I have a complaint against ODP for removal my site.I would like to know whom I need to contact to file legal complaint. I posted in resource-zone but I could not get any answers whom to contact except for post here and we'll ax you anyway,

I think you should contact your attorney.

have you ever read the ODP terms of use (http://dmoz.org/termsofuse.html) ?

I guess you're referring to http://www.sellmycar.com and the very long thread at http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28320 . (Onlookers will probably want to start at post 25 where tomasz's URL changes to http://www.sellmycar.com .)

I'd like to remind you that http://www.sellmycar.com has never been listed in ODP.

Before taking legal action, you'll probably want your lawyer to take a look at our submission guidelines at http://dmoz.org/add.htm . These are the ones that have to be acknowledged to proceed with the site submission process.

These extracts are relevent to your situation.We don't accept all sites, so please don't take it personally should your site not be accepted.We may reject, delete, or edit submissions that violate these policies or that we otherwise believe, in our sole discretion, should not be included in the directory.

You might also want to get him/her to examine http://dmoz.org/termsofuse.html which includeWe may edit, move, or delete any content on the ODP (including content that you have provided) or terminate all or part of the ODP without notice or liability for any reason at our sole discretion. You acknowledge that Netscape and the ODP staff have unfettered editorial discretion to determine the structure and content of the ODP and that, because a site's placement in the directory is subject to change or deletion at any time, you may not rely on any aspect of a site's inclusion in the directory. You agree to waive any claim related to the inclusion, placement, exclusion, or removal of any site in the ODP or to the title or description of any site appearing in the ODP.
If you're detetermined to go ahead with legal action, please contact AOL's legal department. (I'm only a volunteer. I expect they're in the phone book).

Standard operating procedure here is that once legal action has been threatened (as it has), we refrain from all further contact, leaving that to the legal professionals at AOL.

Thank you for the information, jimnoble and I would like to add that the Open Directory is a "volunteer" directory. As such, they do not have to include your site or if it is included, they do not have to keep it there. Therefore threatening legal action against them is just silly. Unless you pay someone for a service and it is not provided, which is not the case here, you really have no legal right to sue someone for a volunteer effort, whether it is offered or not.

My viewpoint on ODP submissions: Submit and then go on with your life. If your site is listed, great but if not, then simply move one. There is nothing you can do about it.

Jim, Thanks for you reply.

I am not trying to threatened anybody, I am looking for proper channel to fill my complaint/concern.
I am know you are all volunteers but sometimes you making decisions based on wrong assumptions, what I think, it is the case in my situation and living 'inappropriate comments', like look somewhere else, forget it .. you are banned, etc..

I just asked for advise..


The point is, you have not even read my post Jim and you put black hat on my head because you assuming a lot things..

I do not think I did anything wrong Jim, If you just read my post
regards tom

Tom, really as I said above, your best bet is to simply move on. ODP doesn't have to list your site. They do not exist for webmaster but rather they exists to build a directory at their discretion. Therefore you have no leg to stand on in complaining. There are plenty of other directories out there that will give you link pop.

I am not an ODP editor but I do understand how it works. I submit sites there and even follow up on them if not listed but I am never upset when a site is not listed or if it takes two years to list a site ... those kind of things. I completely understand that they are "not obligated" in any way to list my site. Therefore if they do, it is a gift. If they don't, there are plenty of other directories in the sea!

David, thanks for advise

DMOZ has a varied talent of editors, but ultimately, it's always going to come down to a subjective decision on any particular situation. Sometimes that will be favourable, othertimes, not.

If a site is rejected from one particular category, it doesn't mean to say that it might not fit in another category just as well. And as an additional tip, it's very easy to overlook the local listings in DMOZ, where it's possible to get an additional listing.

Some part of ODP I think are run brilliantly, other areas I think could do with more effort. That's just a reflection of the fact that it is such a huge resource and there are so many people involved in the project. Overall, as with any organisation though, once a decision is made, you generally have to accept that and move on.

If you desperately want to get listed in DMOZ, hopefully a couple of the suggestions above will help.

You are not going to win this one - move on. The thread at RZ that Jim pointed out makes it obvious why. Find other means to promote your site.

Despite their claims that what they're doing is a-ok, what they're doing is, in my opinion, actionable.

Every other company in the world is responsible for their minions' behavior when it comes to corruption, including tortuous interference with business.

I would suggest contacting Hagens Berman (http://www.hagens-berman.com), who have successfully taken AOL on before. They're unafraid. :p

including tortuous interference with business.

And where, pray tell, does it say that ODP has anything at all whatsoever to do with businesses?

What in the world would make you think that ODP has any responsibility to any business? And what's corrupt about not including sites that have no content in a directory based on adding valuable content from the web?

Some people seem to think the world owes them a living and they need to get a grip and get real. Where does that idea come from, except from some kind of narcisistic self-delusion?

I agree with those who say just submit your site and forget about it.

However, if your site was removed without just cause, your lawyer may be interested in seeing some of the blatant spam sites listed at ODP, or some of those which have multiple listings. I've seen as many as 19 ODP listings for one site. Your lawyer may also be interested to know that in order to get listed in the Google Directory, your site must be listed in ODP first. Further, it is not too difficult to prove an economic advantage of sites listed in ODP (particularly with respect to Google) over those that are not.

How can I submit a web page to the Google Directory?

The web pages in the Google directory have been selected by thousands of volunteer editors from the Netscape Open Directory Project. If you would like to submit a web page to be included in future versions of the directory, you may submit the web page directly to the Open Directory by following the instructions here.

http://www.google.com/dirhelp.html#submit

I suggest that everyone urge Google to stop using ODP as a directory basis due to problems such as spam and, yes....interference. There are a handful of excellent editors who refuse to acknowledge the problems and are under the false impression that ODP has nothing to do with business. Google believes otherwise.

SearchMe:
Despite their claims that what they're doing is a-ok, what they're doing is, in my opinion, actionable.
You obviously missed the bit in Jim posts referring to what you agree to when you suggest a site - I suggest you read it. Any lawyer will take one look at that and tell you to take a hike.

Sully:
However, if your site was removed without just cause, your lawyer may be interested in seeing some of the blatant spam sites listed at ODP, or some of those which have multiple listings. I've seen as many as 19 ODP listings for one site
Really? Why is that of concern to a lawyer? What law has DMOZ actually broken by listing a site 19 times?. CNN has >200 000 listings in DMOZ (>3000 in Yahoo Directory) - are you trying to tell us that this is somehow illegal?

Sully, you also must have missed the bit in Jims post above about what you agree to when you submit a site - ie:
You agree to waive any claim related to the inclusion, placement, exclusion, or removal of any site in the ODP or to the title or description of any site appearing in the ODP.
The first poster brought all the troubles on himself by his own actions (read the RZ thread Jim linked). Sully - did you read the bit in Jims post where is said the site was never listed in the first place, so your "if your site was removed without just cause" is irrelevant. You obviously have a DMOZ bashing agenda and jumped straight into hijack the topic of the thead to whine without reading the facts of the case in the messages above.

Despite their claims that what they're doing is a-ok, what they're doing is, in my opinion, actionable.

In my opinion, it is not.

Any lawyer will take one look at that and tell you to take a hike.

One just did.

Ian McAnerin, BASc, LLB

Sully:

What law has DMOZ actually broken by listing a site 19 times?.

Uh...its own guidelines? The listings were removed from the directory. See abuse thread at resource zone. It was abuse.

CNN has >200 000 listings in DMOZ

LOL...see above re: abuse. Those listings can be accessed from one URL - www.cnn.com


You obviously have a DMOZ bashing agenda

Nope, not at all.

Uh...its own guidelines?

Where is it against the guidelines for sites to have multiple listings in multiple categories? Also since when were guidelines given the force of law (ie illegal?)

It is against the guidelines to submit sites and deeplinks of sites to multiple categories. There is nothing wrong with editors listing sites multiple times and deeplinks to sites if it adds value to a category. Thats well within the guidelines and is not abuse. Obviously the >200 000 listings that CNN have were gained as the category editor felt the link added value to the category

I guess it easy to critisize something when you don't have a full understandng of it... that makes it DMOZ bashing and whining.

Where is it against the guidelines for sites to have multiple listings in multiple categories?

You'll have to ask the editor who removed the 19 listings, which I agree with, by the way.

Also since when were guidelines given the force of law (ie illegal?)

Never, of which I am aware. You do not comprehend what I have written.

Obviously the >200 000 listings that CNN have were gained as the category editor felt the link added value to the category.

No comment, as I believe the relevance to the 19 listing example is painfully clear.

I guess it easy to critisize something when you don't have a full understandng of it... that makes it DMOZ bashing and whining.

If I am guilty of bashing anything (and I don't think I am), it would have to be Google for using ODP as the basis for its directory. The ODP directory is full of spam whether you like it or not, or whether or not you choose to do anything about it as an editor. The ODP directory listings do provide sites with an economic advantage over those not listed.

Did I mention that my site is listed?

>>The ODP directory is full of spam whether you like it or not

No doubt a good part of it being bait and switch - which doesn't get near the air time it should.

There is, however, other highly significant value that ODP has in terms of what's usable data for a search engine, other than just the individual sites listed. But that relates to things other than what many of the webmasters' personal agenda is, as is clearly indicated by it never being mentioned, so if they want to shoot themselves in the foot and not think past the personal - so much the better for the rest of us.

If I am guilty of bashing anything (and I don't think I am), it would have to be Google for using ODP as the basis for its directory.

My 2 cents;
Better bash away while you can. A while ago google removed the link to their directory from their front page. Google is also, changing the location of their directory, the old URL is directory.google.com (3rd level sub-domain), the new URL is www.google.com/dirhp.
IMHO, the google directory is on its way out...

Hopefully a change is coming but it still states the following here http://www.google.com/dirhelp.html#submit



Quote:
How can I submit a web page to the Google Directory?

The web pages in the Google directory have been selected by thousands of volunteer editors from the Netscape Open Directory Project. If you would like to submit a web page to be included in future versions of the directory, you may submit the web page directly to the Open Directory by following the instructions here.

I just had to look. :( We all need more links to auction listings, eh? Quality content. It seems the only way to get thousands of listings is if the whole world already knows you exist, and already knows where to find you.

eBay Original Comic Art listings - eBay is the dominant 24/7 online auction location for original comic book artwork.
-- http:// listings.ebay.com/aw/listings/list/all/category3984/index.html Arts: Comics: Retailers: Original Artwork: E (1)

eBay Listings: Police - Police collectibles on EBay
-- http:// listings.ebay.com/aw/listings/list/category928/index.html Recreation: Collecting: Themes: Police (1)

eBay Listings: M&M - Online auctions.
-- http:// listings.ebay.com/aw/listings/list/all/category874/index.html Recreation: Collecting: Food and Drink Related: Chocolate and Candy: M&M (1)

eBay Listings: Tea Pots, Tea Sets - Current auctions.
-- http:// listings.ebay.com/aw/listings/list/category1238/index.html Recreation: Collecting: Food and Drink Related: Kitchenware: Teapots (1)

eBay Listings: Coin - Operated - Auction of arcade games, slot machines and pinnball games.
-- http:// listings.ebay.com/aw/listings/list/category575/index.html Games: Coin-Op: Arcade Games: Dealers (1)

eBay: Antique Bears - Buy and sell antique stuffed bears.
-- http:// listings.ebay.com/lp/listings/list/all/category31/index.html?sspagename=lp31 Shopping: Toys and Games: Stuffed Animals: Teddy Bears (1)

eBay Listings : Books - Home page for book auctions, including antiquarian, childrens, fiction and bulk auctions.
-- http:// listings.ebay.com/aw/plistings/list/all/category267/ Shopping: Publications: Books: Used and Rare: Book Auctions (1)

eBay: Personal Care Accessories - Buy and sell body care, fragrances, hair care, makeup and related health and beauty products.
-- http:// listings.ebay.com/pool3/listings/list/all/category11838/index.html?lp&from=R0 Shopping: Health: Beauty: Varied Merchandise: E (1)

eBay: Sporting Goods - Buy and sell sporting goods and accessories.
-- http:// pages.ebay.com/catindex/sportgoods.html?ssPageName=lp382 Shopping: Sports (1)

eBay - International person to person auction site, with products sorted into categories.
-- http:// www.ebay.com/ Shopping: Auctions (1)

eBay: Sports - Buy and sell sporting goods, memorabilia, trading cards and related items.
-- http:// listings.ebay.com/lp/listings/list/all/category888/index.html?sspagename=lp888 Shopping: Auctions: Sports (1)

eBay: Art - Buy and sell modern art, sculpture, paintings, photographs, prints, drawings and related art items.
-- http:// art.ebay.com Shopping: Auctions: Arts and Crafts (1)

eBay Collectibles - Starting point for categories related to collectibles.
-- http:// collectibles.ebay.com/ Shopping: Auctions: Antiques and Collectibles (1)

eBay: The Beatles - Buy and sell Beatles' memorabilia.
-- http:// listings.ebay.com/aw/plistings/list/all/category29924/index.html Shopping: Music: Related Merchandise: Artist Specific: B: Beatles (1)

eBay: Men's Clothing & Accessories - Buy and sell men's clothing, accessories and related items.
-- http:// listings.ebay.com/lp/listings/list/all/category15659/index.html?sspagename=lp15659 Shopping: Clothing: Men's (1)

Just for chuckles.

Guitar-Web - Guitars and basses.
-- http:// members.ebay.com./aboutme/guitarweb Shopping: Music: Instruments: Stringed: Guitar (1 match)

I think there is a strong case for a refund here.

While I personally do not like the way the ODP has gone, the www is just too big for only human editors and humans have emotions, it is still the one of the best and biggest directories out there.

>>I think there is a strong case for a refund here.

I agree. Give the man back his money.

And maybe dock the editors' salaries and cut their Christmas bonuses for not doing their job duties well enough for enough hours. After all, that's what they get paid for, isn't it? To provide promotional opportunities for aspiring netpreneurs? Isn't that the way it's written up in their job descriptions?

Refund Page (http://www.dummies-guide-to-dmoz.org/dmoz_refunds.htm)

Lol! :) :)

Payment for listings and/or application approval. I hadn't thought about corruption to that extent but why not. Why would this be any different. Many organizations are ruined by a few corrupt individuals.

Have to say I've not been a big fan of DMOZ except right when they came out...

We've tested 20 - 30 sites in getting inducted, into categories that only had two or three "shotty" sites.

Result: NO ANSWER, NO INCLUSION...

I wouldn't complain but this is something I've tested for 4 years now, nothing new to me, their editing and site inclusion is one of the worst I've see out there. Talking to many others at the various SES conferences, we are not alone with our disgust of DMOZ.

Talking to many others at the various SES conferences, we are not alone with our disgust of DMOZ.

..maybe SEO's disgusted because DMOZ is NOT there as a listing service to webmasters for SEO purposes. There are plenty of other Directories that provide that service - why not just take your business there (the info on the DMOZ refund is gven above). Have you ever thought that your 30-40 sites did not have enough unique valuable content to make them worthy of a listing?

I have NEVER EVER seen one single complaint about DMOZ from the user or the "customers" (ie those that DMOZ is made for)..... funny how webmasters can spit so much vitriole about a free service... (...whoops....wrong choice of words .... its not a "service" for webmasters)

BTW - since this thread started >10 000 sites have been added to DMOZ.

Thats strange that you've never heard anything... maybe you should just check out the various forums (within the various domains) regarding DMOZ, you won't have to look far :)

Sorry you're wrong on the "lack of content" also... I've been on both sides of the fence, been a DMOZ editor for years, still am :) and I can see how long it takes, if ever, for quality sites to get in.

DMOZ was great in the beginning, they just got a bit to big for their own good.

Still gotta laugh that you've NEVER heard.... too funny!

Enjoy!

Because the customer is not the web site owner. The customer is the user of the directory.

>Thats strange that you've never heard anything

I have seen lots of complaints from webmasters and SEO's who want to use DMOZ as some sort of free listing service (funny how people complain about a service that DMOZ does not provide), but NEVER seen one single complaint on any forum from a DMOZ user.

>Still gotta laugh that you've NEVER heard.... too funny!

Perhaps you could provide me some links to threads in which the USERs of DMOZ have complained.

you all are stuck on the "users" and "webmasters"... get off that boat as most likely anyone who submits, can be classified as a USER.... ESPECIALLY if you use Google or other engines that use DMOZ as a directory...

Just think about it :)

No. The "user" of DMOZ is the "customer" ---- webmasters or those who submit sites are not the "customer" (ie they are not being provdied with a service). Other directories do provide that service.

The "user" or "customer" of DMOZ is the 4000 or so downstream users of the DMOZ database (ie Google, AOL, ScienceDaily etc) - these are the people that the "service" is being provided to - please show me ONE complaint from these users?

"Customer" seems a little awry in it's application here - webmasters can be both the supplier and consumer of listings. It's not hard to find complaints from webmasters.

As for complaints about DMOZ from an actual downstream provider - the fact that Google removed it's own directory link from the front page to one of its internal service pages, suggested a very real perception on just how valued the DMOZ data is.

Personal experience is simply variable. Some cats are well admined, others are not. That's from the perspective of a webmaster. :)

DMOZ is of such a size that the dedication of the individual editors seems to be the deciding issue on the efficiency of any particular category.

Well that's just silly.

It is wellknown and much-talked-about at dMoz that the average searcher does not even know about the directory directly but more often uses downstream directories to access the dMoz database.

Apaprently Alta Vista, Excite, Hotbot and Lycos had complaints. They all removed dMoz from their respective engines. Even Netscape (their own sister) has taken to hiding the directory.

You can't conclude that any of those guys had complaints based on what you mention as "evidence." Let's hear the complaints that they supposedly received, not guess at them.

has taken to hiding the directory.
Regular search has PPC running alongside. Is/was it the same thing with the directory? Did the directory provide any revenue for them?

Lycos was using FAST search, and using ODP titles and descriptions in results. Lycos has not been a crawling engine on their own for a while now. Same thing with HotBot - and Excite. They all ended up with problems - ODP being the very least of it - hence their demise as significant portals.

get off that boat as most likely anyone who submits, can be classified as a USER Only if you have the misunderstanding that ODP provides a service to webmasters [who are the majority of submitters] and think they are USEing that service. Someone who suggests a site is not a user of ODP, just as an editor is not a user of ODP.

Apaprently Alta Vista, Excite, Hotbot and Lycos had complaints. They all removed dMoz from their respective engines.

Ya apparently Yahoo bought them all and complaints started coming from
Yahoo executives apparently concerned about promoting their own directory.

Even Netscape (their own sister) has taken to hiding the directory.

You think? Obviously they didn't hide it so well since you found out that they hid it! ;)

I think all generic (not niche) directories are dying a sloooooowwww death. While they were of use some years ago, their use now is almost non-existent due to SEs being so much more relavant. In fact, I really cannot think of any valuable use a directory has for the average Joe?

As far as I can tell, they now only exist (and being produced enmass) so Webmasters and SEO can buy PR and/or get a one-way link. I Cannot see Google rewarding this for much longer.

I think all generic (not niche) directories are dying a sloooooowwww death.

The rare agreement! ;) Ya change happens whether we want it to or not.

I have NEVER EVER seen one single complaint about DMOZ from the user or the "customers" (ie those that DMOZ is made for)..... funny how webmasters can spit so much vitriole about a free service... (...whoops....wrong choice of words .... its not a "service" for webmasters)


And where, exactly, would they go to complain to?

As a user I find DMOZ pretty much useless since it is so outdated. As a web person I find DMOZ pretty much irrelevant.

As a user I find DMOZ pretty much useless since it is so outdated
Stop using it then!

The ~4000 or so sites who use the DMOZ RDF dump are not complaining. They are the poeple that DMOZ is really made for.

Stop using it then!

The ~4000 or so sites who use the DMOZ RDF dump are not complaining. They are the poeple that DMOZ is really made for.

Can't stop using it because I have not used it for months. There is a limit to how much you can stop.

And those feed sites are not users searching for anything. They are simply listings.

Actually [and I have no idea why] some of those feed sites are being used to find things. My guess is that some of them are set as home pages by users, or created by IDP's for default home pages.

My first discovery of DMOZ was when I found hits in my logs from people using those sites, and it led to paying customers. Made no sense why they would not use some other way of searching, but then again, it makes no sense to me why my daughter uses AOL.

People who actually use DMOZ directly, tend to be more sophisticated than the average person who uses Google for searching. They have spent more time discovering when to use Google, when to use Yahoo, when to use DMOZ, and when to use the Google directory.

They are willing to make the effort how to drill down in ODP categrories, how to use Google search patterns, etc. The average person is much too lazy to bother.

For me, the single biggest problem with DMOZ is that there is such huge variation between categories. Those with active editors can be good, others - the majority - can be simply horrible.

Nearly all of the categories for our industry still have listings of companies that have been out of business for years. Out of curiousity, I just now checked those again, and there has been no improvement. Either way, I don't think DMOZ is much of a factor anymore, and I think that most directories except those highly specialized ones will gradually fade away - there is simply too much people-hours involved in keeping them relevant, and nobody is going to pay.

>nobody is going to pay.

But people are paying!!!

BTW - since this thread started DMOZ has added almost 20 000 sites !

>nobody is going to pay.

But people are paying!!!

BTW - since this thread started DMOZ has added almost 20 000 sites !

Yeah, and they still show 66,000 editors too....

If the editors in the odp forum can't help, it is doubtful that anyone else will be able to.

For me, the single biggest problem with DMOZ is that there is such huge variation between categories. Those with active editors can be good, others - the majority - can be simply horrible.

Nearly all of the categories for our industry still have listings of companies that have been out of business for years. Out of curiousity, I just now checked those again, and there has been no improvement. Either way, I don't think DMOZ is much of a factor anymore, and I think that most directories except those highly specialized ones will gradually fade away - there is simply too much people-hours involved in keeping them relevant, and nobody is going to pay.

The solution to this - stop complaining, read the guidelines, follow the guidelines and submit your application, invest 40 hours a week, every week in voluntary work, and I am 100% positive you will make the difference.

Not prepared to dedicate yourself to this level of involvement?

You're not alone. :confused:

The solution to this - stop complaining, read the guidelines, follow the guidelines and submit your application, invest 40 hours a week, every week in voluntary work, and I am 100% positive you will make the difference.

Not prepared to dedicate yourself to this level of involvement?

You're not alone.

At one time I was a very active editor and supporter of DMOZ, with something like 11,000 edits in about 30 categories. This all ended about 3 years ago when I simply got tired of tilting at dinosaurs. I was booted from DMOZ after about 2-3 years editing there because I ventured to have a difference of opinion with a senior editor, and posted it on a public board ;) . I used to spend from 20 to 60 hours a week editing (and BTW, most of the categories I had have not been updated since). :rolleyes:

It was also becoming extremely obvious that AOL was going to give zero support for the project, even though it was running on very outdated servers with very outdated software.

Below is a copy of a message I posted on the old SEW forum about two+ years ago :D

There are several problems with the way ODP handles new editor applications, and also internally for editors asking for more cats.

For example, you would think that if a prospective editor applies, and is turned down simply because that cat already has enough editors, that someone would take an extra 90 seconds to suggest a different cat that needs help "just to get their feet wet". But nearly always, the applicant is given NO guidance at all except the canned one.

When I was an editor, I saw a fairly new editor apply for a related category that had not been worked on for over 18 months. The cat only had 13 live entries (about 50 unreviewed).
Yet he was turned down because of a punctuation error on one of his edits. When I blew up and started ranting about how it might be better to have up to date entries with a missing period at the end rather than have submissions sit around for 2+ years, that was the beginning of the end for my editing career :P

When I was an editor, I saw a fairly new editor apply for a related category that had not been worked on for over 18 months. The cat only had 13 live entries (about 50 unreviewed).
Yet he was turned down because of a punctuation error on one of his edits. When I blew up and started ranting about how it might be better to have up to date entries with a missing period at the end rather than have submissions sit around for 2+ years, that was the beginning of the end for my editing career :P

Another take - when you apply for any job [voluntary or otherwise] as a self-supervised editor and one is not concerned about your writing caliber... I wouldn't hire you either.

That very well may be the dinosaur approach - but editorial accountablity is 100% about writing and punctuation.

I agree with all those who said that DMOZ was made for users, not anyone else.

I am also a DMOZ editor and I know that many editors review their intrays regularly and update the sites. The thing is, no one is ever going to be 100% satisfied with it anyway.

The directory is human edited which is a great experiment as well and serves as a wonderful benchmark for automated systems.

posted it on a public boardThat itself could be a breach of confidentiality and grounds for removal.

No editor is removed for occasionly missing some punctuation, [I'm still here] but repeated carelessness would be. Arguing with another editor of the importance of getting the punctuation is in effect, a refusal to accept the editing guidelines.

BTW - since this thread started DMOZ has added almost 20 000 sites !


Yeah, and they still show 66,000 editors too....



Should i understand that it requires >3 editors to edit and add 1 site at DMOZ?? :eek:

Yeah, and they still show 66,000 editors too....
How may time does this have to be stated publically before people get it...

That is the total number of editors ever - it is not the current number of active editors!!!
Should i understand that it requires >3 editors to edit and add 1 site at DMOZ??
Anyone find it kinda laughable how all this misinformation is used to beat up on DMOZ? Would be helpful if people get facts right.

I recall from my university days in one subject enrolled in (I forgot which).... a tactic used by some in arguments is to characterize the the 'thing' being argued against in a way that is not true, then attack that characteriztion. Anyone see a pattern in the DMOZ bashing threads? ie pretend DMOZ is something that its not, then attack that.

Anyone find it kinda laughable how all this misinformation is used to beat up on DMOZ? Would be helpful if people get facts right.


There is some bad info, however the truth is probably worse in many cases - like last time I saw a hard figure, there were 3.2 million sites waiting to be reviewed. According to Alexa, hits on DMOZ have dropped 50% in the past year or so.

There are a lot of dedicated editors there. There are also some real ***holes, and many of those are in the (total lack of)leadership positions. AOL gives almost zero support (two paid positions) - DMOZ is an orphan. There is nobody really in charge. It is overwhelmed by antiquated software and hardware and the sheer number of spam submissions - according to one source, over 35,000 spam subs per day just from automated programs. The sheer size of the internet will never allow it to come even close to catching up, and to a large extent internal politics will not allow any rational changes that might rock the boat (over 4 years ago an ex-editall wanted to add in some basic spam filtering in the applications, and was turned down, leading to his leaving shortly after).

And the problems are not just internal. Time after time when I was there I saw dozens of "one-shot" editors come in, make 2-3 edits - including at least one of their own sites of course - and never show up again. AOL could have made DMOZ a big advertising pull if they had supported it, publicised it, and installed a real CEO, but they blew it.

Aside from that, and a few other problems, DMOZ is in great shape.

There is some bad info, however the truth is probably worse in many cases - like last time I saw a hard figure, there were 3.2 million sites waiting to be reviewed. According to Alexa, hits on DMOZ have dropped 50% in the past year or so.

There are a lot of dedicated editors there. There are also some real ***holes, and many of those are in the (total lack of)leadership positions. AOL gives almost zero support (two paid positions) - DMOZ is an orphan. There is nobody really in charge. It is overwhelmed by antiquated software and hardware and the sheer number of spam submissions - according to one source, over 35,000 spam subs per day just from automated programs. The sheer size of the internet will never allow it to come even close to catching up, and to a large extent internal politics will not allow any rational changes that might rock the boat (over 4 years ago an ex-editall wanted to add in some basic spam filtering in the applications, and was turned down, leading to his leaving shortly after).

And the problems are not just internal. Time after time when I was there I saw dozens of "one-shot" editors come in, make 2-3 edits - including at least one of their own sites of course - and never show up again. AOL could have made DMOZ a big advertising pull if they had supported it, publicised it, and installed a real CEO, but they blew it.

Aside from that, and a few other problems, DMOZ is in great shape.

Well the last time I check 8906 active editors [active meaning logged in once in the past 12 months].

As for my small part - zero in the quene, zero dns errors, no typos in cat, no spam listed [I'm not listed there either].

Glad to see DMOZ is still live and well - e.g. with 50+ million nay votes Bush is still president - they both must be doing something right... or the alternative is worse! :D

Should i understand that it requires >3 editors to edit and add 1 site at DMOZ??Yes, one to add the site, and two to argue with the angry hordes at SEO forums.

AOL could have made DMOZ a big advertising pull if they had supported it, publicised it, and installed a real CEO, but they blew it.Well if we ignore some of the founding principles of ODP -- they could have done that.

But then it would not be ODP, since the 20% of editors that review 80% of the site, would not be working as editors - since the would not like the rigid structure of a CEO in charge and they would quit. AOL would then have to hire paid editors, then they would have to charge for reviews, and then it would be just like Yahoo -- a paid directory service. Then Google would drop it, since it was paid and biased, then no one would want to be in ODP, since Google ignored it, and nobody would pay for a listing and AOL would go bankrupt.