| This 129 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 129 ( 1 2  4 5 ) > > || |
|11 tips from a senior DMOZ editor|
| 12:47 am on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
One DMOZ editorís 11 tidbits:
1)No or little content = no addition.
2)The more subject specific the web site or page, the better.
3)I can tell a mile away if the page is put up to make money or because it was a labor of love. So if your primary concern is to make money, itíll show on the page. I reject such sites.
4)Geocities sites are highlighted by DMOZ for regular review, probably because they tend to disappear. If you have a Geocities site, make sure itís updated regularly.
5)Do not submit more than two times for the same domain.
6)Long descriptions get chopped, always. The shorter the description, the better chance itíll be used as is.
7)If the siteís not posted in two weeks, send the editor a nice email. If the editorís a good editor, he or she would thank you.
8)Submit to the right category, or itíll be passed around like a burning coal until itís deleted by some careless editor.
9)Sites with its own domain are less likely to be rejected.
10)If youíve been deleted from the list, kindly ask the editor why. Perhaps the site was down when the links were reviewed.
11)Donít bother to ask the editor to change the description, it might just get deleted.
| 8:14 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Very interesting thread, with some pretty fireworks... ;)
I'm curious though; How many (around here) haven't submitted to the ODP because of this line from the Submission Agreement:
"In exchange for ODP's consideration of the site I am submitting, I agree ...[snip!]...
- To grant Netscape Communications Corporation a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, publish, copy, edit, modify, or create derivative works from my submission."
(Highlights are mine...)
Err, now I may be wrong, but doesn't that mean this "worst-case scenario" is possible:
(Speaking as if I was Netscape...)
"Thanks for your submission, we have considered it but aren't interested in listing your site. However, we do like your site enough that we are hiring a lackey to rip it it apart & brand it as our own... Thank you & have a nice day! :)"
Or more extremely: Volunteer or not, editors are in the employ of Netscape, ergo Netscape employees. Did I just grant my competitor - an ODP editor - "a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, publish, copy, edit, modify, or create derivative works from my" web site?
Paranoia has always been one of my finer points...
| 8:24 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I doubt it's a conspiracy.
DMOZ allow sites to the clone your listing.
You get a few extra (half decent) links out of the deal.
| 8:55 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>> Are your statements false? Obviously not in your categories, as you have free reign over these. <<
No one has free reign over their categories.
| 8:59 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Yes, like Fathom said, I would think this refers to just the text entered on the submission page. At least I /hope/ that's the case... :/
Maybe an DMOZ editor could confirm this? This is certainly something that should be made clearer...
| 9:05 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Wow. Crazy thread.
[edited by: tankman at 9:11 pm (utc) on Dec. 1, 2002]
| 9:06 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
A very interesting thread.
ODP may not be dead or terminal, but it could use some medical treatment.
1. After reading NeoSys posts and follow ups, my respect for ODP continues to decline. Some very unprofessional and immature posts. NeoSys, you are a representative of ODP and you have given them a serious black eye today whether you like it or not.
2. I, too, agree that competitors edit categories based on my experience with trying to get a non-commercial site accepted over the span of a year. I built a site disproving the theories of many "miracle cure" quacks promising an unproved cure for hair loss with ingredients like chilli powder and liquid spray on saw palmetto. When I wrote, I received a letter in reply with a lot of "attitude" and one that was obviously biased toward the chilli powder cures for hair loss. (I wish I still had that email but I was so disgusted I never looked back).
I have never submitted to Dmoz after that and I probably never will.
Whether Dmoz admits it or not, you have competitors masquerading as editors. It might be more than you think but I don't know. I am no longer concerned.
After this experience, I began seeking out other Google "seeds" and gaining some high quality link exchanges.
I get more traffic from these high quality link exchanges then I do from Dmoz for the two sites I was able to miracle into the directory before the last fiasco.
I've read posts by other Dmoz editors here that really seem to have a good heart and the best intentions. They care more about the internet community then they do for their own skewed personal agenda. I commend them.
However, a few bad apples make the whole bunch look bad.
I'm Joe Shmoe Radiosky, and that's my 2 cents based on my own personal experience with Dmoz.
| 9:11 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I just like to say that DMOZ is one important example of how the human species shows some hope of being able to leap frog this stagnate period of of adolescent social structure and move beyond the self-destructive, "every person for him/her self" way of thinking.
I certainly hope dmoz doesn't go under and if it does then it is because it is replaced with a better example of altruism on the web. I remember a few years back before commerce hit the web when the internet community that existed back then saw the possibility of a united world with philanthropic ideals, sharing information and communicating freely across borders without the clouding over of these ideals with commerce. DMOZ is a product of these early visionaries. For people to say "away with DMOZ" is like saying, "away with experiments on the Internet where people do other things for the global community without financial compensation!"
I know webmasterworld's main audience are the internet entrepreneurs (myself included). One thing we can't allow ourselves to get caught up in is just how to make more money regardless of what gets trampled on.
DMOZ? 50,000 volunteers? - an example of what humans are capable of - I say.
| 9:21 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>NeoSys, you are a representative of ODP and you have given them a serious black eye today whether you like it or not. <<
I am starting to believe that this person is not an ODP editor. Perhaps a former one, but not one now.
| 9:25 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps a former one, but not one now.
actions were already taken? ;)
does anyone know - does odp have a "big boss" or are the leaders volunteers that are at top categories?
| 9:35 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>>I am starting to believe that this person is not an ODP editor. Perhaps a former one, but not one now.
kctipton, the lack of familiarity with ongoing intra-team dialog seems to indicate this. As an outsider, from all that's been posted it sounds like it's been a while, at the very least.
| 9:40 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
license to use, publish, copy, edit, modify, or create derivative works from my submission.
Your submission consists of a link, a title, and a description (at least it should). The actual content of your site is not involved at all at this point. You're not trying to squeeze all the text and graphics from your site into that little submission form, are you? ;)
In case it's not obvious: This license is necessary, or some bozo would consider sueing the ODP for "copyright infringment" because an editor has modified the carefully worded hype he submitted as description for his site.
NeoSys, you are a representative of ODP
It is important to remember that no individual editor has any capacity to "represent" the directory in public. Everything you read here are the private opinions of the people who write each post. This is even true for the e-mail that you may receive from an editor as a reply to any feedback or inquieries you send them. If you ever get an official statement representing the ODP, then it will most likely carry the letterhead of Netscapes legal department.
| 9:48 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Oh goodness me, just got a good belly laugh - check NeoSys' occupation on his profile. :) :)
Yep, probably a disgruntled "ex" that found his way here by some creative searching.
| 9:58 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Here's what I heard (all of which are wrong):
1. I'm not an ODP editor.
2. I was an ODP editor.
3. I've given ODP a black eye.
To each his own. I do not participate in ODP forums. I know my cats (well) and I do my job as I initially promised them when I signed up. Again, I return all submitters' emails and let them know when it's listed or if I reject, how they can improve next time for approval. At least every two weeks. Simple. If you think that I represent ODP poorly here then you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I do what I can to help...either with my tips listed here or when I'm editing my cats and subcats. Considering I just joined WW for only two days, you guys sure make serious assumptions on how I operate. I call 'em as I see 'em; take my tips as is. That's all.
| 9:59 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|Member comments are owned by the poster. |
The statement at the bottom of each WebmasterWorld page was kindly pointed out.
| 10:01 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I certainly didn't appreciate your comment you made about me there. You do not know a thing about me.
| 10:19 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Test for the 'truth teller'
Say, my site is adult and promotes a sponsor. Has a nice clean design, it has no tricks and offers a wealth of 'free content' organized in a manner that one looking for that information will find 'pleasing' and 'enjoyable', both of which are of enourmous 'value' to appropriate surfers.
The site is not one page, but dozens and more. The site has its own domain and hosts all images and as a 'background theme', I let viewers know how to get more content and where, via a link to the sponsor.
The intention is to sell, but very likely, the intention of the surfer may be to buy. So there is a likely match.
Note: This is not a link farm but understandably there are links to the sponsor.
What are the chances of first:
1) Getting reviewed. (it might be rejected on initial request)
2) Getting an unbiased review (it might be reviewed and rejected for 'other reasons')
3) Getting listed.
Just want to see how much a truth teller can tell the truth.
| 10:21 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
This is the most frustrating thread I have ever seen on webmaster world. Just when you think it's going to become legitimately helpful, it denegrates into mudslinging, finger pointing,and unfounded accusations. At times it has this haughty, sarcastic tone that really is unconducive to fruitful debate and discussion. How disappointing. :(
| 10:30 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
If your site is a commerce site with good content, I agree with the Yahoo! method where all sites should go to "Business & Economy." Nothing wrong with that. It should be reviewed, and it should be added.
| 10:35 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I apologize NeoSys. My comment was completely unnecessary and rude. Please excuse me.
| 10:39 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|If your site is a commerce site with good content, I agree with the Yahoo! method where all sites should go to "Business & Economy." Nothing wrong with that. It should be reviewed, and it should be added |
uhm... adult sites will never go to "Business & Economy"or /Business categories. They will go to the appropriate /Adult category. There is "not" a category of "Business & Economy" under /Adult ;)
[edited by: The_Contractor at 10:42 pm (utc) on Dec. 1, 2002]
| 10:41 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I never said it should go into that category, I said I agree with the Yahoo! method of categorizing it that way.
| 10:52 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
No problem...and thanks for the note.
| 11:15 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
My eyes have rolled so often reading this thread that I'm afraid that they'll stick there permanently :).
I am only able to agree with NeoSys' points #1 and #10, at least without further qualification. His/her theories on ODP submissions, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the existence of a universal field theorem, or white rappers are by right as freely distributed or discussed as any other, but as with those other subjects, an argument to authority does not supersede one based on ration and observable fact.
I note that nowhere in NeoSys' original post is it stated that NeoSys is the senior editor in question. And not to devolve to what a few might interpret as ad hominem even as I criticize ipse dixit, but there is no standard position or definition of "senior" editor, so it could describe anyone from a founding staff member to a Gnuhoo holdout clinging to a fiefdom in some relatively ignored corner of the directory, or perhaps someone who feels that a month of participation and a thousand edits makes her "senior." If I, who by several definitions is a "senior" editor makes comments obviously contrary to published guidelines, I would assume the members of this board would know which source was the more authoritative.
As to the charge that editors are deliberately deleting valid submissions, manipulating their or their competitor's listings, or engaging in some other scurrilous practice, I can only request that these situations be brought to the attention of a meta-editor or category moderator, those editors who have the "meta" flag but not the "root" flag on [dmoz.org...] .
One I will stipulate is that sometimes editors may hesitate to add a borderline site, for fear that they will loose some sort of debt consolidating, real estate listing, Viagra reselling pornographer into the directory, which could endanger their reputation as an editor, if not their status itself. Similarly, meta-editors might hem and haw before accepting or rejecting an application to the directory for fear of joining some incompetent or abusive editor. For these, the first remedy is a familiar refrain: submit and apply to the most appropriate category possible, follow the instructions on the page, and be honest.
| 11:16 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>>"It is important to remember that no individual editor has any capacity to "represent" the directory in public. Everything you read here are the private opinions of the people who write each post. This is even true for the e-mail that you may receive from an editor as a reply to any feedback or inquieries you send them. If you ever get an official statement representing the ODP, then it will most likely carry the letterhead of Netscapes legal department."
>>"Member comments are owned by the poster."
This might be true to some extent but NeoSys began this thread by touting himself as an Senior ODP Editor giving 11 Submission Tips. He associated himself with ODP and the public relations damage done by him cannot be undone. It is already out there and it contributes to the collective opinion and beliefs a person may have about ODP.
No disrespect to those who posted the above statements, but but no amount of backtracking and distancing oneself or organization from his statements can ever totally rectify his comments. It reflects the acceptance policy he and others within the organization might have - whether or not it comes directly from Netscape -and whether or not he is truly an ODP editor.
His comments have forever had a profound effect on my view toward ODP.
NeoSys, You've had a hard day. You tried to be helpful but it backfired largely due to your own making. I participated in your thread on Google Obsession and see a pattern developing. Even so, I think you have a lot of knowledge and insight you can contribute in the future to WebmasterWorld if it was done with more respect and open-mindedness to others.
Opinions here are two sided and sometimes the other side of that coin, an opinion contrary to mine, became good advice upon further reflection. A good communicator is one who also listens and considers, not just one who touts a manifesto defended with the verbal equivalent of a double barrel shotgun.
| 11:25 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Thank you NeoSys. You've been helpful.
| 11:28 pm on Dec 1, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I didn't leak military blue prints to the Iraquis. I gave what I think are helpful tips to a potential ODP submitter. Again, take them as is.
| 1:43 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Web designers need to study how users actually approach a given site. Is the customer's goal to seek content, to engage in a transaction, or just to be entertained? And then lastly, modify the masterpiece site to meet the requirements of DMOZ, Google etc.
| 1:56 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|His comments have forever had a profound effect on my view toward ODP. |
That's a personal choice radiosky. In any public forum it is up to each individual to use their own discernment when assessing the significance and relevance of a contribution.
While a grain of salt is optional, it is highly recommended for the best possible outcome when seasoning one's views based on posts in user contributed forums.
Whatever your assessment of the original post, there is no doubt that it has spawned a thread that can be of great value to anyone interested in ODP submissions. That's the inherent value of an open forum system yes?
Personally, I find it's best to take what serves, leave the rest, and be of service wherever possible. (with various degrees of salting as necessary) ;)
| 2:18 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
No "u" in Iraqis; perhaps you're thinking of the Iriquois, Mr. truth teller and general arbiter of public taste.
As to the rest of this thread, having been an ODP sub-cat editor - honest, it's not something I brag about in bars - I would not be in the least surprised that NeoSys is one.
I got into editing like most people: I had an interest in the area and was involved with a site I wanted to get listed. I tried to fulfill my duties in helping to make the largest - not the most tasteful, not the least commercial, not the most pedantic - human edited directory on the planet. I reviewed submitted sites promptly and added them as long as they were legitimate (i.e. no "these are my snapshots" pages and no porn masquerading as something else which were inappropriate to the category). I did not feel it was my job to reject sites that used colour schemes I personally disliked, whose prose was less than sparkling or whose content I personally disagreed with. My suspicion is I was in the minority at ODP.
| 3:24 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Actually, if you are speaking of the indian tribe, the correct spelling is:
And they were some tenacious fighters.
>>>"Personally, I find it's best to take what serves, leave the rest, and be of service wherever possible.
If you take what serves and leave the rest, then you are only choosing what you want to hear. If we pick and choose our truth, then do we really know the Truth?
If that is what you meant.
Yes my post was my personal opinion but it also backed up another negative experience I had brought on by an ODP editor with a personal agenda.
But all that aside, I have to get back to work. Google will deep crawl in a week or two and I have sites to rebuild, content to write and link exchanges to make.
| 4:12 am on Dec 2, 2002 (gmt 0)|
LOL I'm sorry I started this as it was a nasty dig at NeoSys that I should probably apologise for, but Iroquois is correct as it is French usage and, as with most tribal names, a phonetic rendering of the name the tribe called itself. You can verify this quite easily.
I'll stop now....sorry.
| This 129 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 129 ( 1 2  4 5 ) > > |