Check out this ODP article

[Advisor]

Doug, you will find this especially interesting:

http://www.traffick.com/story/portals/200108_aolodp.asp

I like this part the best:
With very few exceptions, SEOs are eliminated on sight if they admit to their profession on their application. If they do not admit it on their application, however, and it is later found that they are an SEO, that
omission is in itself grounds for removal, regardless of the editor's editing history.

Jill

[ihelpyou]

wow. He must have had some blows with them. That revealed a bunch!

Now I know why I cannot be an editor there. Don't think I want to anyway now. Although, I know a few SEO who are editors and one who is a meta.

Good newsletter today Jill! The graphics thing was good.

[newriver]

Just plain not true, there are many SEO's in DMOZ.

[ihelpyou]

Yes. I do know a few. Did he have a fallin out with them? If not, that is a nasty article to be publishing.

[newriver]

I don't know the author personally, but it is obvious they were/are an odp editor as they have showed internal workings publicly.

This article alone is actually grounds for dismissal.

Again, I very much disagree with almost every point in the article as being simply untrue.

The part about Robert Keating could not be more wrong, I have worked with this man several times, and he always lets the editors do their own work.

[ihelpyou]

That guy must have been dismissed then. Under the conditions he describes, anyone would have a hard time staying there so you kind of know most, if not all is not true.

[newriver]

I'd be willing to bet it's sour grapes

[Advisor]

I think to say that the article is totally untrue, is ridiculous. Obviously, the writer has intimate knowledge of what's going on over at ODP simply by some of the things he/she says. Certainly, it could be how he/she sees things and not necessarily how Newriver sees them, but that doesn't make them a bold faced lie. Seems to me it would be much harder to make all that stuff up, then to simply tell it how they see it.

It also doesn't seem right if it's true what you say, that the person who wrote that should be dismissed (if they haven't been already), just for speaking out. What ever happened to freedom of speech? ODP...Love it or leave it?

I remember when ODP was formed as NewHoo (or wasn't it even GnuHoo at first?). It had specific goals in mind, mostly to NOT be like Yahoo!. I think, in fact, that was the reason why it was formed to begin with. How interesting that with it's growth, it now has many of the same problems. Just goes to show you that it wasn't Yahoo!'s fault. Get big and this kinda stuff is gonna happen.

I personally don't have any problems with ODP. Most of my submitted sites get added fairly quickly, although some take a couple of submissions. Sure, it takes a lot longer than I would like, but hey, it's free, ya know?

Jill

[newriver]

Can't really argue with you on this web whiz...

I can say that when the person who wrote the article signed up to be an editor they agreed not to share any internal workings of dmoz with the public.

This article is just that, and grounds for dismissal, by an agreed contract. Thats why I stated the article alone was grounds for dismissal.

[Advisor]

the person who wrote the article signed up to be an editor they agreed not to share any internal workings of dmoz with the public.

Ahh...okay. I didn't realize that they have to sign something like that. I suppose that is to protect their proprietary software and stuff. I wonder if they purposely make people sign that sort of thing so people won't air their dirty laundry in public? I can certainly understand why any company wouldn't want this kind of stuff to be out in the public, but also, I have to think that if a company had nothing to hide than they wouldn't care. I'm sure that it's got to be tough for a company such as DMOZ because they consist mostly of volunteers. Must be difficult, if not impossible, to keep everyone happy.

Obviously, the writer of that article is none too happy!

Jill