Remove Listing from DMOZ

At least MSN recognizes that ODP is less than unbiased:

Opting Out of Open Directory Listings for Webmasters

Now if only Google would follow their lead.....

 

Excellent find, CReed!

From Opting Out of Open Directory Listings for Webmasters:

 

Yes Creed great find. I can see some of the editors coming out of the wood works for this.

 

Now, if the Google and the others would just do the same we can all be happy.

 

Yes well thats in the future I daresay, but at the moment :

Google uses mathematical equations to sort out the good sites from the bad... Dmoz relies on people, humans to look at a site and decide if it complies with all said guidelines. If it doesn't AND is still listed, then it's open to anyone to report for contravening the said guidelines.

Google ? Well, webmasters could only hope to have such a luxury !! And if it crashes 1000 businesses and has 2000 webmasters go bankrupt tomorrow and the day after. It's all in the automatic applied alogorithims and maths. Tough luck really as far as I can see it. There is no comeback.

The only across the board guideline in any category in Dmoz is having a good informative site in your niche. The only drawback is time and not enough editors. There are not enough editors because most only apply to categories that will enable them to list their own sites.

Self interest will be the downfall of Dmoz and not from the majority of contributing editors like those that post here.. Annie, Imocr, Sid, Brizzie ( come back !). But it's there in editor applications and why so many get refused, and in past edits where so many have only their own site at heart. Then leave without a backward glance.

There are always exceptions and questionable listings. But IMHO, you put far, far too much SEO focus and blame on listing/or not listing a site...on the shoulders of too few who don't and cannot ever apply SEO according to Dmoz guidelines.

Thats it folks for me in this thread.

( ps I really want to go to UK Digital Spy and catch up with UK Big Brother but this keeps coming up first and I can't resist a nosey ).

 

I agree and that is what I have said previously. The question is why DMOZ powers have no interest in implementing procedures that makes abuse and corruption very difficult and in the same time opens the door to more volunteers. Is it because such procedures, makes the abuse more difficult for EVERYONE?

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=87888
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=88168

 

You have hit upon the main conundrum facing dmoz. If they throw the doors wide open to new editors with limited scrutiny they get a whole heap of self interested (read abusive and corrupt) editors. If they closely scrutinize new editor applications and exclude those who seem likely to be self interested they are accused of being closed and exclusive (read abusive and corrupt). No amount of trite from you will change that basic reality.

 

I agree but not in the usual sense. Meta editors spend zillions of hours tracking down self interested editor who seek to stuff up the integrity of the directory. And in the main they are very good at weeding out these slime. However there is potentially a point where meta editors loose sight of the bigger picture of building a comprehensive directory and begin to view editors as potential abusers rather than potential directory builders. And these bot-like posters here (like Mr gworld)whose every post is a variant of the mantra “all dmoz editors are corrupt, all dmoz editors exclude the listings of their competitors” do nothing but increase the siege mentality of dmoz

 

What is it with you that you always miss the point in any discussion?

The solution to the problem is in 2 steps:

1) Implement procedures that makes abuse very difficult

2) Then accept more volunteers, so the directory can grow

Problem with the above solution is that it will stop abuse for ALL editors including senior editors and that is the reason it is not acceptable.

 

Now, now. Show some compassion, gworld. He seems to be doing his best with the very limited resources accessible to him.

He apparently doesn't even recognize the inherent contradiction in first saying:

and then saying:

Earth to neb: "the siege mentality of dmoz" is caused by the refusal and/or inability of DMOZ to acknowledge and repair the problems within the organization, not by people pointing out those problems.

 

From wikipedia "A siege occurs when an attacker encounters a city or fortress that refuses to surrender and cannot be easily taken by a frontal assault." And that is exactly what is happening to dmoz. It is under attack by several means, frontally by nasty little lying SEOs who will attempt to cheat lie and attempt to bribe their way in, by lying editor applicants trying to tunnel under the walls and finally by the likes of you and gw hurling diseased corpses over the wall.

 

And why do you suppose it is under attack by so many means and so many people, neb?

"There is nothing wrong with DMOZ. All DMOZ needs is to find a way to shut up its critics and the world would be perfect." ~ neb, The DMOZ Credo

Fear not, DMOZ apologists, for neb, with an IQ bigger than most people's shoe sizes, has arrived to save you all. You can all rest easy, safe in your hammocks, for you are in good hands indeed.

 

Don't give me that BS, I am the one of the first to point out the problems with the directory. You and your faithful sidekick are not part of the solution.

 

I'm sure you're a credit to your species, neb.

 

What problems did you point out and what is your solution?
It seems the only problem that you see is the fact the people are talking about the problems.

 

Gworld I'm the first to admire ( secret fantasy man and all that ) that you are extremely good at pointing out areas of concern.

But how would you weed out those how apply for editorship under genuine interest in helping Dmoz and those would only edit to get their own site listed ? I know it's as bone of contention of yours. That editors only sign up and list their own sites.

What would you do to combat this seeing as 'self-interest'...you say potato (editors ) I say pot-ato ( webmasters ).

I have got to say really and honestly if I was a meta that I would have no clue as to which is which. I assume they have more 'weeding out' tools than I have. But what would you do if you had your way ? And is there such a thing as automatic screening ?

I'm really not being sarcastic, just very interested in stopping abuse like yourself and well, we both know that Dmoz is crying out for unbiased editors. How do you stop the overtly biased ones from applying 20 times, making it, listing their own and then leaving.

How would you play it, if it was up to you ?

Dmoz so needs more editors, there are 100's of categories in need of a helping hand and we'd be so glad of it with those that are genuinely interested in editing. Not just listing their own sites then leaving. What would you do to combat this 'self-interest' thing ?

 

Let me ask you what is more tempting for a dishonest person, having access to a lot of cash, awarding a contract that can profit the person with tens of thousands of dollars or listing a site in DMOZ?
Do the banks stop hiring people because they are afraid that people are tempted to steal the money? Do governments or big corporation stop hiring people because the employees can award the purchase orders to their friends? NO, they don't. They implement procedures that independent of the person intentions, they can do their work but are not able to abuse the situations.

What are the 2 main temptations in DMOZ?

1) Listing a site fast and before anyone else.
2) Listing a site that does not qualify to be listed.

Implement procedures that effectively stops this 2 abuse and DMOZ can accept as many editors as DMOZ wants without any problems. Your next question will probably be , is it difficult to implement such procedures? The answer is NO, it is very easy but such procedures will stop the abuse for EVERYBODY and that is not acceptable for some of the senior editors.

 

Inappropriate titles and descriptions (e.g. keyword stuffing) would be number 1 on my list.

 

Let me think, why am I not surprised that you missed the point again?

I know; because you always do.