It is time to bribe a DMOZ editor
By sorvoja on Jan 20, 2007 in DMOZ
This is getting old, but I guess it is still worth mentioning. It is time to resubmit to DMOZ. Due to the massive server failure og last year, all unreviewed sites got deleted from the editing queue. As a concequence there are a lot of editors just sitting and waiting for new site suggestions. Before the server crash there was a very large number of unreviewd sites in popular parts of the directory, well now there is a golden opertunity to resubmit and get listed before the backlogs gets to long.
When submitting please make sure that your site follows the guidelines, just to be on the safe side it might be smart to remove anything (e.g. affiliate links) that could make the editor think twice about your submission. Also in certain parts of the English part of DMOZ there is a hidden fee to be reviewed. If the editor clearly identifies himself (or herself) with a link to a website or an email address, this should be taken as a sign that he (or she) might be expecting some sort of kick back. There is no way to be sure, but you might be able to tell if you review the sites added by the editor. Is there a lot of sites that clearly should never have been added, like e.g. content mills.
Is there some obvious sabotage:
- misleding descriptions and titles
- dropping the www in for websites that use www
There are a number of ways to successfully bribe a editor, here are a few methods that have worked for clients in the past:
- Hire the editor to write a few articles for your web site.
- Buy adspace on the editors blog or web site.
- Hire the editor to do link building.
- Add a lot of links to the editors web site.
- PayPal the editor $400
In some cases the editor might even request a kick back, so be prepared for that phone call.
No matter how you go about it is important that your site follows the guidelines to the letter, it will make it harder for any editor to remove your listing down the road. Everytime a site is deleted the editor has to justify it with a editor note.
Others have written about this:
Kichus got a site listed. Congratulations
The Modern SEO blogs has a short post on this
SEO Round table has a much better post on this
and it has been mentioned more than a few times on webmasterradio.fm
[tags]DMOZ[/tags]
You have a vivid imagination!
http://www.texttechnologies.com/category/vendors/odp-and-dmoz/ is rather more accurate.
Curt Monash | Feb 7, 2007 | Reply
Thank you for your feedback. “Corrupt” editors are a huge problem in the english part of DMOZ. I am surprised that a DMOZ editor like yourself would find it worthwhile to deny a situation that is very real. There are hundreds of editors that are accepting kickbacks.
I noticed that texttechnologies.com is a site that you own, did you add the site yourself? Have you ever edited the site? Have you added or edited other sites that you own? Is there sites that you just won’t include that should have been in your categories?
sorvoja | Feb 7, 2007 | Reply
As far as I know, it is not forbidden to suggest your own site or a friend’s site when your are editor.
However you are strongly encouraged to list websites in the same competition or with opposing views.
What is your problem with that?
You are all the time yelling about Dmoz.
If you want to improve it, join us and unmask the fraud.
astrozygote | Feb 7, 2007 | Reply
Thank you for your feedback. I think the best thing that can be done to counter editor abuse would be to offer a optional “pay the be reviewed in 48 hours” service run by professional editors. It is the lack of feedback and long review times that feeds the corruption. It would be fair to charge 4-600$ for guaranteed review, with feedback if rejected.
sorvoja | Feb 7, 2007 | Reply
“If the editor clearly identifies himself (or herself) with a link to a website or an email address, this should be taken as a sign that he (or she) might be expecting some sort of kick back. ” Don’t you think there is a possibility that some editors might be quite pleased with their ability to create a website and want to share that with others? I have a horse website and I love to share photos of my hairy kids and grandkids, I have listed thousands of horse websites and one of those was mine. I have also listed hundreds upon hundreds of other types of websites . I thoroughly resent the implication that, just because I choose to share my site with others, I am a corrupt editor.
lmocr | Feb 7, 2007 | Reply
Not all editors that share these details are corrupt, but most corrupt editors share details. It is a signal, nothing more, nothing else. When combined with other signs of corruption or abuse the picture gets clearer.
sorvoja | Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
Hundreds of editors accepting kickbacks? They must be ripping off the bribers then, much as I might have tried to before I listed several dozen SEO sites last month.
In response to your other questions — yep, I’ve listed such of my own sites as fit in the categories I edit. Not only do I tend to list sites I write, I also list sites I tend to read.
Linking to me helps, but only because it induces me to read you. Andy Beard happened to drop a comment on one of my blogs, so of course I checked out his site; but I’m pretty sure I ran across it several times afterwards, so I would have found and listed it anyway without that nudge.
There are only two sites I can think of that I’m apt to leave out despite proper quality and having gotten my attention, although that total will likely go up, especially in categories that are already well-populated, like the one for SEO/internet marketing blogs. One was red-flagged for a public bribe offer; I mentioned that example in the link above. The other is a similar case, but not as dramatic, so I may relent.
Curt Monash | Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
I will not accept comments from persons that needs to be anonymous or leave a phony e-mail address. DMOZ editors should link to their editor profile in the URL field.
Thank you.
sorvoja | Sep 14, 2007 | Reply