Hedger explores the very positive history of the Open Directory Project (we are big fans of the directory ourselves, and we believe it to be a superior alternative to the Yahoo! directory) but goes on to say that:

For the past twenty-four months…webmasters and search marketers have expressed extreme frustration while waiting for their sites to get listed in DMOZ. The Open Directory is a volunteer driven initiative, and like other non-paying projects they often have a hard time finding good help. Submissions to categories are backed up for months and in some cases, even years with many of the over 1500 unique directory categories lacking volunteers assigned to edit them. A backlog in sites awaiting review is one thing but recently, accusations of bribery, favouritism and editors lashing out at critics have caused many to lower their previously favourable estimations of the Open Directory.

This is not just another rehash of the controversial Corrupt DMOZ Editor weblog (the contents of which have never been independently verified), but a broader look at the systemic problems of a volunteer-based service trying to cope with the phenomenal growth of the internet. Having said that, while we are generally very positive about the Open Directory Project, we are also aware of a large number of sites which have exploited the DMOZ editorial system to secure truly ridiculous numbers of separate category listings. Check out the WHOIS hall of shame, dedicated to exposing the sites with the largest number of separate category listings. We have identified some individual less scrupulous editors who have exploited their own editorial positions to grant their own websites multiple listings — sometimes in explicit contradiction of published DMOZ guidelines for justifying multiple listings.