DMOZ Rejected!

Never said you did anything wrong listing your own site, just that after you had done so you jumped ship, that is quite a different comment.

There is no problem listing a site that one owns, provided it qualifies to be listed and one is not treating ones own site better than anyone elses. But I think that editors who list their site and then leave show that they signed up to just get there own site listed, that does leave a nasty taste. I also pointed out that the records of editing show clearly which sites an editor has added, altered or deleted so other editors can see the way an editor has been working and if that shows that their own site has been treated better or perfectly listable sites deleted for no reason than the editor can be held to account.

 

lol...

If even a single person runs through your other threads on me listing my own site, at least that one member will see through your complete and total BS.

And to think, you are an editor for methodist and christian sites. You make baby jesus proud with your lies.

 

Thats funny.....its not so long ago that you were claiming he wasnt an Editor and daring him to prove it. Gheez i wish you would make up your mind

 

Slight correction.......that was daring "her" to prove it!

 

Either way I guess that DMOZ editor have very little to do because it's nearly impossible submit a website for review.

If any of you have tried in the last few years, the site is plagued with CGI errors preventing people from submitting sites.

If sites aren't submitted, there is no need of editors and I agree that your seems a standard rejection reply to anyone.

 

I dont know why you find it hard to submit a site???? Theres thousands PER DAY that are having no trouble suggesting their sites.

 

That's interesting since DMOZ has not used any CGI scripts for the last few (almost 2) years...

 

Getting into DMOZ sucks!
They take 20 days to review the application and if they reject you, you'll have to wait another 20 days for only a chance to get in.

 

Seriously....i dont know where you people come up with this crap No one has ever stated a 20 day time limit in any way, shape or form. In fact it may be YEARS before a site is reviewed and listed so how about getting your facts straight.

 

So you are saying that SHE (I guess that was a an acknowledgement of gender from her in her reply to you *boggle*) is an editor for Methodist sites? I have been told that she is revr, but have yet to actually see proof of it. I have more proof that I am an editor then she does, but honestly, why cant you editors make up your minds?

Have I done something wrong by listing my own site?
Have I not done something wrong by listing my own site?
If I am wrong about her being an editor, why reply hinting that she is?
If I am wrong about her not being an editor, why hint that she isn't?

And its me that you all claim is twisting things around... no matter what I say, an editor (or three) comes in and disagrees with me. *sheesh*

If I started saying exactly the opposite of what I think, will you all start actually talking bad about the ODP yourself (bad as in accepting the truth). For instance, if I started to defend the thousands of links Skrenta has, will you all get around to actually deleting them because they break multiple guidelines?

I stick to what I say for the most part... save on the matter of whether or not she is an editor, because the only proof I have of such is hearsay....which if hearsay is valid proof, then I hear that the ODP is just full to the top with corruption

 

from the social contract:

6. Our Priorities are Our Data Users and the Community

You shouldn't be an editor (and you should learn to spell "their").

 

We care about people using our Data....the end users, the net surfers. We have absolutely no interest in helping a webmaster improve his seo, his serps or whatever.....we are not here for webmasters. That is never what ODP was about.

Well what do you know.....im not perfect Lucky i use the spell checker when i do my edits You would be a pretty tough Boss, one spelling mistake and i get kicked out from the Editing Team (lol). I obviously should aspire to be as perfect as you

 

spelliing makes no difference unless it's so bad you can not understand what is being said.

And point 6 from above, its important to note that the COMMUNITY is referring to the editors....not the end user.

The end user is the looser in the ODP, as they get nothing out of it these days.

 

True, spelling makes no difference, but this is grammer.

True, the end user is the loser today.

This isn't just a rant, I'd like some real opinions. Aside from the fact that ODP is dead, some people still think it is important. I just got banned from the ODP forums because I told some people the truth. People were posting, asking when their sites would get listed. I replied to 4 of them with this message (true to the best of my knowledge):

You're really better off without DMOZ. I submitted my first site 10 years ago, when that was the way to get listed. I provided the description I wanted, but the editors ignored what I wrote and wrote their own very bad and inaccurate description which showed up on all the search engines. Back then DMOZ descriptions took precedence over meta tag descriptions. Over the years I resubmitted new descriptions only to be ignored. When I recently asked them on the forum to either change my description or remove my listing and gave good reasons for my request,

Editor pvgool said:

BTW we do not remove listed websites on request
If you want a website to be removed you have 2 options
1. remove the website from the internet
2. change the website to a kind of website DMOZ does not want to list

DMOZ does not list websites on request of anybiody.
DMOZ does not update listings on request of anybody.
DMOZ does not remove listings on request of anybody.
The only thing people can doe is make suggestions.
And editors will decide what they will do with those suggestions.
DMOZ is not a service offered to people who own websites.

Editor jimnoble said "ODP is a volunteer organisation building a directory as a hobby"

Today's search engines no longer use the DMOZ index, not even AOL, the owners of DMOZ. So they really aren't even volunteers because they don't provide a service. They are just people working on their hobby, using ODP's search engine submittal history to attract new submittals which they can't fulfill.

If you manage to get your site listed on DMOZ it is more likely to damage your SEO efforts. The editors are likely to rewrite your description (Editor jimnoble said they rewrite most of them) and then refuse to change it. Not that anyone will ever see it, but if someone does, they will probably see a description that is not even close to what you want to convey.

Remember what pvgool said, "DMOZ is not a service offered to people who own websites". DMOZ does not intend to help your SEO efforts. DMOZ is a hobby directory for people that have nothing better to do. They are not professionals. They can rewrite your description to anything they want. Both jimnoble and pvgool told me that was not considered editor abuse!!!! You will have no recourse except maybe take AOL to court (lol). They will sabotage you and then tell you if you don't like it you can remove your site from the web.

If you want to promote your site, use the Google and/or Bing Webmaster Tools.

http://www.google.com/webmasters/

It's better that DMOZ never know anything about your site.


Of course when I tried to contact the community administrator my email was returned as undeliverable. The "report editor abuse link is broken", there apparently is no accountability at all.

Does this seem a little autocratic or is it my imagination? Where is the "open" in ODP? Why would the administrators (editors) be afraid of people hearing the truth? (that is a rhetorical question) Shouldn't site owners know what may happen to them if they do get their sites listed? Shouldn't they be informed up front that a listing in DMOZ doesn't affect their visibility in the search engines? Doesn't AOL care? Doesn't it affect AOL's reputation, or is that shot too?

The ODP site still says:

If 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, Google, Netscape Search, Yahoo Search, and hundreds of other sites. We make updates of the data available weekly, but each partner has their own update schedule.

Thanks for your comments, even the editors (you too Jim)
GW

 

FTR, gwbush's thread at RZ was closed when he started insulting the nationality of the few editors who had the patience to communicate with him and subsequently marked as a spammer for bumping other threads to add the message above. He was made accountable for his own actions.

<added> His user name was mouseman at RZ. </added>

 

gwbush,

Not quite sure where to start, your post indicates that you misunderstand several key aspects of how DMOZ works.

This is an opinion not fact. DMOZ gets a large volume of site suggestions and editor applications per day, this would indicate that DMOZ is far from 'dead'. Editors are volunteers and work within the expectations set-out in the guidelines. I am sorry if you feel that is inadequate but that is the nature of a volunteer model.

DMOZ is under no obligation to use the description/title you attached to your site suggestion. In fact, you agreed to this when you suggested your website. Please see http://www.dmoz.org/termsofuse.html in particular:

As pvgool and jimnoble pointed out, if you object to the terms you agreed to, then you will need to contact AOL's legal department. Sites that meet the guidelines are only removed when they no longer meet our inclusion guidelines or when we get a request from AOL legal to remove a site.

We have guidelines that editors are expected to follow when writing a description. These are covered at http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html if you feel your sites description does not accurately describe your website or does not follow those guidelines you are welcome to visit the category where your site is listed and submit and update request. Please note that DMOZ is under no obligation to accept your request, if it is determined that the current description is suitable and within the guidelines.

That is incorrect. Google (and possibly Bing) still use DMOZ data. Sometimes when Google cannot capture snippet data directly from a site, it checks to see if the site is listed in DMOZ. If the site is listed in DMOZ, Google uses the DMOZ title/description. This is one of the reasons the 'noodp' tag was created. There are many easy to find examples of this (I recently posted one in a neighboring thread).

I am sorry your email was returned as undeliverable. I am an administrator for the project, you are welcome to pm me a copy of your email, or you can follow the link in my signature and email it via the feedback link on my DMOZ profile.

What do you mean by this? ODP is not a search engine.

We have many professionals within the editorial community, however you are correct in that editors are not required to have an editing qualification or credential. Anyone is welcome to submit an editor application, we are always looking for volunteer editors. Professional editors would require a salary, which would mean DMOZ would have to charge for listings. This would be contrary to our social contract (http://www.dmoz.org/socialcontract.html) which says:

And before any of the forum trolls jump in, yes, some editors try/have tried to charge for a listing. This is against the guidelines and considered editorial abuse. When those editors are caught, they are removed from the project. If you find any editors attempting to charge for a listing, please sent me a pm or an email via my DMOZ profile with as much information as you can.

pvgool and jimnoble are correct. Rewriting a description is not considered editoral abuse as long as it follows our description style guidelines. Again the TOS make it clear that DMOZ and its editors have unfettered editorial discretion.

Open refers to the fact we offer our data free for anyone to use, so long as they provide proper attribution as described on http://www.dmoz.org/license.html (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License).

Why? How search engines use DMOZ data has nothing to do with DMOZ. If someone buys a Ford and uses that Ford as a get-away vehicle in a robbery, is Ford responsible for the way the vehicle was used? Of course not...

 

My username was Deermouse, not mouseman, and your point???

1) As for being accountable for my own actions, I have no problem taking responsibility for getting banned. I was not surprised. As an editor you had every right to ban me it you wanted, since there is no moderator. By the end of our conversation I was as done with DMOZ as the rest of the internet, but that was not the question.

As for patience, one of the people I communicated with privately told me he thought you were both insulting, but he had to play "nice" because it was a public forum.

2) I did not insult your nationality. I commented that you were both Europeans (maybe a fine distinction). But as for the "insult" itself, my comment amounted to your autocratic attitude, which is typical of the general attitude across much of Europe that has gotten it into its recent financial problems. ("we will do whatever we please regardless of who it hurts"). Of course the U.S. has it's own problems, time will tell if we deal with them better.

3) You never addressed the question: Is my comment true? Do website owners have a right to know what they are signing up for when they submit a site to DMOZ? And if so why would the editors (I'm guessing you in this case) want to prevent them from knowing the truth? Is misleading website owners in this way ethical?

You've got every right to tell your side, but an attack on my actions, right or wrong, without answering the question is just a redirect.

 

They did not point that out. I pointed it out as if anyone is going to take AOL to court.

No, but if Ford sells you a car telling you that the US Armed Forces are partners and use mostly Fords as their primary vehicles, they are responsible.

I didn't say ODP was a search engine, but it was touted as THE way to get your site submitted to the search engines in the past. Even on the ODP site "If 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, Google, Netscape Search, Yahoo Search, and hundreds of other sites. We make updates of the data available weekly, but each partner has their own update schedule."

Show me something from google. Post it here. I'd be surprised if it isn't incredibly obscure. On my site I don't need the <noodp> tag, google uses what is on the site as do the other search engines. As far as I can tell the <noodp> tag serves as much purpose today as ODP. None.

This is not a profession, it is a hobby as stated by a number of editors, both here and on the ODP forums. Editors have no jobs to protect by being responsive to their customers. In fact they have [virtually] no customers.

I'm not concerned with the email I sent to the community administrator. I'm concerned that there is no community administrator to send an email to, as there is no way to report editor abuse (due to the reporting system being broken). This is just symptomatic of a system that if it isn't dead yet, is dying.

I admit that in my case I entered into a bad agreement and it is my fault. I did so in an age when submitting to ODP was considered the de facto way to get listed in the search engines. I think other people who may be about to enter into a bad agreement should be allowed to understand and decide for themselves.

You've commented on almost every aspect of my post pointing out small dependencies (maybe), which is fine. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see a comment about the real issue.

If you manage to get your site listed on DMOZ it is more likely to damage your SEO efforts. The editors are likely to rewrite your description (Editor jimnoble said they rewrite most of them) and then refuse to change it. Not that anyone will ever see it, but if someone does, they will probably see a description that is not even close to what you want to convey.

Gotta go. It looks like I've got a lot of reply's to address. I must have touched a nerve.

paul

 

Clearly the editors in general are not concerned about the end user. My site is intended to help people with various mouse problems and my ODP provided description made the site sound like it was nothing more than an egotistical site about me. It is not a commercial site, I don't make money at what I do, it just provides helpful information to people that are looking for that information (as a hobby). The provided description probably steered some (maybe many) people away from the very information they were looking for. Steering people to what they are looking for is SEO, not just getting your site on the search engines so you can sell more stuff. When I pointed this out to Jim and pvgool, pvgool said if I didn't like it I could remove my site from the web. Your attitude towards SEO sounds just like that. Just because someone wants to sell something doesn't mean that someone who wants to buy it should be steered away from it. Your job as an editor should be to weed out sites that are deceptive, if possible. I believe that ODP itself has become deceptive. You shouldn't be an editor because you could care less about the people that entrust their sites into your care. Not because you can't spell.

The spelling issue was a side issue. Actually your spelling is correct, apparently because you use a spell checker (as do I). Too bad they don't have a grammar checker.

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll catch me in a mistake. But God I hope it isn't something like using there for their or your for you're.

paul

 

DMOZ claims their (not there) social contract is derived from the Devian Social Contract which says:

1. . . .
2. . . .
3. We will not hide problems We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become visible to others.
4. Our priorities are our users and free software We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. [equivalent to web users and web site publishers - gwbush] We will place their interests first in our priorities. . . .

But that is the Debian Social Contract. It would seem that the DMOZ terms of use (which basically says that DMOZ can do what ever they want with your data) are in conflict with the Devian Social Contract, so claiming that as a basis of the DMOZ social contract would appear to be fraudulent.