The Open Directory project is a joke. An absolute, pathetic joke. I am an expert in my field, I have time to devote to providing REAL evaluations of websites, and I'm extremely computer literate. I made an offer of MY time as a gesture of goodwill, and was denied. Of course, a reason wasn't given; instead a "go to hell" form email was sent out with a laundry list of possible reasons. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that my application was rejected because of my very expertise in web design and development. Not only that, but it took them less than 75 minutes to deny my application!
They have become so paranoid over at the ODP that an application from anyone related in any way to the internet industry is denied, thinking that the applicant has ulterior motives. I don't just guess this, I know this for a fact - I've chatted privately with several editors who have an inside track on the comings and goings of DMOZ. My motives in applying was to donate some of my time to a project that is going to hell and appears to be going in the wrong direction.
So here's what I am going to do: I'm going to create a completely false persona. I will change my gender, age, career, and other demographic information and reapply to the same category under which I was denied as a web designer. I will post an update as soon as they confirm or deny my application.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
My application to become a DMOZ editor was denied
Labels:dmoz,odp,open directory project
Posted byThe Google Watchdogat5:44 PM
Subscribe to:Post Comments (Atom)
28comments:
The Open Directory Project is too exclusive. I don't understand why they deny as many editors & websites as they do. There are so many great websites I've seen that can't get listed there and it makes no sense. I'll definitely be checking to see what happens when you re-apply
Ah yes... the go to hell email. I have received that one. I applied for one of the hundreds of poetry categories and was denied within three days with a similar email.
If your editor application was rejected, you'll have received an email with an explanation. I believe it includes a list of common reasons and possibly some additional comments from the person reviewing the application.
If there are no specific comments, then one of the common reasons applies. You should think of it as part of the application process to work out which of the reasons it is, and correct that in a future application.
Inventing a false persona and not declaring the websites you're associated with is not a good plan. Even if you disguise your application well enough to be accepted, if you're ever found out your account is likely to be removed permanently. Don't say you weren't warned...
Hi Robert,
The point is that the ODP has become such a corrupt and spammy system, that I really don't care if they ban my account. By getting accepted under another identity, I can show how bad the system really has become.
My "go to hell" email was an entirely canned response, and included no notes from the person who reviewed my application. I spent several hours writing the application up, and they deny me in 75 minutes? I included personal references who can vouch for my integrity, a phone # through which I can be reached 24 hours a day, and a LONG list of my qualifications. As a business owner who has hired hundreds of employees over the years, I know how to write a great application.
Part of the problem is that ODP editors are mainly unskilled laborers. Most do not have real world business experience, and don't kid yourself, the internet has become a business, and even non-business related pages often follow a business model for development and promotion.
DMOZ operates under a pseudo non-profit status, but their rankings are huge in a money driven online industry, and they're the providers of the important Google directory. What is needed are bodies to manually clean up a directory that honestly, isn't very good. The editors should have at least some basic knowledge of business and an understanding of U.S. law. When I can find many sites listed in DMOZ that sell illegal products, contain nothing but junk, or break many of the Google guidelines for a website, then I know there is a problem.
Thanks for your response!
Did you see Matt Cutts comments about removing traffic-power.com AND all sites they'd promoted for trying to game the Google system?
You just said you are going to lie thru your teeth on the Dmoz app. What happens if they decide to take a cue from Google in dealing with those that break their rules?
How hard is a Who-is search? Would you be willing to tell every client of your design firm why their site could not be listed, or would you lie to them too?
Would you explain that it was because you not only lied, you announced beforehand you intended to do so?
My hypothetical might not reflect current Dmoz policy, but the subject has come up. It's getting old seeing people lie like dogs while impugning OUR integrity. It's a bit too ironic.
If you are not prepared to be honest just because it's the ethical thing to do, it's still not especially bright to potentially tar your clients with an ethical lapse that isn't of their own making.
Regards - Rob Jones (Dmoz Editor)
* My opinions are my own, not official statements of ODP
Hi Rob,
The endemic problems with ODP are the very reasons to fabricate an editor application. If the policy is going to become one of "all internet related applicants are automatically denied", then the system has a huge problem simply because those applicants are the MOST qualified to know the difference between worthy sites and spam/junk/garbage/illegal sites.
There are a ton of great editors, and I've chatted with quite a few of them. Unfortunately, the sheer size of the ODP limits what the effective editors can do to change the internal issues with the directory. On the flip side, there are a lot of bad editors that are not effective at keeping the structure clean.
I don't use DMOZ as any part of my optimization plans. The process to get listed is so bad, and the rate of successful submission so low, that I've given up on even trying. In fact, I ALWAYS suggest the Yahoo directory over DMOZ, even though it costs $299 a year. The reason is that the Yahoo Directory is far cleaner than DMOZ's data. The editors for Yahoo are paid and there are pretty strict guidelines enforced by the Yahoo Directory team.
I announced the fact that I am going to fabricate a persona to get approved as a DMOZ editor simply to highlight the weaknesses in the system. And I will announce it publicly if it happens. If DMOZ intends to ban me because I uncovered a gaping hole in their system, so be it. Less than 1% of the sites I've built, all of which are quality content driven sites and meet DMOZ standards, are actually listed, and it won't affect me at all to get those sites pulled from the index. It would be a horrible injustice were that to happen, though - 99% of the websites I've built are for small companies that own and operate the sites now themselves. And you can bet that I'll stir up a nasty shitstorm if that happens.
You say: "If you are not prepared to be honest just because it's the ethical thing to do, it's still not especially bright to potentially tar your clients with an ethical lapse that isn't of their own making."
I was absolutely prepared to be honest and open. I was honest and open in my application. I've been honest here on my blog about my intentions. It may be borderline, but I don't consider fabricating a persona to get editor status as unethical. If I were to do so for personal gain, then it would be unethical. Personal gain is not my intention. Instead, consider it a journalistic tactic that I hope will force the ODP to make some serious changes to their system, and to take a hard look at their mission statement and how they meet the strictures outlined in that mission statement.
Just my opinion: were Google to take over DMOZ, changes would be swift and hard-nosed. JMO.
Thanks for your comments.
Umm...did it ever occur to you that your application just plain sucked?
RE: "... but I don't consider fabricating a persona to get editor status as unethical..."
Hey, I don't consider myself as looking terribly unlike Brad Pitt. Damn those unbiased observers always spoiling decent fantasies.
Yes, if Google took over Dmoz it WOULD be different. For starters, the suggestion I made about making SEOs accountable to their clients for their ethical lapses would become policy instead of an issue to bandy about.
As an observer inside the directory, I suspect if we made it policy to leave a few twisted carcasses in the road where abusers once stood we'd soon waste less time cleaning up after abuse. Just IMO.
I understand that you considered your app perfect. What you don't understand is that it may not have been what they're looking for, and while the guys there aren't infallible... they are the ones that built the largest human edited directory in the world, not you. Maybe they know better than you what they need?
But nonetheless, they had the temerity (how dare they)( to turn you down, so that justifies any ruse you care to perform? Really? Are you now making up new ethical rules or did I miss that one?
Bottom line, in your own mind you've rationalized lying into some heroic move. Plenty of people that we have to remove for breaking the guidelines probably do the same... but give up the ruse that you are lying for the good of mankind.
BTW - If you still want to submit a falsified app, knock yourself out. The guys that check them probably won't be watching for one now or anything, and I'm sure they've never had to weed out any of those before.
And thanks for contributing to the very problem you're complaining about... it is hard to edit while watching for garbage apps.
@Anonymous:
Nope - I spent a lot of time researching what is required by the ODP to become an editor, and I spent hours filling out the application. It's something I'm confident in my ability to do well.
So no, my application didn't "suck", and I made certain not to use words like "suck" so as to maintain a professional demeanor.
Hi Rob,
I never used "heroic" as an adjective in the description of what I plan to do. If I can expose a problem with DMOZ, then maybe it can be beneficial. But "heroic"? Not likely.
You said: "But nonetheless, they had the temerity (how dare they)( to turn you down, so that justifies any ruse you care to perform?"
Not that they had the temerity to deny me, but that it was done in much the way the rest of the project works - with veiled descriptions of the rejection and with little transparency to the workings of the process. My justification is simple: expose the issues with DMOZ that have made it an increasingly poor service. I may be the Google Watchdog, but because Google uses ODP data as it's underlying directory, it directly affects the quality of Google search results. Google gives a huge amount of trust and authority to DMOZ, and if there are problems with DMOZ then there are problems with Google.
And BTW, not a single site I've ever SEOed is listed in DMOZ, nor will they probably ever be. Several are very popular, and are considered authority sites by Google. I haven't submitted them to DMOZ, and I probably won't. One editor I chatted with says that he rarely even reviews submissions, that almost 100% of his entries are found organically, and that many editors work this way. If that is the case, then many of the sites I create should be DMOZ listed, especially the sites that are highly trusted by search engines and users. The fact that these sites are not listed shows that there is a shortage of talented editors at DMOZ who can find, review, and add these sites. So why turn down a qualified editor candidate willing to donate 3-4 hours per day of free time to help DMOZ meet it's mission statement?
To reiterate, were I to use a falsified application for personal gain, then it would be horribly unethical. Journalists, cops, the military, etc. use the same tactics to uncover problems that wouldn't be apparent otherwise. There are problems with DMOZ, and I intend to uncover at least one of them. There are many areas where DMOZ could improve, and I'll be highlighting one of them. Any company run the way DMOZ is operated would be out of business in six months. Bad editors, arbitrary guidelines, opaque standards, poor communication, and awful customer support are just some of the areas that DMOZ lacks in.
Because Google uses DMOZ as it's underlying directory data, the ODP data has become a huge cog in the commercialization of the internet. Because of that, DMOZ should be held to business standards rather than other, arbitrary standards. If they are not willing to do so, perhaps they should make their data only available on the DMOZ site. That's the only way to completely remove the question of financial connections with the data.
RE: "To reiterate, were I to use a falsified application for personal gain, then it would be horribly unethical."
To Reiterate... Watch my lips:
Lying to get is is a violation of our rules. Don't do that."
Oh well... thanks to the guys that check apps we dodged the bullet of admitting someone who finds it easy to break rules, rationalizes his own lies, and doesn't see it as a problem. The system worked as designed.
Hopefully your competitors aren't sending links to this page to your clients as a sample of your SEO work. The *if you do that to my clients because I'm dishonest I'll raise a shitstorm* defense is gonna be real popular. Easier to take risks on someone elses behalf.
Don't worry, you're probably safe, I doubt Dmoz will follow Google's cue. What the heck does Google know about success? lol
Adios ~ Rob
"Hopefully your competitors aren't sending links to this page to your clients as a sample of your SEO work."
I have 3 large SEO clients who pay me a monthly retainer fee for optimization. These are people who are pretty intimate with the SEO process and quite knowledgeable when it comes to what I do. I've sent a link to this story and to the comments page to all three clients. I've received a response from one so far (I edited some naughty language and name information):
"F*ck em Joe - don't let it bother you - it don't bother ma(sic)
James *******"
Jim knows about DMOZ, and his site (with 10's of thousands of uniques per week) is not listed. He operates a business that has a 90% world-wide market share, and is THE leader in it's industry. It has been years since the site was submitted to DMOZ for consideration. Another submission request was put through in May of 2006, but we've heard nothing about why the site isn't included.
"thanks to the guys that check apps we dodged the bullet of admitting someone who finds it easy to break rules, rationalizes his own lies, and doesn't see it as a problem. The system worked as designed."
The system worked in the exact opposite way to how it was intended, thus my original post. I DO see it as a huge problem that to publicize the serious issues with the ODP, I have to lie to get in. I'm a serious white-hat guy, but if I have to fabricate information to make my point, I will. It's time that DMOZ is held accountable for it's own problems. I don't see these problems getting resolved simply because of the nature of a large virtual bureaucracy. But, if I can point them out, at least the unaware are educated about the issue.
RE: "I'm a serious white-hat guy, but if I have to fabricate information to make my point, I will."
What a coincidence. I'm a serious animal lover, but if I have to smother a sackful of puppies to make my point, I will.
Sorry... rephrasing it several times hasn't made deception sound honorable. You've been warned, but only can be accountable for your actions.
Good luck.
"What a coincidence. I'm a serious animal lover, but if I have to smother a sackful of puppies to make my point, I will."
The fallacy in your statement is blatant. Connecting the killing of puppies to what I consider a justifiable fabrication is ludicrous. Why not make a more proper analogy? For example:
As a cop, if I were to use a fake name to join a non-profit group (like the Shriners for instance) to catch a member stealing funds or mishandling money would be entirely within propriety.
Hey, point the gun wherever you want, it's your foot.
DMOZ is a joke. I've tried to list our site, which is a long standing, reputable web site, and have never gotten into the directory. I did some research on the editor for that category -- he turned out to be an SEO consultant, and the sites that are listed happen to be in his immediate geographic area. Coincidence?
Complaints to DMOZ that the editor wasn't responsive went unheeded. Every six months I submit and get nothing. This has been going on for 4 years.
Google needs to ban DMOZ, because it's nothing more than a paid links site now.
"...with veiled descriptions of the rejection ..."
If you kept copies of what you put on the application and the rejection you received, why not post them here, so your readers can judge for themselves? Perhaps there's something obvious that you overlooked?
"...and with little transparency to the workings of the process."
Perhaps reading the Meta Editor Guidelines for Reviewing Editor Applications will shed some light on matters for you. ;-)
Hi Robert,
I read the editor guidelines many times before putting in my application. It was the roadmap I used to develop my application.
I don't want to post any more information than I already have because I included a lot of personal information in my application.
I can almost guarantee that the clause in the Meta Editor Guidelines that states:
"Self Promotion. The candidate appears mainly interested in promoting his/her own sites or those with which s/he is affiliated. The ODP is not a marketing tool, and should not be used to circumvent the site submission process."
That's why I included personal references, an unpublished phone number through which I can be reached, and a full disclosure of what I do. It's very very frustrating to know that I can help, but the very expertise that would make me a great editor are the reason I'm probably being rejected.
In your application you showed a basic misunderstanding of how to title and describe a site which could perhaps lead the reviewing meta editor to conclude that you were there for the purposes of promoting sites rather than helping us build a comprehensive directory. Possibly you could have been given specific feed back, that is up to the reviewing meta and depends on the circumstances of each application.
However given your stated intention to lie, cheat and otherwise game the system I think that it would be inappropriate for me to give you any further assistance.
seems they are accepting 78 editors per week.
http://blog.dmoz.org/2007/10/24/what-topic-do-you-care-about/
perhaps they filled their quota before you submitted : )
j/k
try again...who knows.
You have barely scratched the surface , you can read more from disgruntled ex-editors at DMOZ forum. ;-)
The DMOZ is a joke.
Any updates to this post? Did you apply under an alias? I would be really interested in the results.
I have been denied several times myself. I followed all of the rules and read many blogs on how to get accepted,but no joy. I am doing well without it though.
The Open Directory Project is too exclusive. I don't understand why they deny as many editors & websites as they do. There are so many great websites I've seen that can't get listed there and it makes no sense. I'll definitely be checking to see what happens when you re-apply
The Open Directory Project is too exclusive. I don't understand why they deny as many editors & websites as they do. There are so many great websites I've seen that can't get listed there and it makes no sense. I'll definitely be checking to see what happens when you re-apply
The Open Directory Project is too exclusive. I don't understand why they deny as many editors & websites as they do. There are so many great websites I've seen that can't get listed there and it makes no sense. I'll definitely be checking to see what happens when you re-apply
I finally got a site approved on DMOZ after waiting for like 6 months or better! They are so dang slow.
We All of us Can make our Own Dmoz.org website why we are waiting for.
There is one truth on internet that there is nothing true.