Dear DMOZ editors.
By sorvoja on Feb 7, 2007 in DMOZ
I have been getting various feedback on these two blogposts:
I never meant to make you feel bad, but I have and I am so sorry. Please keep in mind that I have never advocated that web site owners should disregard your quality guidelines, I support the idea of building the best human edited directory. And the best directory should have sites that meet a certain minimum standard. However I recognize that various forms for kickbacks often are required to be listed in at least the English part of the directory. This is because of fundamental flaws in the editor system.
To become a DMOZ editor a person would have to suggest three sites and fill out a simple web form. A few days or a few months later the person usually gets his or hers application approved. This new editor will be left in charge of normally one category, and to maintain his or her editor status he or she would have to do one edit every three months. It is not a lot, it is possible to maintain the editor status working ten minutes a year.
People apply for editorship for a number of reasons, hopefully the majority of editors generally want to build a great resource. And spends several hours a week researching new sites and to write good reviews. Hopefully a small minority joins to add a site that they own, or to sabotage competitor entries. This small majority often holds on to their editor status, accepts very few suggested sites, and generally acts in a manner that is against the spirit of the Open Directory Project. To get a site listed with this group of editors it has unfortunately been necessary to provide kick backs. Back in 2004 a DMOZ entry was very important if you wanted your web site to rank well in Google, and DMOZ is still a trusted link source. It is simple a link you must have if you have a commercial site. Search engine traffic equals money if you run a web store and it is a cut trout world in many verticals. Paying a editor to get a good site listed is simply something that must be done if that is what is needed. It should not be like that that money should go to the directory not the editors.
To combat the huge and growing problem of editor abuse DMOZ should offer a premium submission service. It should be possible to e.g. pay 600$ to get a review within e.g. 72 hours by a professional editor. If a site is rejected then the professional editor could provide a informative explanation. A premium submission program would quickly become very popular. And it could raise money to have more staff to monitor and evaluate the volunteer editors, and to help out where the backlogs of unreviewed sites grow to large.
To raise more money for the project the directory itself should have advertising, most of the thousands of DMOZ mirrors run adsense or other advertising so there are no good reason why the directory hosted at dmoz.org should not. The money generated by advertising could go directly to improving the back end functions of the directory, to make it easier for the editor community to detect various forms of spam. In my opinion content mills are the hardest form of spam to detect manually, but it fairly straight forward to detect automatically. There are a huge number of content mills in the directory, this is one of them, and they should all be removed. Other common problems are sites that are nothing more than a affiliate site and this should not have been listed either. These three sites are from one category selected at random.
I wish the Open Directory Project the best of luck, but the directory should not survive in the long run if things does not change.
Resource Zone is a great place to rat out bad listings you’d like to see gone.
And if you see a badly-edited category and are being financially hurt by that, go apply to become an editor yourself. As you point out, that’s not necessarily a huge time commitment.
Curt Monash | Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
The directory would in my opinion be better off if people didn’t apply just to add their own sites. However it is exactly what happens a lot of the time.
sorvoja | Feb 8, 2007 | Reply
I run the gettingpregnant.com website and take offense that our website is considered a content mill.
We have a great collection of articles on our website that HELP people get pregnant! For some reason our DMOZ listing has now disappeared which means less people potentially could get help in getting pregnant. Shame on you for choosing a website that cares about its users. Next time take a minute and browse a website before you turn them in for running adsense which helps pay the server and the people who run it.
Dave | Feb 23, 2007 | Reply
A while back DMOZ changed the guidelines not to include content mills. And I guess that’s the reason the editor removed your site. I don’t know since I am not a DMOZ editor. You should try to add more original content to your site and then resubmit it for inclusion.
sorvoja | Feb 23, 2007 | Reply
We have a lot of content on our website that no other site has. I don’t understand how that makes us a content mill. I am really upset about this as we worked hard to build a website that really helps others. I sure wish someone from DMOZ could contact us so we can get things smoothed out.
Dave | Feb 23, 2007 | Reply
Dave, I am sorry to disapoint you, but as it is today your website clearly fits the defenition of a content mill.
From http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html:
“Content mill websites prominently feature advertising for other websites and any content is typically assembled from other sources. These websites are not designed to be an end destination themselves but instead to shuttle visitors to other websites.
These sites may appear to be unique, content-rich, informational sites, however the content is typically copied or slightly modified from reputable sites, or has been autogenerated or manually produced but lacks any real substance. They typically lack any sort of authentic and credible statements of responsibility. The existence of advertising, links or email forms is not by itself damning. These all appear on many listable websites. It is the combination of such features and the absence of authorship and/or other verifiable information which characterizes such sites.”
As far as I can tell Dave your website got little or no unique content. When the editor disregards the content taken from other sites, content soly used to promote affiliate programs then there is not much left of your site. It is almost possbile to make a mirror of your site without violating copyright laws. It should not be like that. I would encourage you to study the DMOZ guidelines, admit that you have a problem and take steps to clean up your site.
I wish you the best of luck with your web site.
sorvoja | Feb 25, 2007 | Reply
As far as paying “Professional” editors and charging a $400 - $600 fee, the Directory would no longer be a level playing field for all site suggestions, but would favor those able to pay the bribe money. Whether it’s paying an editor under the table or paying the Directory itself, it’s still a bribe.
crowbar | Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
I understand your point of view crowbar, but many commercial web sites would prefer to pay to get a fair and quick review. This would also reduce the workload for the vouluntary editors. The way I see it this would be a win-win situation.
sorvoja | Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
Brick & mortar businesses, like my own, have a variety of means to promote their businesses, so, I think you’re referring to Internet businesses.
For a brick & mortar business, a website is just one more tool, for an Internet business, it’s the main tool and your success depends on it.
As a six year editor, I’m very aware of that, and looking at the Directory from your viewpoint, I can sympathize with your desperateness to get listed.
What I don’t sympathize with is your attempts to corrupt honest editors. In six years, I’ve been offered bribes twice, both persons were immediately reported and banned.
Corrupt editors are despised by the editing community and dealt with quickly when we find them, and their work is gone over with a fine tooth comb, so it would be unwise for a site owner to engage in such practices.
The Directory is not a listing service for site owners, though we do list sites. We don’t consider the supply side at all, we focus only on the web surfer at the other end, and what will benefit them in their search for specific information on a certain topic.
We only look at the content on a site, not the entity. We don’t want and won’t list 10 sites with the exact same information (why would a searcher need to see the same thing 10 times), we look for “unique content” that no other site has, that would be helpful to the searcher.
In most cases, the truth of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with a site suggestion, an editor just hasn’t gotten around to reviewing it yet. (Many site owners see ghosts where there are none, the truth is much simpler).
The kind of sites we won’t list, are made very clear right here:
http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html
If a site is one of these, nothing a site owner can do will change that, and there is no way to sneak through the gate, period.
There is no mystery, the editing Guidelines that every editor is required to follow are plainly visible and available to the public, if you take the time to read them:
http://www.dmoz.org/help/helpmain.html
We do have editor discretion, which is why they’re called “Guidelines” and not rules, and why the human touch makes the Directory a little more valuable than an automated system. Machines don’t question, argue a case, make decisions, or change things.
On the other hand, machines are predictable and a knowledgeable person can work them to their advantage.
I think one of the frustrations the webmaster/site owner/SEO industry has is that humans are very unpredictable and there is no such system to be worked.
As an experienced editor (with no websites of my own anymore), I recognize that the webmaster/site owner/seo community is a legitimate industry, and I personally think that we should find a way to work together, if it can be done without losing our own integrity.
Everything I’ve said is my personal opinion, based on editing experience, and not official ODP representation. I have no right to speak for anyone but myself.
crowbar | Aug 11, 2007 | Reply
Sorry, I need to add something.
When a submitter submits a site to the ODP, it’s because they want that site to be listed in the Directory, for a variety of reasons.
So, to them, it really does look like the Directory is a listing service, and very understandably so.
But, here is the truth. Our focus remains on building something for the web searcher. As part of that process, we invite the public to suggest sites to us for our consideration in doing that.
While building this resource for searchers, many of us find new sites on our own by using search engines or following links on existing sites. It’s very much like a scavenger hunt, and just as exciting when we discover a motherload of new, quality sites for our searchers. (web surfers)
Many times, the existing pool of suggested sites from the public is not such a pleasant experience for us to look at, as they are usually submitted to the wrong category, the titles are incorrect, and the descriptions written are more wishful thinking than fact.
So, it is not strictly speaking our duty to review sites that are suggested by the public, it’s just one more resource we can use, if we choose to.
Most of us try to do both, and to be honest, some of the real jewels that I’ve found are sites built by non professionals, using a little ingenuity in design, (nothing fancy), and just getting the important information that a searcher is looking for right out in the open where it can be seen quickly.
My advice to every webmaster is, forget the flash and all the tricks, and get the message from the site owner to the searcher of information. Always keep the end user (customer) in mind and serve them, and your site suggestion will be of value to us also.
crowbar | Aug 11, 2007 | Reply
I appreciate your comments crowbar, however:
I am not trying to currupt honest DMOZ editors, sadly some editors already are. Sadly a large part of editors atleast in the
English part of the directory are more out to serve their own interest than to create good user experiences. Sadly very few
humans use DMOZ for searching, I know this from looking at the log analysis of several DMOZ listed web sites, the large majority use
search engines like Google and Yahoo. Lately there are an increasing number of people that use Wikipedia for searching. DMOZ could be
great as a trusted data source to be used by search engine crawlers, but that’s about it. Five years ago, DMOZ had sort of the same
status as Wikipedia has today, but DMOZ just wouldn’t evolve. What needs to be done in my opinion is that DMOZ needs to fire a staff
to review sites for pay and to police the volunteer editor community. It might be a good way for the directory to regain integrity.
sorvoja | Aug 11, 2007 | Reply
None of the editors that I’ve worked with on a daily basis over the last six years are corrupt, and if you have any proof at all of any corruptness by any editor, we would be most appreciative if you would file an abuse form.
I find it very hard to believe that a person with actual knowledge of editor abuse would say so in an open forum, and yet not be willing to file an abuse form.
And, if you were using their services, why would you make that known, instead of keeping it a closely guarded secret for your own benefit?
I like Wiki myself, and use it quite often in my editing responsibilities to give me quick information, but, I also know that not all information is accurate and it needs to be double checked.
It is a very good tool to have, just as the Google search is. You’ll see the Wikipedia link at the bottom of most ODP pages.
We hear all kinds of suggestions from the public, some are good and some aren’t feasible, I can’t discuss them here, but we are aware of them. I have no right to say anything more about that, I’m just an ordinary, run of the mill editor, and that’s way beyond my pay grade.
All I can give you is honesty.
crowbar | Aug 11, 2007 | Reply
What it really comes down to is that we serve the ordinary web surfer looking for information, and site owners/webmasters/seo feel that we should be serving them instead. (as a listing service)
I can understand that point of view, but it’s diametrically different than our own goals of creating the most comprehensive resource for the web surfer.
My own view of the Directory is that we collect and organize data for the free use of anyone who wants to use it. (with attribution to us)
We have no control over how that information is used by other entities, like directories or search engines.
We pay no attention to PR, we don’t judge the worthiness of the business, or the skill of the site design, we only judge the unique content on the site itself, and whether it will add value to a category for the benefit of the web surfer.
So, I think we serve a very broad market, rather than just one segment of it (the commercial sites).
As an editor, if I were offered payment by the Directory, I would resign. I own a business, that’s how I make my living. If editing became a job for me, then it would no longer be the community service that I signed up for, and money in any form always corrupts what it’s introduced into. (whether it’s sanctioned by the Directory or not)
From what I’ve heard other editors say, I think the majority of them feel the same way, money is not our motivation, freedom, trust, responsibility, and building something worthwhile for the Internet community of web surfers is what motivates us. ( like building a good library for everyones use)
One of the most important features for myself is the fact that no group is given preferential treatment, all site suggestions are placed on the same level playing field, whether they are professionally built sites, or a less sophisticated site, all have the same equal opportunity.
That holds great appeal for me
crowbar | Aug 12, 2007 | Reply