The DMOZ corruption debates are alive and well

While cruising through one of my many forum haunts I couldn’t help but see that the debates over DMOZ submissions and editor applications are still raging on.  Questions regarding how corrupt the submission process is have been raging on for years now. Funny how I never heard anything like this before 2000 or so. I had always managed to get a site listed as long as it offered decent content and added value to the growing list of the DMOZ index.  Like a light switch being clicked they went from the largest self managed web directory to a gang of corrupt editors sitting in a dark room somewhere planning strategies to punk webmasters and marketers into paying for their listings or get deleted.  The submission process became so controversial and getting approved seemingly impossible. Unless of course you’re willing to pay.

One of the leading causes of this is the tied at the hips relationship DMOZ has with Google. With the advent of Googles PR model and the deep linking and high page rank that DMOZ enjoys it has made the directory a “need to have” for marketers and webmasters. Unfortunately this same explosion in popularity has brought with it what appears to be a corrupt editorial staff.  Whether it’s blackmailing listed sites for cash or simply ignoring the bulk of submission for whatever reason it’s no wonder DMOZ isn’t trusted these days.

In the forum a member posted that “I think there are no DMOZ editors in this forum. most of the members in this forum have tried to become editors but none have succeeded”.

And true to form a flock of DMOZ editors jumped in to voice their opinions of this statement. None good of course and most quite arrogant and aloof, also true to form.

Note:
I have a question.  Why is it that DMOZ editors seem to have a hard time actually editing their categories, yet when someone says something against DMOZ (and the editors), all of a sudden they can rally in opposition like an army of vultures.  This is quite an interesting proposition if you think about it.  There isn’t enough time to get to all the links, but there seems to be plenty of time to defend their inability to get to all the submissions. It’s something that anyone with an interest should take notice of.

Another posted “Is it so hard to “hire” quality editors ? ”

To which Jim Noble (the Big Kahuna at DMOZ) responded with:
“No, it’s very easy and I’m always happy to do so. Sadly, many applicants are either liars, can’t read or are clearly self serving. Those I decline. Wouldn’t you?”

Well, yes Jim, if this were truly the case. I somehow doubt that it is and I must believe that yours is a statement of convenience rather than plausible.

The better question would be “Why is DMOZ only approving 3-6000 sites a month when there are easily 25x that being submitted?” Would you have us believe that there are only 3-6000 worthy submissions each month? This is exactly why most career webmasters believe DMOZ to be corrupt.

I used to look forward to having a site accepted in the moz, but that was more than 10 years ago when it wasn’t too big to care. It seems that, much like other large online companies, they’ve forgotten who helped to make them what they are. These days submitting to DMOZ is much like following the yellow brick road. It’s easy enough to claim that the submitters are either stupid and can’t read or have no content worth publishing. As for editors; “Sadly, many applicants are either liars, can’t read or are clearly self serving” Quite an arrogant statement if put into perpective. There are 9 people who sincerely want to help for every 1 that wants to “work the system”. While I completely empathize with the issue of editors trying to work DMOZ to their own ends, I also have the common sense to realize what you are really saying.

The most vocal of DMOZ editors smack of the same elitist mentallity, openly and unapologetically. It isn’t DMOZ’ job to expect a certain level of etiquette from its editors, after all they don’t represent you adequately from the mangerial perspective so why should you expect them to in public. This is part of the problem when it comes to having a self policed force of editors. It’s inevitably going to end up with some sort of pecking order where the rules aren’t equally applied to editors, both old and new. You’re trying to make sure new editors aren’t going to steal the eggs while your grandfathered editors have been stealing the chickens for years.

But I digress, it’s too nice a day to ponder such things.