RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Search Engine Optimization and Web Business



Message

rdouglass -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/27/2006 16:31:43)

quote:

Also, yes, I'm enjoying spending my time at this thread


And, yes, I'm enjoying reading it. [:D] [:D] [:D]

quote:

Please enlighten me about how I'm the exeption rather than the norm.


Because you're talking about it.

quote:

You can complain alot about a directory that doesn't offer you the service that you think it should offer.


*Never, ever* have I complained about the service; only about the attitudes of editors.

Thanks for your 'insight'. Sincerely.



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/27/2006 16:38:50)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rdouglass

Your perspective seems to be full of perceptions of an 'insider' whereas all 'outsiders' are wrong since "we know what were doing and the rest of you folks do not."



Actually, us "insiders" know a lot of things that "outsiders" don't know. There is some information about the directory and sites and submitters that we can't give out because it will help them to better their schemes. Plus, being an "insider' makes you privy to information about certain webmasters. The ones that go to other forums and say that their site is being kept out of the directory by a corrupt editor when in actuality editors know it's because they've spammed the directory and it's been banned. There's a lot of information that these webmasters don't tell you in these outside forums that editors do know but can't tell you. When someone tells you that they've gotten turned down as editor for no reason, then ask them if they listed all their affiliates. People will lie to your face and they can easily find a sympathic audience on webmaster forums. People often go to R-Z and lie, but they don't know that we know they're lying, and unfortunately that casts a bad light on Dmoz as whole because editors can't tell anyone the real truth so people are left to believe the liars story. So, just take my advice and don't beleive everything you read on other forums about editors being corrupt. Are there some corrupt editors? Yes, and when they're found out they are quickly removed. But, most of the time the people complaining aren't going to tell you the *whole* story, which editors will know and have ways of finding out.



jaybee -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/27/2006 16:47:09)

quote:

So, are you saying that you were removed as editor, or did you just time out?

I have no idea. All I know is that I came back from holiday, went to log in to check whether there were any submissions and found I couldn't get in. As I said I emailed and filled in the form and nothing.

I don't think I had done anything I shouldn't. The sites I edited and added are still there, exactly the same as they were. Prior to going on holiday, I had been asked by one of the metas to consider helping out in one of his other cats after he'd been through my cats and checked them.

I had religiously added sites I had worked on or contributed to to the affiliates list, in fact I spent an entire afternoon submitting them and making sure the info was correct.

If I was unsure about something I was about to do I always checked it out in the forum. None of my client sites were suitable for any of the cats I edited so any submissions of those wouldn't have been handled by me. The cats I edited weren't commercial, they were niche special interest so I can't think of any way I could have fiddled them to anyone's advantage anyway.

If I did something wrong I'm completely oblivious to what it was. If I timed out I have no idea why. If somebody had bothered to answer my form filling or emails then maybe I'd be a bit clearer on the subject. As it is, I'm one more disillusioned editor. Sorry, ex-editor.



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/27/2006 20:23:35)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rdouglass


*Never, ever* have I complained about the service; only about the attitudes of editors.



Oh, okay, so I must have misconstrued something you've said. Well, like people in general, and editors are general people, you often run into those people who aren't nice. It doesn't matter if it's in real life or on a message board. And, I agree, *some* editors can be brutal. I wouldn't say the things they say in the tone they say it, but also, some people don't get *it* unless you're blunt with them. But, being blunt doesn't always mean they're being mean, because some people will take their blunt answer as having an attitude when really it's that they didn't like the answer they were given. My 0.02. Now, if you're insinuating that I'm mean, well, we're entitled to take things out of context if that's what we wish, but that's not always reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rdouglass
Thanks for your 'insight'. Sincerely.



Is that what they call "sarcasm," lol.



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/27/2006 20:28:25)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaybee
All I know is that I came back from holiday, went to log in to check whether there were any submissions and found I couldn't get in. As I said I emailed and filled in the form and nothing.

I don't think I had done anything I shouldn't. The sites I edited and added are still there, exactly the same as they were. Prior to going on holiday, I had been asked by one of the metas to consider helping out in one of his other cats after he'd been through my cats and checked them.

I had religiously added sites I had worked on or contributed to to the affiliates list, in fact I spent an entire afternoon submitting them and making sure the info was correct.

If I was unsure about something I was about to do I always checked it out in the forum. None of my client sites were suitable for any of the cats I edited so any submissions of those wouldn't have been handled by me. The cats I edited weren't commercial, they were niche special interest so I can't think of any way I could have fiddled them to anyone's advantage anyway.

If I did something wrong I'm completely oblivious to what it was. If I timed out I have no idea why. If somebody had bothered to answer my form filling or emails then maybe I'd be a bit clearer on the subject. As it is, I'm one more disillusioned editor. Sorry, ex-editor.


Well, I don't know how long it's been, but the only way to be sure that you were rejected is to go to resource-zone and ask for an application status check. I don't think they're obligated to send e-mail to ex editors informing them that they've been rejected, but also those e-mails could be caught in their spam filters. Funny story, I say funny because I laughed when I read it. But, a guy went to R-Z to ask for an application status check and it had been awhile since he applied to be an editor. Well, it turns out that he was accepted as editor but never got the acceptance e-mail because of his spam filters. Well, since over 4 months had passed since he was accepted and since he hadn't made an edit in that time his account was auto deactived and he was told he had to use the editor reinstatement form to apply again.



rdouglass -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/27/2006 21:12:55)

quote:

Is that what they call "sarcasm," lol.


No sarcasm intended there. Sincerely thank you for your perspective and Welcome to OutFront. [:)]



mltsy -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/29/2006 11:17:28)

I don't know cupcake, for someone who doesn't give a hoot about webmasters concerns, and doesn't think he's better than webmasters, you sure spend a lot of time discrediting webmasters complaints, insulting their opinions and trying to prove you know more than they do.

I'm sure you do know more about what is really going on, but the point is, webmasters get frustrated with DMOZ and now that it's impossible to get any official responses from DMOZ editors about anything, they have no way to direct their frustration other than hypothesize about what has gone wrong and complain about it.

Lack of constructive communication between parties that have regular interaction can cause all kinds of problems. But some kinds of communication are not helpful. Webmasters need help submitting their sites properly, they don't need to be told their concerns are invalid.

You do have great advice to give, being on the inside of the system that they have no other access to communicate with, I just think it would be more helpful if you would be a little less competitive about the whole thing :) A couple of your posts seem very helpful.

You don't need to prove to anyone that you are an editor or that know everything about DMOZ. You are what you are, and nobody can take it away from you - as long as you edit a category once every 4 months apparently ;)



Mojo -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/29/2006 11:57:01)

quote:

Well, since over 4 months had passed since he was accepted and since he hadn't made an edit in that time his account was auto deactived and he was told he had to use the editor reinstatement form to apply again.


The tail is wagging the dog. This statement helps to understand why DMOZ has received so much criticism.



dpf -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/29/2006 17:27:20)

well I appreciate how long winded you were - it convinced me as a "user" (not webmaster) that DMOZ is worthless



womble -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/29/2006 20:56:31)

quote:

DMOZ is worthless

Now he tells me! Just after I've discovered tonight that a client site I forgot I'd submitted has actually got in! [:@][;)]



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/29/2006 22:49:09)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mojo

The tail is wagging the dog. This statement helps to understand why DMOZ has received so much criticism.


Not sure what you're getting at, so explain in a little more detail if you don't mind. So, how is the tail wagging the dog, exactly? Most of the complaints come from disgruntled webmasters, not people who can't become a Dmoz editor.



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/29/2006 22:51:25)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpf

well I appreciate how long winded you were - it convinced me as a "user" (not webmaster) that DMOZ is worthless


Those words sound nice, but what's the correlation between the two (my long-windedness and it convicing you that Dmoz is worthless)? We all have our opinions about Dmoz, I also wish people wouldn't take it so seriously.



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/30/2006 0:08:35)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mltsy

I don't know cupcake, for someone who doesn't give a hoot about webmasters concerns, and doesn't think he's better than webmasters, you sure spend a lot of time discrediting webmasters complaints, insulting their opinions and trying to prove you know more than they do.


I never said I didn't give a hoot about webmasters, I said Dmoz doesn't have them as high of a priority as they'd like to be. BTW, as I've said earlier, I'm a webmaster myself and I've never said anything about my being better than other webmasters, so I don't know where that comment comes from. And, you're right, I have spent a lot of time here talking about Dmoz, and that's because I want to. Just like everyone else I have free time that I can do whatever I want with, and it just happens that I wanted to spend some free time on this site talking about Dmoz just like everyone else who's responded to this thread, including you. I don't have a problem with how I spend my free time. Tomorrow I might decided to spend some of that free time on Dmoz's internal forums, or I might spend it at a forum talking about beauty products; my free time is my free time and no one has a right to tell me how to spend it, so when I'm off work I can do whatever I want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mltsy
I'm sure you do know more about what is really going on, but the point is, webmasters get frustrated with DMOZ and now that it's impossible to get any official responses from DMOZ editors about anything, they have no way to direct their frustration other than hypothesize about what has gone wrong and complain about it.


Okaaay.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: mltsy
Lack of constructive communication between parties that have regular interaction can cause all kinds of problems. But some kinds of communication are not helpful. Webmasters need help submitting their sites properly, they don't need to be told their concerns are invalid.


All webmasters have to do is submit it to the most appropriate category. If they send it to the wrong category then the reviewing editor will forward it to the correct one. I have a feeling you're talking about what goes on at R-Z in regards to not giving help. Those are the forum rules for that message board (every MB has it's own set of rules), and R-Z is owned privately by editors (actually, by one of the board's admin.) and is the unofficial Dmoz message board. There's nothing to stop editors from giving the help you're talking about on other forums, and a lot of editors have given that help. It's up to the individual editor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mltsy
You do have great advice to give, being on the inside of the system that they have no other access to communicate with, I just think it would be more helpful if you would be a little less competitive about the whole thing :) A couple of your posts seem very helpful.


How am I being competitive? Some examples of what you're talking about will be nice. Or do you mean be "a little less competitive" as in "agree" with everyone who bashes Dmoz with baseless claims and allegations? Actually, it's quite easy for people to write a few words to bash Dmoz without being challenged to back-up their baseless claims or juvenile statements. I can easily say "webmasters suck," but that doesn't give my argument for why I think they suck any validity without something to back it up with. Or, when they are challenged ("they" doesn't mean you personally, just generally speaking) and their allegations debunked they get angry because they hate to see someone with a favorable view of Dmoz speaking up.

You don't have to agree with me, you don't to like me, you can think I'm arrogant because I'm associated with Dmoz, and you can think Dmoz is the worst directory ever. All of those things are fine and dandy, but, those comments are useless if you don't put in the effort to articulate why you think that way. That's why my posts are so long. I can easily say "webmasters are stupid and can't be trusted." But instead I took the time to articulate my argument and give examples of why everything isn't what it seems, and I've actually noticed that no one has challenged anything I've said in previous posts as being incorrect. Some people may hate to see the truth, and that's okay, you can believe whatever you want. I'm sure there are still some people who think the world is flat or that the Holocaust didn't happen. [:D] And, believe me, some of the things *some* webmasters say about editors, *some* editors think those same things about webmasters and the people who practice SEO. Do I agree with those opinions? No, but opinions are like arses in that everyone has one, but most don't matter, that's not only true for editors, but that's also true for webmasters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mltsy
You don't need to prove to anyone that you are an editor or that know everything about DMOZ. You are what you are, and nobody can take it away from you - as long as you edit a category once every 4 months apparently ;)


You're right, I don't have to prove to anyone anything. People can believe what they want, as I'm entitled to believe what I want. I'm not here to say "hey I'm a Dmoz editor," I'm here to talk about Dmoz, like everyone else on this thread. Some people don't like it, but so what. I don't go around boasting to everyone that I'm an editor, but I do speak up when I see the same myths being spread by disgruntled webmasters. As much as they have the right to go to a forum to take out their frustration with senseless name calling is as much as I have the right to debunk their claims, the same claims they'll believe even if the truth hit them in the face.

BTW, I am not defined by being a Dmoz editor (the "you are what you are" comment, BTW, I enjoy editing because it is so much fun). What I do in my real life defines who I am, not something I do over the Internet where no one knows me personally and where I've never met anyone in my life. In fact, all of the forums I participate on most people either don't know what Dmoz is or don't know I'm an editor, but if the conversation of Dmoz comes up then I'll get my .02 in when I see the same old myths being spread by disgruntled webmasters, which is not likely on the forums in which I participate.

Now, all the others who've participated on this thread can hate me for what I've said, but it doesn't matter what they think about me personally or as a Dmoz editor. In fact, I don't think anyone's going to bother to put up an intelligent argument regarding Dmoz besides the typical "worthless," "useless," "it sucks," so-called arguments, mods included, with the exception of maybe two. And, call me the typically mean Dmoz editor for what I've written, but just remember that you get the same attitude that you give out.

And, none of this is directed toward you personally, mltsy, because you've taken the time to write up an intelligent post without the same old name-calling while giving your POV.



Reflect -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/30/2006 10:30:30)

Just a general observation (not directed at anyone in particular).

Here we have a DMOZ editor trying to educate us on how DMOZ works (from a ten mile high view). While I agree pointed questions need to be asked and answered please do NOT let this thread degrade into a flame fest on cupcake. I think he is trying, in his/her own way, to explain the counter points.

Please keep it cival and lets keep this thread focused.

Thank you,

Brian



jaybee -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (6/30/2006 11:48:17)

If anyone would care to spend the odd hour or so going through it, these are the editor guidelines as to what should and shouldn't be done.



megabuff -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (7/27/2006 8:38:43)

what is the R-Z forum people have been talking about?




Reflect -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (7/27/2006 8:49:01)

R-Z is "A Public Forum Sponsored and Moderated by ODP Editors". It is NOT run by DMOZ but setup by one of the editors a while back. I stay away from it, but that is me.

Take care,

Brian



Haxan -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (10/21/2006 3:12:56)

I have also tried a lot of things. I got unqiue content, lot of quality backlinks, regulr and proper updates, less outbound links and a lot more but still couldn't get listed in there. You need to be lucky or you must have a friend who is an editor in there



cupcake -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (10/21/2006 16:48:43)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Haxan

I have also tried a lot of things. I got unqiue content, lot of quality backlinks, regulr and proper updates, less outbound links and a lot more but still couldn't get listed in there. You need to be lucky or you must have a friend who is an editor in there


I'm assuming the templates are made by you (your company) and aren't available any where else over the Internet. And, I'm also assuming you suggested it to the correct category. But, as you can imagine, those types of categories get a lot of suggestions. And, as I'm aware, (from what other editors say) not many editors like editing those types of categories simply because they get a lot of spam. It might take longer before anyone reviews it; chances are there are hundreds of other sites also waiting to be reviewed, so your site could stand out if it has a proper title and description.

So, yeah, you'll probably have to e-mail one of the editors a very charming letter, or most likely (and I'm just guessing from what I know of spammed categories) it'll take over a year before someone looks at it. I guess you can imagin it'll take much longer if you suggested it to the incorrect category.

Also, of the things you mention your site as having (regular updates, backlinks, etc.) only the unique content part would matter when listing a site. Everything else is, I guess, good for search engine rankings. I don't review those types of sites, though, so I'm not digging too deep into it. I have a bad habit of when I "take a look at a site" it ends up being a review.

.....

I guess after re-reading this thread I do realize that some of my comments earlier in the thread were, how shall I say it, more straight-forward than was necessary, so I do apologize if I inadvertantly offended anyone with my comments, especially jaybee. But, as can be imagined, there are a lot of flame-throwers that come towards Dmoz editors, so people will hate you (you = editor) just by association, so it's natural that Dmoz editors will become defensive on contentious threads like this one. Some comments people make about and towards editors will really have you wondering if the person is sane or not; and if you've been a Dmoz editor long enough then you'll know what outwardly docile people are capable of doing. And (fortunately or unfortunately) a few of them are ex-editors (removed). So, if you ever decide to become a Dmoz editor, NEVER use your real name for your Dmoz account - unless you want to be bad mouthed over the Internet using your real name by some angry webmaster or have some stranger calling you in the middle of the night asking you why you haven't listed their site at Dmoz.

.....

Someone mentioned the corrupt Dmoz editor blog, but I have to say that two things stand out: 1) It hadn't been updated in over a year, and 2) when it was finally updated back in May 2006 (I think) the post had nothing to do with scheming Dmoz. Maybe this person was caught or timed out of their account and no longer have access to Dmoz; even better if they were caught. I'd have to say that not many corrupt editors would proudly boast outside (or inside) of Dmoz that they are a corrupt editor. This is one time I wish I were a Meta editor so I can see who the corrupt Dmoz candidate(s) is/was. But, it's really unfortunate to see people that you've edited and communicated with for a long time turn out to be less than stellar individuals; reminds me to never rule anyone out because you think you know them well, so I wouldn't be surprised to find out if the corrupt Dmoz editor is a well known editor within Dmoz.



cooper -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (10/23/2006 9:21:49)

I was a DMOZ editor for 72 hours. I volunteered to be an editor for the section on "FrontPage". It was open and seeing as I:

a) design web sites with FrontPage
b) use FrontPage just about every day
c) frequent forums and resource sites about FrontPage

...that it made sense to try to help edit an area with no editor that I was familiar with.

My first "approval" was a helpful hints site someone had set up for FrontPage users, packed with links to other helpful MS articles and how to's. The site was about 20 pages of unique content. I approved it, and editted the description to meet the guidelines.

Within an hour of my approving it, the link was pulled from DMOZ and I was told my status as an editor was being "reviewed". Apparently the site in question contained a link to a page, also owned and operated by the approved site owner that sold FrontPage web templates they designed.

I was removed as an editor and told that:

1) The site, while containing unique content, was, in the opinion of editor's higher up the chain, a means for the submitter to drive traffic to a site already listed in the directory.

2) My site was a competitor of the site linked from the site I approved so my judgement was being questioned.

3) If you drill down from the FrontPage section I was the editor of to templates, FrontPage templates, etc. my site was listed three levels below so I should not be allowed to edit this section as I have an affiliation with a site listed in the directory.

My issues with DMOZ are that it takes too long to get a site listed (I was told due to a lack of editors), they want editors, but you apparently can't edit an area you are familiar with, and the rules, at times seem to fly in the face of the idea of a "world wide web."

Here is a great example:

Buck A Ball.com - a sporting goods site (listed)

Real Smart Toys - selling a subset of the products from Buck A Ball.com, but aimed and built for folks looking for "toy" or "play" related items, kept out due to "duplicate content".

Two sites with two different audiences. If the duplicate content is really the issue, shouldn't walmart.com, target.com, amazon.com etc. be removed? Dick's Sporting Goods, Modells and Olympia Sports all sell the same sporting goods products, orders filled by the same company AND all driven by the same database with the EXACT SAME product descriptions and shipping charges, yet they are listed.

My frustration with DMOZ stems from the lack of consistant application of the listing rules and that the site begs for editors on one hand while shaming new editors for the decisions rather than mentoring them. [&:]



metslive -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (12/19/2006 14:04:23)

Now there is not even a option to submit a site.




______________________
Weight Loss



jaybee -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (12/19/2006 18:49:46)

quote:

Service Temporarily Unavailable

We apologize for the inconvenience while we resolve technical problems. Please check back in a day or two.
Suggestions:

* If you are an editor, please visit the editor forums to find out the status of the editing interface.
* If you are submitting a site, updating a listing or applying to become an editor, please check back here regularly. If you have any questions about submitting sites or becoming an editor, please visit the public forums where members of the editing community are available to answer your questions.
* If you want to report abuse or spam, please send feedback to staff@dmoz.org

Thank you for your patience!

- DMOZ Team



Reflect -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (12/20/2006 8:02:58)

Yeah, it's been off line for around a month or so now. No one can edit so they closed the submission gate temporarily.

Take care,

Brian



jaybee -> RE: why can't I get listed in DMOZ (12/20/2006 10:30:43)

According to the site, edit is available again.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.09375