Should DMOZ be regulated?

They did a good job, they are highly successful and it is a fine example of true internet democracy - but only at first sight.

Democracy is about broad and easy public participation (perfect with DMOZ), transperency (lacking) and mechanisms against abuse of power (inappropriate).

Unless they come up with a new, improved policy to overcome transperency and control deficits, it is only a question of time that legislation will step in.

I doubt, however, that the "meta editors" and anonymous persons behind the scene are open for a change.

Martin
http://ipinfo.info/
http://geotek.de/

>>Democracy is about broad and easy public participation (perfect with DMOZ)

Who said the ODP was a democracy? Who said it was public property? Who said that everyone and his dog has a say in its operation? What you actually mean to say is that it is about time webmasters where able to shove their oar in because editors choose not to list their utter crap! Sorry but that is the only word for it.

It is not a directory for webmasters. It is not public property. You worry about your own site and let the ODP worry about theirs. If I was to tell you that you have to add my link to your site I can only guess at what the response would be. I have no right to tell you what to put on your site so why on earth should ODP be any different.

>transperency (lacking)

You cannot get more transparent. Our guidelines are on public display. If you are asking to find out specific of rejection then you are not going to get it and this is to prevent abuse by webmasters. Simple.

>and mechanisms against abuse of power (inappropriate).

A report abuse link has been added onto every page (some pages have not yet hit the public server but they will once they are generated again). ODP take abuse very seriously and editors found to be abusing the system soon get ejected. If you check in RZ you will find many 'my login don't work... why?' threads. Put 2 + 2 together and work out why. I take great pride and enjoy checking up on fellow editors. I like finding out why that editor ammended that description and I like being suspicious and checking if that editor is connected to that site in anyway. There are a lot of eyes looking at every editor.

>Unless they come up with a new, improved policy to overcome transperency

can't see this issue. Transparency is plentiful. But don;t expect to find out how to be abusive of the directory because that is when walls will be built.

>and control deficits

Don't understand what this is meant to be implying.

>it is only a question of time that legislation will step in.

ODP is a website. Why should ODP have legislation? You put on your website what content you like.... so does ODP.

>I doubt, however, that the "meta editors" and anonymous persons behind the scene are open for a change.

Meta editors spend a lot of their time arranging change and ensuring it is implemented. Just because you don't see it please don't be nieve enough to think it is not happening.

As for the anonymous persons behind the scenes.... what is anonymous about AOL?

What you are asking for is 'please tell me how I can fix my site because I want it listed'.

Why should I or any other editor oblige. If you need financial advice you ask a financial adviser, not a shop assistant. If you want advice on how to make a website interesting and fascianating and UNIQUE you don;t ask and editor of a directory that you are trying to get listed in.

It is almost like applying for a job and asking the employer what he would like to see on the CV so you can get the job! Please!

I am not that nieve that I don't know abuse is going on but trust me editors don't like being tarred with the same brush as the minority. Systems are in place and a lot goes on behind the scenes. If we said what went on behind the scenes then abusive editors whould know how to bypass them. That is why transparency is not always a good thing in some instances.

ODP don't tell you what to put on your website so why are people constatly trying to tell them what to put on theirs and then kick off when they don't do it.

I have not voted because it is regulated and regulated by the people who operate it. The vote should have asked 'Should the public have more say in the running of DMOZ' then, I would have voted, NO! It is not a public entity so why should the public (more specifically webmasters) have a say.

I cannot remember hearing one of our users (who is not a webmaster) complaining.

Buster,

Let´s calm down, O.K.?
I said "They did a good job", and that includes you and all of your collegue editors who have spent much of their time working on the project.

>Who said the ODP was a democracy?

dmoz.org states in it´s "About" Page: "It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global community of volunteer editors", "The Republic of The Web", "in the spirit of the Open Source movement" and so on. To me, this is a clear commitment to good democratic internet tradition.

>You cannot get more transparent.

Are you kidding? The DMOZ.org website doesn´t even have an impressum: no email address, no webmaster, no postal address, no contact name, nothing. Under german law they could be sued for this omission. Who are the people behind DMOZ? How are decisions being made? How is DMOZ organized? Is there a managing board and who are the members? Do they openly publish controversal issues?

>You worry about your own site and let the ODP worry about theirs

Full ACK as long as neither of our sites has a dominatiing position. Google certainly is in this category; I opened this discussion to find out what other members think if DMOZ has reached this position!

>What you are asking for is 'please tell me how I can fix my site because I want it listed'

I feel offended by this statement.

Martin
http://geotek.de/

I am perfectly calm. I apologise if it sounded like on big rant back at ya but I am afraid that after replying to stupic amounts of rants in any given day you find your tolerance level getting very low especially when most of the post exist only to stir things up.

>dmoz.org states in it´s "About" Page: "It is constructed and maintained >by a vast, global community of volunteer editors", "The Republic of The >Web", "in the spirit of the Open Source movement" and so on. To me, >this is a clear commitment to good democratic internet tradition.

It is not clear to me. DMOZ.org is 'a website'. It is constructed and maintained by... blah blah blah. That does not make it a democracy in the sense of public involvement.

The full text of that paragraoh says:


In the spirit of Open Source movement the data that is made by the editors is made available under free to use license from rdf.dmoz.org That is Open Source. Open Source is not opening up the entire operation of a project, including internal operations, to the public.

I states how you can get involved and contribute:




But has a feedback link on nearly every page and in many places you will find the staff@dmoz.org address. It also has a fourm, not connected with ODP, at http://www.resource-zone.com and an abuse link is also visible on most pages.



It is a directory! The content of the directory is maintained by editors. Each editor is contactable via their profile. If it was a single webmaster I doubt that they would have time to reply to emails



And what purpose would a postal address be for a online resource? Does that make every webmaster resource on the net questionable or hidden behind walls?



I am afraid there will not be a single website on the internet that will comply with every law in every country. The ODP, I understand, operates under laws in the State of California (well at least the license does).



See http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Sear ... y_Project/



See http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Sear ... rocedures/ which details a lot of the procedures for how the ODP operate internally and as a whole.

As for

There has recently been a change in the way ODP operate as a group however as I am unsure as to any public announcements so I will refrain from commenting however I am aware that certain bits of information are leaking through into some of the webmaster forums. However it is safe to say that for the majority of aspects decisions are made on a consensus basis. Sometimes these decisions will include the standard editors and other times it will be made by a group of experienced meta editor behind closed fora. Other than legal and alike issues most decisions are based on consensus so there is not really a head honcho as it where.

It is self-regulating. To be honest most people only know about DMOZ, and complain so much, because of the Google connection. Yet the connection with google is just as little as the jo.bloggs.com site who also downloads our data.

The problems that everyone seems to refer to would not exist if Google was not such an important part of the internet these days. It is an unfortunate by-product of such a successful directory and community. We are the middle man that everyone is begging for the leg up. If Google stoppe using ODP data our job would be a lot easier and suddenly webmaters would not really be all that interested in being listed.

I make them last comments because it is my opinion that DMOZ is no-where near this dominating position in my opinion. Google is yes... and in a big way... but they are only a user of our data like anyone else.

I am not sure on the stats of DMOZ but I bet it is visited by more spiders/robots than human searchers (of course excluding the webmasters checking for their listing).

The problem with DMOZ is down to their business model. It was doomed from the start.

Running a directory where volunteers are free to voice for the company on their forum is going to fail from the start.

A lot of issues people have are regarding how unhelpful DMOZ are to get listed in.
On the forums i've seen a lot of the editors being rude and inconsiderate to people trying to get listed.

The time limit for sites could be justified if they presented themselves with a public face - soemone who was helpfull and answered peoples questions

As it is - you site takes months to get listed - the mods are rude..... people are dropping DMOZ'sd results from there sites daily, top programmers are leaving their company......

They gotta do soemthign and fast.

Exactly.

I am an editor for a few other directories, but do they get anywhere near the submissions as DMOZ, no. Why? Because they do not have a Google connection. That is why DMOZ is so important.

The few DMOZ categories I am the editor for have hundreds of sites that are backlogged and have been backlogged. I get to them when I have time, after all, I am a volunteer, I am not getting paid to do this. That's why people have to wait to be included in DMOZ. DMOZ is great...it is very important to Google and its FREE...just be patient with your submissions, stop complaining all the time.

Some editors can be rude, but it's usually the more important ones, because they get the same questions over and over again. If people would just read the guidelines and do a little research at http://www.research-zone.com, they would get a lot of their questions answered.

If people want to get listed in a week, call Yahoo and get a Yahoo Directory listing. Of course, you'll have to shell out $299.00 per year, and it won't be nearly as important as DMOZ.

Maybe DMOZ should just start charging for quick inclusion. I think most people would pay for that.

I doubt dmoz can charge for quick inclusion. dmoz will have to totally change their system for paid inclusions.

I agree that many people will pay for it, inclding myself heheh.
pfi dirs are getting shelved sooner or later, in my opinion.

That would be the only way to stop people's complaining that it takes to long to be included. To have the resources to have instant inclusion and to be regulated, you would need more money coming in.

Hmm...Google's got monies

heheh. maybe dmoz should change into an ebay clone and start charging people for inclusion? the higher the bid, the first in line you will be. lol.

I think it may work cuz it is always the guys with bigger pockets who win..

Sorry but no matter how much a company gets asked the same questions its up to them to offer the same customer service level. If a person cannot handle that then they shouldn't be doing what they are doing.

When was the last time you went into tescos and asked where the chips/fries were and they were rude about the fact they were down isle 8? It doesn't happen because it isn't good business.

For DMOZ to offer a paid option would go against all of the original business principles of DMOZ.... i.e "open" directory project......... Not paid directory project............

It's not really a company, its a volunteer organization. Those people in Tescos are getting paid, they are not volunteering. It is a whole different story when people are getting paid.

God. I am starting to sound like I am backing the rude people...by no means am I. Anytime anyone emails me a question about their site, I always answer with a kind response. But, it goes back to DMOZ being regulated. DMOZ is not, so many of the top editors can be rude and get away with it.

As far as PFI, of course its not the business model, but if people want sites included instantly and want a little person to answer their every question, DMOZ is going to need money. Either from PFI or get someone to back them. This is where Google could come in. Google has the money to do so.

Thats exactly my point

We agree...

veto - whats ya name? I think we will get on hehe

Your first day here and I think we have went back and forth (agreed/disagreed) about ideas on quite a few things. Most posts for me in a quite a while. Cant wait for new threads

Welcome to Ozzu.