Open Directory Project 155
Over time, senior editors may be granted additional privileges which reflect their editing experience and leadership
within the editing community. The most straightforward are editall privileges which allow an editor to access all
categories in the directory. Meta privileges additionally allow editors to perform tasks such as reviewing editor
applications, setting category features and handling external and internal abuse reports. Cateditall privileges are
similar to editall but only for a single directory category. Similarly, catmod privileges are similar to meta but only
for a single directory category. Catmv privileges allow editors to make changes to directory ontology by moving or
renaming categories. All of these privileges are granted by admins and staff, usually after discussion with meta
editors.
In August 2004, a new level of privileges called admin was introduced. Administrator status was granted to a
number of long serving metas by staff. Administrators have the ability to grant editall+ privileges to other editors and
to approve new directory-wide policies, powers which had previously only been available to root (staff) editors.[28]
A full list of senior editors is available to the public,[29] as is a listing of all current editors.[30]
All ODP editors are expected to abide by ODP's Editing Guidelines. These guidelines describe editing basics: which
types of sites may be listed and which may not; how site listings should be titled and described in a loosely
consistent manner; conventions for the naming and building of categories; conflict of interest limitations on the
editing of sites which the editor may own or otherwise be affiliated with; and a code of conduct within the
community.[31] Editors who are found to have violated these guidelines may be contacted by staff or senior editors,
have their editing permissions cut back or lose their editing privileges entirely. ODP Guidelines are periodically
revised after discussion in editor forums.Site submissions
One of the original motivations for forming Gnuhoo/Newhoo/ODP was the frustration that many people experienced
in getting their sites listed on Yahoo! Directory. However Yahoo! has since implemented a paid service for timely
consideration of site submissions. That lead has been followed by many other directories. Some accept no free
submissions at all. By contrast the ODP has maintained its policy of free site submissions for all types of site—the
only one of the major general directories to do so.
One result has been a gradual divergence between the ODP and other directories in the balance of content. The
pay-for-inclusion model favours those able and willing to pay, so commercial sites tend to predominate in directories
using it.[32] Conversely, a directory manned by volunteers will reflect the aims and interests of those volunteers. The
ODP lists a high proportion of informational and non-profit sites.
Another consequence of the free submission policy is that the ODP has enormous numbers of submissions still
waiting for review. In large parts those consist of spam and incorrectly submitted sites.[33] So the average processing
time for a site submission has grown longer with each passing year. However the time taken cannot be predicted,
since the variation is so great: a submission might be processed within hours or take several years.[34] However, site
suggestions are just one of many sources of new listings. Editors are under no obligation to check them for new
listings and are actually encouraged to use other sources.[34][35]Controversy and criticism
There have long been allegations that volunteer ODP editors give favorable treatment to their own websites while
concomitantly thwarting the good faith efforts of their competition.[36] Such allegations are fielded by ODP's staff
and meta editors, who have the authority to take disciplinary action against volunteer editors who are suspected of
engaging in abusive editing practices.[37] In 2003, ODP introduced a new Public Abuse Report System that allows
members of the general public to report and track allegations of abusive editor conduct using an online form.[38]
Uninhibited discussion of ODP's purported shortcomings has become more common on mainstream Webmaster
discussion forums. Although site policies suggest that an individual site should be submitted to only one category,[39]
as of October 2007, Topix.com, a news aggregation site operated by ODP founder Rich Skrenta, has more than