But do you still think that Google should give the juice for a link in DMOZ?

Do you think that a paid review listing with paid editors like Yahoo Dir be the best solution for DMOZ?

Unfortunately, there’s not a lot we can do about the number of editors available to help build and maintain the directory. All the editors are volunteers, so help out by donating as little or as much of their free time as they feel able.

There are currently just under 6000 active editors, while there are about 600,000 categories and over 5.5 million site listings. You’ll have to guess how many suggestions we get, since that’s not public information. But I’m sure you can do the math, and conclude that there are bound to be some areas that don’t get as much editorial attention as they could do with. While letting more people become editors would seem like an easy solution, we have to avoid the types 2 and 3 you list as much as possible, and also ensure that those we accept won’t be a drain on resources requiring constant supervision and clearing up after their mistakes.

Now on the the four specific issues you raise:

1/ Any broken links that can be automatically detected are already dealt with automatically. Though we prefer to leave them listed for a week or so in case it’s only a temporary problem. Unfortunately many problems can’t be reliable picked up automatically, and so require manual inspection from an editor. This takes precious resources away from other areas. However, if you spot any problem listings, please help us find and deal with them, either by using the “update listing” link on the category page, or by reporting them in the thread at the top of http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=12

2/ The editing system does indeed show when a URL is already listed. But you’re misreading the guidelines here. What is not permitted is for a site owner to suggest their site more than once (not that this stops them). Editors are perfectly allowed to list a suggested site more than once, in accordance with the editing guidelines. For details see http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/site-specific.html

3/ I’m not sure whether you’re referring to promotional words in the ODP title and/or description, or to the content of the site itself. The latter is not a problem provided the site otherwise meets our site selection criteria at http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html . However, if you spot any listings that don’t meet these criteria, or whose titles and/or descriptions don’t comply with the editing style guidelines at http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html then please let us know by either of the mechanisms mentioned in 1/ above. Editors can make mistakes, and both websites and our guidelines can change over time.

4/ Every rejection message either includes a specific reason or a list of common reasons. If there are no specific comments then one of the common reasons will apply. Being able to follow instructions, work independently, and critically evaluate your own work are all vital skills for an editor to possess. Since re-applications are generally encouraged, you should think of the task of working out and correcting the mistakes from previous applications as part of the application process. If a potential editor can figure it out, then that’s a good demonstration of essential skills. If he/she can’t, well then they probably wouldn’t make a very good editor.

Finally, with regard to the rumours about BOTW, you do know where they originated don’t you? I wouldn’t believe everything that you read on the web…