Over the history of the project, DMOZ has had more than 70,000 volunteer editors worldwide. On average, there are approximately 6,000 active editor accounts at any given time.
What's impressive (at least to me) is that we do this out of a pure sense of giving back to the Internet Community. Editors take the time to organize and create useful resources in categories and topics that are of interest to us, not for money (side bar: looking forward to typically useless comments on that item) but for the sheer enjoyment of gathering quality information to help people find what they need-faster.
On average, DMOZ accepts 78 new editors per week, which is great. At the same time, we're interested in adding more. Specifically, we are interested in hearing from people who can continue to improve the data we provide for all of our users around the world.
So, while you're here, is there a topic that you're passionate about? Do you know of, or can you find, three sites that are perfect for that topic that aren't already listed? Would you like to be seen as a category expert and contribute to a global volunteer community that is relied upon by millions of searchers and many of the leading search engines on the planet? Then, we invite you to volunteer. : )
While you're here, type a query into the search box at the top of the page (make sure you click on the DMOZ.org tab before you click Search) and see if we have a category that interests you. If so, follow the steps mentioned at the bottom of that page and apply.
More information about becoming an editor is available at:
http://www.dmoz.org/help/become.html
and
http://www.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/apply.cgi
We look forward to hearing from you.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
21. If the Open Directory Project is interested in attracting more editors (and it should be) it needs to become more transparent. Since dmoz was founded, the landscape of the Internet has changed. Contributors expect a level of transparency from organizations where they volunteer their time that dmoz simply doesn't provide.
Judging by the rate at which the content index is deteriorating, in order to effectively maintain it's current content and grow it to keep the directory useful going forward, dmoz needs a lot more editors. And not just a few more editors, in the range of an order of magnitude. (Not 6,000 editors, 60,000 editors.) For those who scoff at that number look at the number of users registered on de.licio.us. Look at what Mahalo has done to attract guides in just a few months. The people and interest is there, they just aren't joining dmoz anymore.
Rightly or wrongly, there is a widespread perception on the Internet that dmoz is corrupt, and the only thing that will be effective in changing people's minds is greater transparency.
What do I mean by greater transparency? Editorial content decisions should be made in public places. Editors should be given an opportunity to defend themselves before being kicked out. Helpful, honest responses should be given to applicants whose applications are rejected (as opposed to the unhelpful "you may have done one of the following 15 things" type responses that are currently given, if any response is given at all). Experts should be given greater freedom in their content decisions. Community leaders should reflect the community as it is, (or perhaps as it needs to be) not the community as it was in 2003. Until dmoz changes these things it will continue to struggle to gain mindshare among those who could help it most and will fail to grow as it must to regain its relevance.
Posted at 10:33AM on Oct 25th 2007 by xixtas
22. I have to agree with mb to some extent. In my experience the only reason I know that anyone applies to become a DMOZ editor is self promotion, whether you realize that or not. And although there probably are a small percentage of noble editors, I expect that 99% of your future applications, which you are now actively encouraging on this blog (which is read by thousands of webmasters whose intentions are only self-promotion), will be applications made by webmasters looking to self promote and take some control over their competition by controlling their category and thus having some major influence over Google search engine results.
I think DMOZ should be a resource: a useful resource. It really doesn't need to have such an impact on search engine results (OK that's the search engines doing for the most part -- unless you do adopt no-follow on links). It seems to me the original aims of the website have been lost under the aims of SEO's looking to promote, not create a valuable resource. How valuable is DMOZ to anyone reading here? Is it valuable first as a resource, or is it valuable first because you want a link from the site. And if the first reason that springs to your mind is the latter, then why do you want that link? Because it improves DMOZ or because it increases your websites traffic?
Posted at 1:40PM on Oct 25th 2007 by Chris
23. So I asked to be reinstated over a month ago and there hasn't been a response (athanasius). I have also been trying to get our site (www.aquinasandmore.com) into the Catholic shopping area for five years without success. The site is the largest online Catholic store in the world. You would think that five years would be enough time.
Posted at 12:30PM on Oct 25th 2007 by Ian
24. Is it so hard to believe that volunteers would use their free time to build something they find useful, just for the pleasure of building it?
And, is it then fair to blame those people for how the data is used downstream, when it's freely offered to everyone?
Posted at 2:12PM on Oct 25th 2007 by crowbar
25. For those readers wondering about editor removals, you should know that they're only made by the consensus of meta editors after careful consideration of all the available evidence. Only in the most unambiguous cases will editors be removed without first receiving a warning or other feedback about their actions.
Full details about the procedures can be found at http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/meta/abuse.html and there's a useful article at http://www.dmoz.org/newsletter/2000Sep/removal.html -- it's from 2000 so is a little outdated in places, but it mostly still applies.
Posted at 3:36PM on Oct 25th 2007 by chaos127
26. I applied to be an editor and was rejected for applying for a category that was too large (by mistake). That's fine of course, because it means I gleaned through the application guidelines too quickly I guess.
What I am surprised with is, I must rewrite my whole application to re submit when it would be so much more intelligent to re select a new smaller category with the existing profile in tact.
I would love to be an editor, have the right qualifications but the laborious application process is a deterrent if you have to re submit and other higher priority work awaits. Keeping in mind the next submission may be rejected as well.
Isn't that something that can be looked at?
Ray
Posted at 6:20PM on Oct 25th 2007 by Ray
27. > Put a rel="no follow" tag on every entry in the directory and watch all your editors disappear in about 3 minutes.
Only the corrupt editors would leave, they're the only ones who care about no follow.
DMOZ should no follow all links - if they care about quality.
Posted at 1:13AM on Oct 26th 2007 by marc
28. Situs Sekitar Info Pati
Posted at 1:50AM on Oct 26th 2007 by Aristarkhus
29. I have no desire to be an editor now. (I was an editor for several years). But I must ask: why does ODP turn down ANY applications to be an editor?
Both when I was an editor and now it seemed obvious that the biggest problem with ODP was lack of volunteers. Not enough people. It never occured to me that you actually rejected people. I understand rejecting people who are obviously just looking to put in their site or have truly horrible applications, but that can't be more than 10% of the applicants.
I suggested one time on an industry forum that ODP probably accepted 90% of applicants. I had no inside knowledge, but that seemed reasonable. Quickly insiders corrected that and said the number was more like 20% to 30%. What?
Consider another volunteer organization: Habitat for Humanity. What they do is harder than producing a directory. Building a house requires specific skills. Yet they accept most of their applicants. They find something for them to do.
I have to believe the negativity toward ODP these days is due to the exclusitivity attitude. And I firmly believe that ODP would produce a much, much better directory with more volunteers. Stop turning so many people down.
Posted at 7:03PM on Oct 26th 2007 by Vijay
30. Removal procedure fails to mention that removed editor isn't given reason why removal took place as matter a fact such information is meta privilege only and revealing is violation of communication guidelines!
This makes appeal a joke, how can you make appeal if you have no idea what have you done wrong? And even if you send one nobody bothers to reply, DMOZ really cares about its editors...
Posted at 8:28PM on Oct 26th 2007 by Ivan Bajlo
31. well sorry but what a big laugh this is.
Its even insulting.
If you dont know it already ,dmoz is most hated directory outhere.
I even tried to be an editor,never heard of it anymore.
Ever read all the negative stuff ?
As far as i see it ,dmoz is managed by a bunch of grandpa's playing god over a corrupt directory.
Posted at 9:04PM on Oct 26th 2007 by johnw
32. @ JohnW - "Most hated" is certainly your opinion and appreciate that you took the time to stop by and share it.
At the same time, if you asked the partners and sites that rely on our data ( 4000 )...I know that they appreciate how selective we are in both editor acceptance and site submission.
Snap.com being just one of them:
http://www.metamend.com/snap-search-engine.html
"Ever read all the negative stuff ?"
Would encourage you not to believe everything you read on the Internet. You'll end up in the basement wearing a tin foil hat and cashing checks for lotteries in fictional countries.
DMOZ is growing and this an exciting time to be involved. For those editors that have left ( in one way or another ) - sorry that you are missing out on the progress and wish you all best of luck.
Posted at 10:33PM on Oct 26th 2007 by bbqgrant
33. I'm still waiting to be involved both as an entry in the directory (5 years) and as a reinstated editor (over a month).
Posted at 5:15PM on Oct 27th 2007 by Ian
34. I think part of the reason people don't like DMOZ is because of the snide or sarcastic remarks made by the editors. I could email Starbucks or Google, bitch a blue streak and I'd be met with nothing but cool professionalism.
They would never imply that I'm so stupid that I'll end up in the basement wearing a tinfoil hat...
I know the editors are volunteers, not employees, but does that give them the right to be snide?
Maybe it does, but it doesn't help the directory.
Posted at 6:10PM on Oct 27th 2007 by marc
35. @ marc - appreciate your feedback.
I was simply seeking to counter the fact that 95% of the negative things you read about DMOZ online are false.
Much like urban legends, phony check schemes online and extortion claims from Shoemoney.com
But, perhaps you're right. Perhaps my "advice" came across wrong.
Appreciate you commenting on our blog and the feedback you are sharing with us.
BBQGrant
Posted at 9:23PM on Oct 27th 2007 by bbqgrant
36. The single most important topic to address is providing transparency to the community.
+ What is the status of a submission?!
If this is solved than people will have an insight into why things are taking so long, if a site has been rejected and why and so on.
I really do hope for the sake of DMOZ that these things are solved soon as it has taken nearly too long to bring this to attention.
Posted at 5:20AM on Oct 30th 2007 by Markus Hübner
37. I submitted my web-site for inclusion in the ODP about 2 years ago. I did receive a reply that my submission had been accepted but have heard nothing since.
Since then my site is listed #1 on Google and usually above #20 on the other search engines.
At this point I am not sure of the relavence of ODP, since searches most often done using Google.
Pete
Posted at 9:15AM on Oct 30th 2007 by Pete
38. Is there any chance of the ODP removing the requirement for would be editors to have both a "First Name" and a "Last Name" in order to complete the application form? It would be logical were those like myself with only one name to use that name for both entries, but this would probably lead to me being incorrectly addressed. (I used to be an editor back in Newhoo days, prior to this restriction coming into force.)
Posted at 5:21PM on Oct 30th 2007 by Weed
39. @Weed: I believe that only the free text in your "preferred name" is ever shown on your profile and to other editors, with the text in the other name two boxes only being available to meta editors. So while you may have to be creative in filling in the form (presumably it doesn't allow a blank surname), I don't think it will be that much of a problem for general internal use. (And most people just use the editorname internally anyway.)
BTW: It's forbidden to have more than one editor account, so if you've ever been an editor before, you need to apply for reinstatement rather than completing a new application form.
Posted at 6:43AM on Oct 31st 2007 by chaos127
40. Six weeks for a reply back on my editor reinstatement request. 5+ years waiting to get in the directory.
And counting.
Posted at 11:57PM on Nov 11th 2007 by Ian