The ODP: One Editor's Perspective

Dmoz: An Editor's Perspective

Of course the following is only personal opinion (based on publicly available dmoz policies and personal experience) but hopefully it will shed a little light on what dmoz really is about.

Misconceptions:

There is a plethora of misinformation (both innocent and intentional) floating around regarding dmoz.org. A simple browser search on dmoz will return dozens of sites about the "Corrupt, Power Hungry, Evil, Prima Donnas" that call themselves editors of dmoz.org. So what does it all stem from? Well there can be many different factors, but the main source of this viewpoint begins with site owners, webmasters, and search engine optimizers (SEO's) who fall into one of two categories:

1. Those who were unable to force/trick/manipulate the dmoz system in a way in which it becomes more profitable for themselves and therefore in order to justify the reasons their site(s) were not included begin complaining of competitors becoming editors or editors abusing there editing rights for financial gains.
2. Those who have had a less than favorable experience (or no experience) with dmoz and have fallen victim to the misinformation spread from #1.
   

The problem:

The problem doesn't arise from type #1. That is to be expected, because no matter how noble a cause or how good the intentions you won't be able to please everyone all the time. With type#1 situations, these are individuals or like minded groups who have felt wronged in one way or another because of their own issues. They typically already know the truth and choose to purposely refuse to accept it when it is presented again. They are also the ones that will take every opportunity to bait and twist editor responses to fit their visions and tend to bandwagon upon each other. They are typically the noisiest bunch out there, but most often innocent bystanders see the responses they are given (and not accepting) and then in turn realized their agenda.

Type# 2 is what bothers me personally the most. Type#2 situations arise out of actions by #1 and are fueled solely on the misinformation that is provided there. These are usually innocent by standers with limited to no experience in the area of site promotion. Unless they find an honest, reputable source of information they are forced to absorb the bafflegab provided in Type# 1 scenarios which leads them to believe that dmoz is a magic bullet of sorts meaning life or death to their site. Obviously this is not the case, dmoz=1 link and most informed people will concur with that. A listing won't magically cause money to fall from the sky or exponentially increase traffic to the site.

The facts:

The truth can be easily ascertained from dmoz.org itself. One can reasonably determine whether a site will eventually be included or not by simply reviewing the Editing Guidelines. There is a hand section titled "Site Selection Criteria" that nicely outlines the types of sites to include and to avoid. Most often those listed under "Sites Generally Not Included" are the ones causing the ruckus in the #1 scenario. There is also the Editors Resource Zone which plainly outlines types of editors, term glossary and offers a glimpse of what is expected of an editor and including information on becoming an editor and increasing the category permissions. There are also links to other terms and policies that pretty much explain everything that is so called 'secret information'. Since becoming an editor, I have found that there is very little that I have access to that can't be easily read about and understood publicly. It truly is open to the public for most aspects. Sure there are certain things that cannot be made public knowledge and won't ever be. There are good reasons for these, and to be honest many of them I couldn't explain anyway because they are beyond my technical knowledge.

If you want information, I have always been of the belief you go to the horses mouth. There is plenty of information to be found at http://dmoz.org/about.html and if there is still anything confusing resource-zone is always available. Resource-zone can be intimidating for those already influenced in a manner such as Type#2 though. There are sometimes (and I am guilty of it) responses that are blunt and/or cold. Most of us try to remain cordial and appreciative but there is a Forum FAQ that answers many of the common questions, and when someone comes in attacking from the start who obviously hasn't read them it is easy to lose patience. Not defending it, because sometimes I see posts from editors that make me cringe but usually there is someone else quickly following up to make sure the point is clear and polite.

The biggest complaints about dmoz you will see is about the rampant corruption and abuse by the editors. As an editor with no commercial interest in the directory and one who has some limited access to abuse investigations I can say for certain that those who volunteer to investigate abuse allegations (whether reported publicly, internally, or discovered on their own) do so with complete attention to detail. They want nothing more to stamp it out and remove the offending editor and correct their abusive edits. The big problem is that what is reported as abuse, often turns out not to be or is not being perpetrated by the accused editor. I have been unfortunate to be part of a couple of abuse investigations that have proven to be abuse. Actions are most definitely swift and complete. The aftermath is long and complicated, requiring multiple editors to clean up the abuse as quickly as they can and often times resulting in ex-editor rants externally about how they were unjustly removed.

My conclusions:

The most important part of any research is to get the most relevant information on the topic. How does one know the information is correct and up to date? You check with the source when ever possible. If you want information on dmoz.org, try going to dmoz.org and searching rather than relying on someone and their bad experiences in an external forum. There are plenty of free and thoughtful pieces of information available and no better place to get it than straight from the horses mouth. There is no denying abuse happens, has happened and I would wager will happen again in the future. But I am fully confident that those Meta's who constantly fight to stop it, do so with a vigilance and expertise that it is far from the rampant visualizations that are usually claimed. I have been very fortunate in that the main body of editors I work with online everyday are some of the highest quality characters I could have encountered. There also have been some very good mentors in my past that have since moved on to other things who walked me in the correct direction as an editor. The meta's, admin, and other senior editors I have seen in action are all working for the betterment of the directory. I have every confidence in their abilities and decisions and those that I am less confident of are far out weighed by the ones I do believe in. And finally, none of the 7, 000+ editors can speak for all of us or for the directory. All we can do is provide a glimpse and opinion based on our knowledge and experience. That is what I have attempted to do.

I hope you find it useful.

This site is not affiliated with ODP, DMOZ.ORG, Resource-Zone.com or Netscape. All information and ideas provided on this site are the opinions of the site owner, any use of this information is at the user's own risk. ©2004 Shadow575