>Your concept of trusted site suggesters is not what i had i mind at all ...
>"to enable them to formally grow a trusted relationship with dmoz"
I think we're closer to agreement here than you think we are :) Trust is key. If you don't trust, you aren't going to WANT a relationship.
>by professional, i was refering to the general membership of this fine forum who are in this as a business.
Understood (although there are exceptions here). By "amateur" I was referring to the general membership of the ODP community -- most of us are professionals (but at something else, like veterinary science or programming or real estate or whatever, and the few who are professional webmasters need to be able to act like amateurs while editing.)
A "professional" is someone who does something for money. (doesn't mean they're competant; doesn't mean they're venal either.) An "amateur" is someone who does it for love of it. (doesn't mean they're incompetant; doesn't mean they're noble either.) The ODP is, by design, an intrinsically amateur activity. So whatever programs we'd be coming up with, they'd be aimed more towards the communities where we expect cooperation.
>...perhaps using points
Yes, I threw that out as an idea. I don't know if it would work, or if it would be acceptable: it's a departure from the usual ODP flexibility. But if we're talking about "paying with sweat equity", it might be something worth considering.
>At the start of such a project, webmasters could nominate sites they had personally worked on, submitted personally, an had control off and could prove they had control of, which had been accepted by dmoz, points could be obtained for that, points system could be weighted so that sheer number of accepted submissions did not in itself gain un warranted kudo's
Ah, I see, you're looking for retroactive points. That's a little bit more problematic--too easily abused, and, so long as we can help it, we really don't want to get into the business of caring who controls what sites. It just encourages sneaks to try harder.
>Payments are forbidden by the social contract, yet the world finacial payments system are probably the only fairly well tested, cheap, means of identification on the web. anyway, scratch the $50 payment, I don't have an alternative for now
Not to worry: money doesn't build trust. Sweat equity is better anyway.
>This suggestion is all about improving a commercial webmasters experience of dmoz,the quality of the actual directory is rightly the domain of the editors and controllers of the directory, at no time do I refer to uninterested or uninvolved 3rd parties. Whereas not all websites will be found suitable for inclusion in the directory, the insistence of google an other SE's in placing high standing on dmoz inclusion means webmasters have a continuing interest in dmoz
I understand that's your concern and agree it's not ours. And, of course, nothing that doesn't address both sets of concerns is going to be successful.
>The "rigour" I refered to lies in maintaining a formal relationship with dmoz, much as we do with adsense, overture, webmasters tools, etc, these relationships enforce a certain level of discipline on
both sides, in particular the machinery can enforce corporate policy to an extent
I think there's a fairly big difference in attitude here. And the issue is, there are (so far as I can see) very few people that could maintain such a relationship out of their own work. Fact is, most people just don't have more than a website or three of "unique contribution" to the "sum of human knowledge." So you'd have to have multiple clients (each with his own profession). Well, and some people DO act as professional web developers or SEO's for multiple clients like that. But that flies into another problem. If this is, or is perceived, as "clients of John Doe get quick access to the ODP, while clients of Richard Roe don't" ... then there are going to be problems. Because OUR word for that is ... "abuse". And editors who, as professional web developers, give preferential treatment to their own clients (OR TO SOMEONE ELSE'S SPECIFIC CLIENTS) can and do get removed.
>For folk making non account submissions, nothing would change, however, it is true that one would expect non account submissions to be lower on the review pecking order
Yes, yes, but remember: if I'm editing the "John Milton" category, it's not EVER going to matter to me that someone I trust has suggested a site to the "Infrared Optics Design" category. And there are over a half million categories. So the effect of "pecking order" is usually going to be pretty insignficant at best.
>True odp cannot force editors to review to a schedule, so i cannot actually make any reasonable suggestion here, question is , why do people become, and stay editors of dmoz?
The ODP founders observed that many webmasters built sites "for love of the topic" (in the best tradition of amateurism), with pages of links to other sites on the subject. So they created a site that would give such people (1) tools to build those topical pages cooperatively, and (2) distribution of that content they had built. So long as the ODP tools and hosting are more effective than such people can build on their own, the ODP is a very attractive option.
>What I am getting from your post is that dmoz the directory is set up to give the public the best possible directory of websites, and is peopled by folk with a rather diferent out look from the webmasters who suggest their own sites.
This is very well said. I thought, after I posted, that I should come back and give a summary like this. But I happily adopt yours without change; I must have expressed myself more successfully than I feared (or you must have read very carefully.)
>If Yahoo, with its rather power directory where to win its ongoing battle with google and resume its prior dominance of the search market, then the relationship between dmoz and its webmaster audience would immediately be less stressful, but as that doesn't appear to be happening, that relationship needs some work
There can be a relationship only so far as there's a common interest. In part (altogether for some) the relationship is likely to be adversarial: the ODP's purpose is to help people get past all the intermediarizers (who are all, of course, professional webmasters) right to the real content.
So let me ask this: (1) How many webmasters or SEO'ers here have had more than, say, 20 clients who owned their own business or before they ever had a website? (Include yourself, as having a business as developing or promoting websites, as one. Also, count other organizations such as clubs, churches, schools, etc.)
(2) How about more than 50? (3) More than 100?
(4,5,6) OK, how many webmasters or SEO'ers would be willing to hunt up 20, 50, or 100 sites of hobbiests/businesses/organizations in their own community (geographic or cultural) just to get points? Bearing in mind that you could use these same sites to build a reputation as an editor instead?
Also bear in mind that your recompense would be in the form of a possible slight advantage in getting sites reviewed more quickly, which is likely not to show up all that quickly--and ... we can talk more about feedback.
(7) What feedback do you think you're not getting that you want? Bear in mind that you know (or can find out more easily than we can) whether the information you're publishing is already available on the net. Bear in mind that there are really only two requirements for getting listed; (1) significant unique information, and (2) absense of a relationship with the ODP that can be described as "extreme abuse."
What else is there to know?