| This 129 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 129 ( 1 2 3 4  ) || |
|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.
| 4:13 pm on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
|[RE: sites with their own domains] Sad, but true. It's basically a psychology thing.. the first impression the editor will get will be your domain name. If the site is marginal for inclusion it may swing it in your favour, because it shows a commitment on your part to register a name and get proper hosting. |
Personally, I would disagree with that statement. In this day and age of bulk registering where every Joe Blow can have a dozen hosted domains at rock bottom prices, the fact that a web site has (or doesn't have) its own domain means nothing (to me, anyway) in terms of commitment. I can't think of a single experience in my 2 1/2 years with the ODP where a marginal site has appeared better in my eyes because it had its own domain.
| 4:53 pm on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I think it largely depends on the categories that an editor looks after, and the nature of those submissions. I guess I'm make a broad over-generalisation ;)
| 5:05 pm on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Choster, you make being installed as an ODP editor sound like it is the result of submitting a resumť and going through several grueling interviews. That certainly was not my experience with becoming an ODP editor and unless there is some sort of ODP Star Chamber operating that I am not aware of, the kind of detailed assessment of editors' qualifications just does not happen.
"I believe ODP (i.e. Gnuhoo) accepted its first volunteer editors in June of 1998.
Reinstatements to specific categories are commensurate with the editor's qualifications to edit the category under present-day circumstances, not on the category's situation at the time of inactivity or voluntary resignation.
That is, someone who might have been granted, say, the Catholicism category in January of 1999 would scarcely be expected to understand all the changes, standards, or guidelines adopted in the making of the current Catholicism category -- not to mention about a tenfold increase in the number of sites listed. Someone requesting such a reinstatement would be advised to start first in an area of more limited scope.
After all, someone who was a departmental director at Quantum Computer Services wouldn't necessarily be qualified for a departmental director position at AOL Time Warner"
| 6:31 pm on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
What motsa and the rest of her bunch fail to understand is that editors are human beings. You piss them off, they'll likely not add your site; if you're nice to them, they're more likely to add your site. Motsa and her bunch make themselves look soooo objective...like robots following the guidelines to the letter. Well, here's some news for you, editors are not robots. Get over it and move on. My tips will serve you well the next time you submit your site.
| 6:36 pm on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Neosys, you are the exception not the rule. Any editor that fails to be objective in reviewing a site will be removed.
| 6:40 pm on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
bobmark, that is precisely what I am talking about. The application process, while obviously not on the level as typical job interview, is incomparable now to what it was three or four years ago. The applicant is expected to actually complete the application. And metas spend much more time looking at the application, the reasons given, the affiliations cited, the urls suggested, and so forth. The review process is, if not FBI-background-check-rigorous, quite a serious one nonetheless.
Four years ago if as long as you were breathing and had an Internet connection you might have been granted a second-level category with a thousand listings. That is not the case any more. And someone who wants to edit according to long-deprecated conventions and standards would sooner or later come up for scrutiny under some QA procedure.
| 7:15 pm on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
NeoSys - I would like to point that although a certain amount of anonymity may exist here, your style of writing suggests that you yourself are more amateurish than professional.
You do not project professionalism in your writings and seem to have a great amount of animosity for the whole of DMOZ and well as all others that do not share your personal opinions.
I have participated in most threads you have started and out of 50 posts, your personal intent seems self-serving.
If you truly wish to assist others and in return grow in knowledge/skill yourself through open discussion I strongly suggest that you consider what you write before posting.
Anonymity is great - you can be a dog and no one would know the difference, but in the end... you are what you write.
| 8:24 pm on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
I wasn't going to post in this thread again because there were enough editors and non-editors offering reasonable and objective comments.
But, NeoSys your latest comments blow me away. Clearly, you are interested only in your point of view and appear to totally disregard the current hierarchy at ODP. Certainly, you must realize that if you're hired for any job with stated goals and objectives that those usually change over a period of years.
Your comment about "her bunch" is just as rude as any comment I made earlier. Truth teller? No, you strike me more as a frustrated dictator that lusts for a position of authority.
Every time this thread comes back to a state of contribution and shared knowledge, you seem to jump in with another inflammatory comment. Can you not just acknowledge that there are varying opinions in ODP. I know from my experience editing a top category that your style of editing is far from the norm as most editors do try to follow the "current" stated guidelines of ODP.
You have made several useful comments for submitters to think about, why not leave it at that and contribute more instead of tearing down others? You do not elevate others opinion of you with this mode of communication.
| 8:31 pm on Dec 3, 2002 (gmt 0)|
>why not leave it at that
Good call nancyb.
Thread has run its course, time to move on.
| This 129 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 129 ( 1 2 3 4  ) |