed it, I caused annoyance. But I did not get privileges revoked, or even threatened with same.
5. Over in http://www.texttechnologies.com/category/vendors/odp-and-dmoz/ I've published a lot else about DMOZ, some of it critical. People are annoyed and in at least one case infuriated, more at the supposed breach of privacy than at the actual public criticisms. However, it's not actually against the guidelines to do what I did, and I've never been threatened with discipline for it.
6. Not everybody in ODP favors secrecy. Many feel there should be more light shed on what goes on. Others feel there should be less light shed.
7. More generally, except for the really brainless ones, just about every criticism seen outside ODP is discussed internally.
Bonus point: Some of the other best SEO blogs were deleted AFTER I listed them for a different reason, namely that they were "deeplinks" to the authors parent site, which was also listed. Exactly the same thing happened in other categories that have nothing to do with SEO. This has seriously demotivated me from editing blog categories, and I'm kind of treading water until I see what changes are made in that regard.
Extra bonus point: This very blog get a little bit of special treatment from me after Joost emailed me about it. This is not because he was a DMOZ editor. It was because I actually read the blog before I ever knew he was an editor, and hence had a particularly strong opinion about its listing-worthiness. THAT kind of bias is welcomed in the ODP, and rightly so. It's simply a bias in favor of listing sites one thinks well of.
CAM
Joost de Valk Aug 29th, 2007 at 11:13
Thx CAM, you give me some hope for DMOZ's future.
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 11:15
Rand I've worked in large organizations and in any day of the year there was always a few late for work, failing in their dress and deportment, some that stole, others that abused there authority, one case was child molestation and another; a murderer... but these varying degrees of non-compiance to good order and discipline and the rarer inhuman acts do not suggest the greater community needs reforming...
On the contrary -- you seemed to be the one that needed reforming... it has always been "just a link" - just an established link and no different than any other established link.
Joost de Valk Aug 29th, 2007 at 11:17
Fathom: that's not true. It has been way more than "just a link" in the past, and in some areas, it's still one of the best links you can get.
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 11:48
Kai [dont know why fathom is putting a lot of effort in defending the dmoz, you guys should put your efforts in throwing those corrupt editors out od dmoz instead.]
Actually for a variety of reasons that you may not think of.
I followed Joost opd profile link to here reviewed his blog and found it wasn't overly active in comments... and the one thing I do "GREAT" is spawn posts.
The fact that I commented first with an alternative position of Joost's posted findings and he didn't 'delete it' speaks volumes for integrity.
It's unfortunate that things transpired as they did but no matter what... "the system" cannot ignore one failing because another one started it.
As for defending OPD - I'm extremely vocal in my convictions and you don't need to look any further than where I usually post SEOChat to know when I disagree with you; you know it.
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 11:55
When Google killed (de-indexed) opd clones in 2004 the value was dropped to just x2 link value and since Google hasn't updated its own directory in 2 years any listing inclusion in 2006-2007 doesn't get the Google 'X2 kick' -- as such any extra link value you think you get today is only "preceived value" -- in fact you'll get more value in lesser quality domains by the added value of rich link anchor which in some instances in OPD isn't possible.
tytakest Aug 29th, 2007 at 12:20
"If AOL is serious about wanting to improve DMOZ, this would be a good place to start."
You did notice that the decision was "thoroughly reviewed by DMOZ staff"?
anonymous Aug 29th, 2007 at 12:22
I've been submitting sites to DMOZ for 2 years, relevant catagories and companies no2 or no3 in their field - i've submitted them twice now but with no feedback how can a webmaster be told why his site has no entry - despite submitting abuse forms about competitors with multiple catagory listings. As to the bribery, never heard of that before but with the secrecy around DMOZ editing it would not surprise me. If offered a bribe I would refuse it, any site that had that going on would de-value itself in my eyes. DMOZ through its closed nature and no-feedback culture again devalues itself.
As to the content of DMOZ, some of the worst sites ever i've seen in there.
Joost de Valk Aug 29th, 2007 at 12:24
@fathom: google recently re-merged Google Directory with DMOZ.
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 12:24
tytakest [“If AOL is serious about wanting to improve DMOZ, this would be a good place to start.�
You did notice that the decision was “thoroughly reviewed by DMOZ staff�?]
Which is to say they took alot more time to review than you.
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 12:33
As I understand Google has not done a rdf dump since Dec 19, 2005
Joost de Valk Aug 29th, 2007 at 12:36
Fathom: http://www.webmasterworld.com/directories/3425519.htm
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 12:51
anonymous [I’ve been submitting sites to DMOZ for 2 years]
...oh grow up... that really sucks but of course 590,000 categories with average 8000 editors - that about 74 category per editor and 4,830,584 listings - 603 listings per current editors... an editor is require to login an an edit once every 4 months... but let's say an editor reviews all 603 in that 4 months plus new listings ... submissions come in at a rate of 1200 per day (approx.) in 4 month that's 144,000 = 18 new listing to keep up with the backlog...
Now you might believe that a review is a 30 second venture... in fact most are an hour or longer, many are 2-3 hours and some are 40-50 people-hours... all of volunteer time.
Maybe you should "get involved" since you have a much better appreciation of how much time voluntary work is worth.
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 13:00
Please note in that post:
This information isn't 100% confirmed.
Since I've created 3 new categories previous unavailable in Google and the are still not in Google... they didn't update... they may indded downloaded the rdf but they haven't uploaded it.
PeteY Aug 29th, 2007 at 13:15
Surely the problem with DMOZ goes further than some of the critisisms on here. From a usabibility perspective, I have found it very slow for a while now, and whether it is dead or not, there is no doubting the fact it is/was in desperate need of an overhaul.
Secondly, there are infrastructure problemms at DMOZ. I tried on a nummber of occasians to apply to edit for the DMOZ directory, and was rejected on a number of occasians (stopped about three years ago) despite the fact that DMOZ did not and still does not have enough editors to keep the directory up to viable commercial standards. (I will be honest and add the applications were done on the quick - and thats is probably the reason - however it is more the lack of editors I amm keen to highlight)
Dmoz is a wonderful idea - and still could be a resounding success, but surely it needs to get its house in order quickly.
Public flaming/arguing like this surely doesn't help its perception either publically, commercially or within the industry though does it.
Joost de Valk Aug 29th, 2007 at 13:23
Fathom: they've updated it on some datacenters, a few of my sites are listed on those datacenters, whereas the listing is only 3 months old.
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 13:44
Whether they update or not really doesn't matter. "2 links" without rich keywords can be overpowered by 3 that are keyword rich.
Guk Aug 29th, 2007 at 13:54
DMOZ should seriously start improving their system. I understand that it is free to submit your websites, but there are really no ways to know why the website has been rejected or even if it has been reviewed.
DMOZ should improve the communication between webmasters and editors. Seriously.
No one cares about DMOZ anymore because there is no communication. People submit their websites in DMOZ and forget about it. As result, DMOZ becomes unpopular everyday.
Kudos to fathom for being so active.
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 13:58
PeteY [I tried on a nummber of occasians to apply to edit for the DMOZ directory, and was rejected on a number of occasians (stopped about three years ago) despite the fact that DMOZ did not and still does not have enough editors to keep the directory up to viable commercial standards.]
Since I'm not a Meta I don't chime in on applications... but I can tell you that those Meta that do take the review of an application very seriously.
If you went to a job interview and 'rush' your application form, resume etc. what are the changes of a first "bad impression".
The logic of the app process goes like this:
AA. You your trustworthy?
1. good spelling and grammar?
2. appreciates basic editing skills?
3. are they interest in editing a listing (theirs) or editing a category of listings?
4. is favoritism apparent?
5. knowledgeable of the topical area?
6. shown enthusiasm to edit?
If you score well in all these areas you are a shoein for an editorships... you may not get accepted but a reject does not mean "don't try again" the only time your should try again is when they say not to.
Peter Young Aug 29th, 2007 at 15:25
Fathom
Thanks for the overview above - tbh I have long since left the days behind of wanting to edit directories - however I do appreciate the time you have taken to respond to many of the comments above.
I do have to ask a question however - I have seen a number of well known SEO's in here including yourself - and surely by the mere fact we as SEO's are in in the industry for getting (DMOZ) links (maybe not so much now) draws the issue of impartiality of many of the editors into slightly murky territory. Would appreciate your thoughts on that
Richard Aug 29th, 2007 at 16:24
Its important that DMOZ do the right thing.
http://www.home-business-pays.com
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 16:50
Hello. Is anyone going to reply to me? I even offered to edit the catagory.
http://Dmoz.org.Suckered.Us is now main page of my site due to pageviews and currently number 10 of the top ten most read articles.
All I'm interested in is a discussion with someone who has any power to do anything and as I mentioned I've applied 5 times for the entertainment / reviews catagory and as you can see my site is strong enough to be in there. In fact do a look up on our friend the Big G for Dmoz.org .. My site should have a listing. If no one wants to login and edit a catagory for the next 4 months give me the damn job. I'll do it daily. That's called efficiency. Someone who logs in every 4 months has no business being an editor.
After reading above I note a comment about "What's the big deal.. Yahoo is a paid directory"
My reply to that is "Yes sure they are however they're clear about this in every manner whereas DMOZ editors are actually accepting bribes and hiding it under the table."
Unacceptable. If DMOZ wants to be a paid directory. I'd have no problem with that so long as every who pays gets in and good luck getting 5k for it happening.
Waiting for the email.
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 17:00
There must be alot of internal mailing going on at DMOZ
Here's the search results for my site there
Search: suckered
Open Directory Categories (1-1 of 1)
Shopping: Home and Garden: Kitchen and Dining: Baking (1 match)
Open Directory Sites (1-1 of 1)
Get Suckered - Source for chocolate and candy making supplies. Featuring kids baking products, over 120 flavored oils, thousands of sucker and lollipop molds, instructions and recipes.
-- http://www.getsuckered.com Shopping: Home and Garden: Kitchen and Dining: Baking (1)
And here's my traffic stats
- DMOZ 3987 17717
Whats that say?
Curt Monash Aug 29th, 2007 at 19:40
Chelsie,
Sites (like yours) that fit in the "Shopping" category would, I guess, have a particularly low rate of review.
I don't think it's one of the more active or up-to-date parts of ODP and DMOZ.
CAM
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 19:45
Shopping? LMAO - If you say so. Anything / anyone can be reviewed .. And the reads are tremendous.
Here's an update on how much Dmoz really doesn't like being on the front page of it.. From thier internal mailing system.
- DMOZ 6532 28785
No one's bothered to mail me yet to talk about this. Still awaiting. I'm not opposed to some discussion at all.
Honest Webmaster Aug 29th, 2007 at 20:14
Cmon google do no evil! Drop DMOZ now.
Curt Monash Aug 29th, 2007 at 20:57
If a site exists for the purpose of selling things, DMOZ classifies it as "Shopping."
If you didn't know that, you have NO grounds for complaint about your site submission or editor application being rejected or ignored.
That's quite separate from any questions along the lines of "Hey! Are you saying that e-commerce sites have a particularly low chance of getting added promptly??"
CAM
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 21:13
Peter Young Aug 29 [I have seen a number of well known SEO’s in here including yourself - and surely by the mere fact we as SEO’s are in in the industry for getting (DMOZ) links (maybe not so much now) draws the issue of impartiality of many of the editors into slightly murky territory. Would appreciate your thoughts on that.]
I edit at OPD for a few reasons...
1. I bookmark domains I find interesting - in topics I find interestings.
2. the feeling of accomplishment and saying "I did it"... I categorized a complete list of complementing domain for a topic that wasn't previously covered.
3. The backend community covers issues that no other forum covers - and it's a privilege to be able to comment and debate with others without public interruption
There are other but that's the first things to come to mind:
On the SEO side:
1. If you think you need opd listings to be a superb SEO - you are obsolete... there are so many other great places to get links from that are far easier and you don't need to violatre rules to get them.
2. OPD is just a blood link - it's so foolish for people to submit, wait, watch, and complain about not being lised for a month, 3 months, 8 months, 2 years... GOD! It's just a dumb link... in the 2 years you steamed over no action -- you could have bookmarks 1000 pages of your domain and been near #1 for any term you set your mind to.
I don't edit because I'm a SEO in need of links for client (or myself) I edit because it's great to be a part of something "BIGGER THAN YOUSELF"... I post at SEOChat for the same reason.
There isn't any "murky areas" for me and there isn't any conflict of interest issues either... On accepting an editorship I agreed to obey the material guidelines as written and in the spirit in which they are written... "if I can't... I MUST Resign"... it's that simple.
Curt Monash Aug 29th, 2007 at 21:13
By the way, Chelsie -- I don't understand your complaint anyway. You sound as if you're complaining that your site isn't listed. But you also sound as if you're saying it is listed, and is getting great traffic from DMOZ.
Rather confusing ...
CAM
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 21:24
It's not listed. This is internal traffic to the domain from thier system.
B. It's not a shopping site. You buy nothing on my site. People write articles good and bad.
C. It's a review site and It should be included in Entertainment / Reviews
D. We applied 5 times and never a single reply nor inclusion.
E. I'm really curious to see what DMOZ has to say about the people who are extorting funds to keep a listing in DMOZ .. That's the most interesting part here for me. I could care less if DMOZ adds me.. however It would be nice for an inclusion since it's worthy and was applied for. If they'd care to just clarify instead of beating around in circles I'd be as said more than happy to discuss removing my article. I'm quite sure if they were serious about clearing this mess up they'd be hunting vigorously for the people who's been accepting and offering bribes for inclusion. I won't state all DMOZ editors are bad apples because just like anything they aren't however one bad apple can spoil the whole box.
I still have no idea where you get SHOPPING from and actually quite offended almost like you catagorize shopping because I'm female.
Curt Monash Aug 29th, 2007 at 21:33
Chelsie,
Quoting from a prominent place on the front page of your site:
GetSuckered.com specializes in offering customers quality baking supplies.
That's a shopping site, by DMOZ's definition.
Again, if you don't know that, you have no basis for yelping.
Now, I'm assuming you know enough to describe your own website properly. If not, there's a whole different kind of problem here.
CAM
Curt Monash Aug 29th, 2007 at 21:37
And by the way -- I learned about the Shopping ghetto the hard way from one or two female editors. I still don't like that outcome -- a site offering an inexpensive informational book was classified as being in shopping, rather than in the area of the information covered -- but those are the (current) rules.
CAM
Curt Monash Aug 29th, 2007 at 21:38
Chelsie,
Looking again at your site, I find references to "Shopping cart" and "Need help with your order?"
I'm finding it VERY hard to believe that you don't offer anything for sale there.
CAM
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 21:44
What are you talking about? Are you looking at the right site?
http://www.Suckered.Us ... The site you're looking at is the only site listed on dmoz with the word suckered in it.
Curt Monash Aug 29th, 2007 at 22:15
I was referring to the getsuckered site whose URL you posted above.
As for this new URL you just posted, which now seems to be what you're talking about -- it's tough to figure out where it should go in DMOZ, if at all. It's not really a reviews site. It's more like a voting game. But I edit in Games, and I'm pretty sure there isn't a great place for it there.
Maybe Society/Issues/Online Issues Polls?
I don't know. It's pretty lightweight in terms of information provided, nor is it obviously a recreational site. It may be hard to find a category where an editor would agree it deserves to be listed.
CAM
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 22:23
Maybe Society/Issues/Online Issues Polls?
I would think again Entertainment / Reviews
however perhaps Maybe Society/Issues/Online Issues Polls?
I'm quite sure it qualifies for either section. Any suggestions then since you are an editor there? Perhaps you may contact someone internal and we can discuss proper placement of my site and the link removal?. I can see that you're obviously an editor with some tact. This is appreciated.
admin @ suckered.us is where I can be contacted.
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 22:24
http://www.Suckered.Us … The site you’re looking at [[[is the only site listed on dmoz]]] with the word suckered in it.
If it's listed on dmoz - what's the problem?
I'm pretty good at deciphering what people mean when they don't know proper terminology but you clearly state http://www.Suckered.Us is listed on dmoz... don't you?
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 22:34
No it's not. GetSuckered is ... http://www.Suckered.Us should be and has been applied for repeatedly and no replies.
I'm just curious as to why no one has ever added it after the repeated submissions.
Sorry for the wording if it was confusing. http://www.Suckered.Us is not listed at all in DMOZ
Anthony Aug 29th, 2007 at 22:35
Rand, I have to say a I am a bit surprised by your comment:
"I’m not sure why that’s so bad, though - Yahoo! is a for-pay directory, and most of the others are pay-to-play as well."
You're kidding, right? Yahoo is a company providing services. Paying DMOZ editors under the table is enabling the corruption. AOL should be ashamed to have ownership of this. I am even more sorry to see that no one has the courage to expose this dark side of AOL.
Curt Monash Aug 29th, 2007 at 22:40
Chelsie,
There's a general suggestion from DMOZ that submitters be careful about figuring out which category their site belongs in. That advice applies triple to a site like yours, that isn't easy to categorize.
Now, in my personal opinion, the paradigm of a site belonging in one and only one category is obsolete. But if you want to be listed in today's DMOZ, that's part of today's paradigm.
CAM
Curt Monash Aug 29th, 2007 at 22:42
And by the way, Chelsie -- based on the communication clarity you have (not) shown in this thread, I would hope that your applications to be an editor would continue to be turned down.
The hostility you've shown is not uncommon. The inability to make yourself understood, however, would be pretty unusual in the ODP.
CAM
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 22:43
OK Cam acceptable answer.
Next question.
As an experienced DMOZ editor in "your" opinion then where should this site be applied for to have inclusion. I will attempt in the spot.
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 22:45
By the way. For the record. I'm far from hostile Cam. however I do not like scandal. No one does. I simply required answers. Forgive my bluntness. It's very decent of you to speak as openly as you are about certain things. Most of the editors are likely hiding from this it would seem.
Curt Monash Aug 29th, 2007 at 22:54
Chelsie,
I'm going to start with the unhelpful answers "I don't know" and "Nowhere near any place I usually edit" (which is basically in Computers and Games).
If the correct place is "Society" -- and I think it is -- that section is well-nigh incomprehensible to anybody who doesn't have experience with it because, following the lead of Usenet, it's kind of a catch-all hodge-podge.
That said -- the site is all about polls, so I'd look for a category with "polls" in its name, perhaps the one I mentioned above.
Good luck,
CAM
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 22:59
Thank you Cam I will submit in those two and post results.
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 23:05
Submission Received
Your site submission has been received.
An editor will review your submission for inclusion in the directory.
Once your site has been accepted into the Open Directory, it may take anywhere from 2 weeks to several months for your site to be listed on partner sites which use the Open Directory data, such as AOL Search, AltaVista, HotBot, Google, Lycos, Netscape Search, etc. We make updates of the data available weekly, but each partner has their own update schedule
Chelsie Murphy Aug 29th, 2007 at 23:07
Oh I forgot to post where applied.
http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Online_Issues_Polls/
Thanks for the help Curt.
fathom Aug 29th, 2007 at 23:17
[[[By the way. For the record. I’m far from hostile Cam. however I do not like scandal. No one does. I simply required answers. Forgive my bluntness. ]]]
Ya many time by pointed responses give an impression of being pissed off... but it rarely (if ever) is a case of disgruntled dialog.
I too am "blunt" to ensure my correspondence is understood ans meant.
To direct address your listing concerns... it is unfortunately truth that "most submissions go without any action"... and that has more to do with timings and personal desires than any form of corruption.
Few editors have "unlimited personal time" to categorically review a domain at any give moment. From experience when I have but a few minutes to spare (and not enough time to do a full review)... I'd first:
1. comb the quene for duplicate submissions and delete the dupliciates (this is the easiest challenge.
2. quick review of inappropriate listing for this category ( e.g. a retail store for consumers is not a B2B manufacturer nor supplier for other business) these is "almost as easy to sweep out to more appropriate categories... but you do need to do a "review" so they are more time challenging.
3. noted domains - a noted domain is easy to stop and requires absolutely no thought on my part... a Meta (senior editor) has previously weighed in on the "do not list" and no matter how I feel about the domain "I cannot list".
4. what's left are reviewable domains and these a(in my areas of editorship take 2-3 hours to complete 'each'. Noting that I do have a life outside of opd so I tend to "review" 3-4 domains in a month and in that it is about 1 1/2 business days of freely offered time.
There is no question in my mind ... the best approach for listing is "get involved"... but to do this you do need to do your homework... an editorship application isn't just something you "throw together" since that action tend to suggest that's how you would approach your editing duties... (e.g. not very professionally).