Search Engine Forums, SEO Forum

Pretty good solution, but what happens if the corrupt editor chooses to influence other people, like themselves, to apply for editor positions in the same or similar categories?

I do not think there is a sure way to eliminate it completely, as humans will be humans, but there are many ways to minimize it.

Some categories already have multiple editors. The amount of categories without editors greatly outweighs the amount with, so it is my belief they concentrate more on the categories without editors.

For them to switch, after doing it a certain way for so long, may do more damage than good.

They just need more editors, plain and simple. With more "employees" they can handle a bigger workload. I mean, they brag about being the largest human edited directory, they have to expect to employ a lot of humans as time goes on.

well that would account for the impossability
in getting listed now wouldn't it ?

montux wrote:Here what the The Heecheesoft Blog says to stop corruption In Dmoz!
visit here to read more>>http://www.neotitans.com/heecheesoft/20 ... s-per.html

The solution is to allow multiple editors per category. This way there would be more manpower to handle submissions for a particular category and the power of a single corrupt editor is greatly minimized.

Well, I haven't read the article, and don't really care to, but there are 3 points I want to make.

1.) Every category has many editors. No category is every without an editor, as there are 100s of editors who can edit in every section of the directory. Listed editors in the upper most categories can edit in every sub-level category beneath it.

2. Reviewing suggestions is just one way editors add sites to the directory. Editors are not required to review suggested sites. If an editor wants he/she can choose not to even look at a category's unreviewed suggestion pool, but instead look for sites on their own (search engines, newspaper ads, television commericials, message boards, chatrooms, etc.). For a lot of the commercial categories (shopping and business) there's no need to review suggested sites as the majority of them are unlistable.

3. This "corrupt editors" notion is often exaggerated. If you feel an editor is abusing his/her powers then by all means file an abuse report so Dmoz Meta editors can investigate it and take appropriate action if need be. Most of the time there is no abuse going on, but editors found to have abused their privileges will have their priviliges revoked.

Also, just a side-note. If you run across an ex-editor who says he/she was kicked out of the directory and they don't know why; don't believe them. Most of them will lie to your face (which is a good trait of corrupt editors, by the way). Most likely they were caught abusing their priviliges or their editing was really terrible. I've talked to only two ex-editors who had the balls to admit that they were rightfully kicked out for wrongdoing. Most of the time they'll feign ignorance.

Just remember that the most common reason for an otherwise listable site not being added to the directory is that it hasn't been reviewed yet.

I have been chating with the people at the Dmoz forum and they assured me that everyone stands an equal chance of getting listed and that corrupt editors cannot control an entire category.