| 8:57 am on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|it would appear DMOZ is no longer a qaulity directory but a very old neglected list. |
Or a very very high quality directory.
| 9:10 am on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I do not think it is a neglected directory but it is a directory which needs to be modified.
There are too many potentials for corruption in listings etc. the directory does not automtically detect a 301 redirect even though nothing on the page changed except for becoming a .shtml and I for one have not been able to submit a page for close to six months, regardless of which country, or isp I was submitting from.
| 9:14 am on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The Open Directory site has been online for five years, one month and eight days today. Perhaps you might check your claim of five years...
| 9:21 am on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Absolutley...get your facts right! :)
Our high streets are shrewn with charity shops. They are all famous names and very good causes. They are run my very nice well meaning un-paid people, some volunteer because they believe in the cause, others volunteer because it gets them out and creates a social centre for them.
Does that sound like the Dmoz of the future?
| 9:26 am on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I would not blame DMOZ if you are not getting your site into the Directory. As a matter of fact I have got every site into DMOZ that I wanted. And it took never more than a half year (except for the second listing of one of the projects). One of my projects got into DMOZ within two weeks and the latest project got into the Directory within 4 HOURS. And I am not the editor of that cat.
So in my opinion in most of the cases you only have to look at the website and you know why this website does not get into DMOZ.
| 1:06 pm on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It really depends on the editor in the category that you try to list in. This is why it's so unfair and negleted in some areas. I have followed so many links from the directoty that redirect, error out, have only stuf to buy, doorway pages etc.
RE: The Open Directory site has been online for five years, one month and eight days today. Perhaps you might check your claim of five years...
RE: ODP certainly isn't a neglected list -- I was adding new sites right up to the upgrade shutdown.
That only shows that the category you chose to list in was looked after. There are many many others. All the ones I try get no response, no nothing. It's not a good directory that relies on whether the editor in the chosen category is dedicated or not.
RE: Our high streets are shrewn with charity shops. They are all famous names and very good causes. They are run my very nice well meaning un-paid people, some volunteer because they believe in the cause, others volunteer because it gets them out and creates a social centre for them..
This is the main problem I feel. I volunteer system only works if the people involved are very dedicated. I believe it would be best to pay for a non-refundable site listing.
RE: So in my opinion in most of the cases you only have to look at the website and you know why this website does not get into DMOZ.
As I said. I have a listing in there already and at the time my site was hosted by a free drag-and-drop Web builder. Our site has since had about 300 more pages of FREE content added since as is NOT hosted by the original host.
Surely getting a category and URL change should not be this hard! A simple reply to an email with "the reason your site is not being accepted is....."
| 1:14 pm on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I think the ethos of Dmoz is good but it's a little Utopian.
Make it commercial, pay the people. Make them accountable and run the ship properly ... not like a high street charity shop.
| 2:01 pm on Jul 14, 2003 (gmt 0)|
There is a big difference between having full time paid staff (eg Yahoo) where the quality of editing can be controlled by management, in a proper management strucure, and...
...Dmoz which has volunteers, and an interesting management structure.
If you try to incentiveise volunteers, it is a formula for disaster as John_Caius says (I do not often agree with John_Caius ;) ). The old GO directory had a delightful period where it gave volunteers anything from a free holiday in the Caribbean to a T-shirt, depending on the editors final position on the list of edits. The amount of rubbish that got bunged in then (particularly bt senior editors) was nobody's business!
| 3:08 am on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the feedback guys. looks like "Resource-Zone" is the place to go. I'll wait a week, try submiting again and see what happens.
RE: If you want to work to make the ODP a better directory.....
In regards to becoming an Editor, I applied over a year ago and was rejected :o( Having said this though, It's a good thing as I would have to leave by now due to time constraints.
I have emailed quite a few times with my opinions and worded them very constructively. There is really not much else I can do to make DMOZ a better directory. The fact that I was told HERE to go to "resource-zone" only adds weight to my statemenst about it being negleted. I mean, how hard would it be to have an automated reply to emails saying "Try resource-zone"?
I still stand by the statement that, some categories an looked after well, while others are suffering. It would be good if the negleted categories could be bought up the the standard of non-negleted categories.
RE: If you just want to blow off a little steam, consider that done!
I'm not even close :o)
| 3:37 am on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>Make it commercial, pay the people. Make them accountable and run the ship properly ... not like a high street charity shop.
The ODP Social Contract makes this impossible.
| 5:02 am on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Inordinate delays can be frustrating. Many of you have many sites and many links, but for the amateur webmistress, who has created the website related to her passion, DMOZ link is perhaps the most important link, and one of the very few links she is going to get (initially), and delay kills her enthusiasm and her website.
My experience with DMOZ has been excellent and on a personal level I have nothing but praise for it but I feel for those webmasters who have the misfortune of submitting to one of those "editor-less" categories or submitting to the wrong category.
Metas will know better but I think that something like hall of fame and hall of shame lists or some sort of points system might help in improving this situation. :)
| 5:13 am on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The Social Contract for Las Vegas was no alcohol. Thus making it impossible to sell beer, wines and spirits.
|The ODP Social Contract makes this impossible. |
Things change has needs must.
| 10:36 am on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If everyone who submitted a site to dmoz was sent to Resource Zone then we'd have thousands of new threads every day just asking for confirmation that their site was in the queue, and then all those requests repeated every month or so. There'd never be time to answer them all, let alone actually do any editing - which of course is what all the webmasters want the editors to be spending their time doing...
| 10:55 am on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Nobody ever suggested that "everyone who submitted a site to dmoz was sent to Resource Zone" I only suggested an automated reply from the editors. What is the use of a message forum if it's not to be used?
From browsing around resource zone I see many editors making it patently clear they will NOT reply to emails. this then begs the question, why have their email visible?
| 11:34 am on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Why can't there be an automated response system providing a truthful time window when people can expect to see their site indexed?
Because, no one really knows at Dmoz!
They are desperate for editors, yet reject them on a whim.
Dmoz needs to be taken hand in hand to a comercial world where editors are paid and are accountable for their non-action.
Okay, we are aware of the Go history, so we can learn from it.
The irony is that Dmoz is on a priority list in terms of SEO yet people are begining to look at it as a sinking ship, it has no wind in its sails.....</rant>
| 11:52 am on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
yet reject them on a whim.
I'd appreciate some evidence for that statement, then we could take it up with the whimsically rejecting editor.
Can you sticky me an exact copy of an application you made, the response from the editor, and why you consider the response to be whimsical?
| 11:58 am on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
RE: the response from the editor
This is the point, they never respond. They even openly admit to this!
| 12:12 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Not being acustom to 'Dear John' letters, I didn't keep it - but I have to say the response was lightning fast.
Having awaited countless months for some form of acknowledgement or otherwise regarding some submissions but to no avail - and hearing tales of woe relating the hardship due to lack of editors, I volunteered - the response was returned in less than 48 hours! A big fat no.
I'm sure you know also that they simply say something like 'we cannot give reasons for this but ...' and point you to some list of TOS.
I call that 'on a whim'.
I have a reasonable understanding of the Queen's English.
I have earned a living as an Editor.
I understand the ways of the WWW.
I obviously didn't fit :)
[edited by: peewhy at 12:13 pm (utc) on July 15, 2003]
| 12:12 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
No, you do get responses for rejected applications, with tips on why you might have been rejected. You don't usually get responses if you e-mail an editor to have your site listed.
too slow... Sometimes if you didn't make a standard mistake like just offering your own sites as examples, saying "the best site" or some other error suggesting you hadn't read the guidelines, you do get a personalised response.
Most editor applications seem to be handled within only a few days, unless perhaps your application is in a language that only a handful of metas can understand. The fact that you got a quick response doesn't mean that your application was handled with any less thought than anyone else's.
Remember also that "experience as an editor" doesn't count for much as most editors e.g. for print publications write in a more commercial style than is acceptable for dmoz. The metas don't want people who are going to give personal opinions on a site, e.g. 'I thought this site was really great'. Editing guidelines for Zeal etc. are so different to those at ODP that you really need to forget them as you walk through the dmoz door.
| 12:20 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
They must have changed the way they fire off rejection letters because mine very clearly said "... whilst we cannot give precise reasons ....BS BS BS" or words with a similiar effect.
The rejection method is part and parcel of Dmoz and its makeup. It is part of the stigma that is becoming attatched to it, which is sad because it can change all this but appears not to want to.
None of your comments relate to my 'application' because I never underlined any editing experience and your view of my editing experience is not quite right either.
I never offered my site as an example, the idea is very transparent and rather shallow to say the least.
[edited by: peewhy at 12:24 pm (utc) on July 15, 2003]
| 12:23 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Only a small number of dmoz editors hang out at Resource-Zone and it's not an official mouthpiece of the ODP at all. It works as a message board only because the number of requests for information are reasonably matched to the number of editors willing to volunteer time in giving status reports.
It'd be great if this could be automated, but there are good reasons why you can't get automated status reports, including spam control. These issues have been discussed extensively amongst the most senior editors and even staff of the ODP recently and it was agreed that the best option is what is currently available.
Sorry that I slightly misinterpreted your earlier post. Hope this clarifies my response slightly. :)
| 12:29 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I think that something like hall of fame and hall of shame lists or some sort of points system might help in improving this situation. |
There are editor awards. Some editors show them on their public profile. As for a hall of shame, imho this is not a good idea for any volunteer organisation unless you want to loose volunteers. Please don't forget that editors are normal people who have jobs, family, friends, and other interests than editing. Not doing much is better than doing nothing at all.
|I see many editors making it patently clear they will NOT reply to emails. |
Not replying to emails doesn't mean that they're ignored, but that depends on the content. Emails with content that helps to improve the directory (i.e. remove porn sites listed in Kids and Teens categories, or s.th like 'I've noticed you don't have a category about collecting 18th century hand-made widgets, I have a few good sites here covering that topic, what can I do?) should not be ignored and are likely receive a reply. But keep in mind that editors may be on vacation, or that for one reason or another they may not be very active at this point in time. If you don't receive a reply to a 'constructive' feedback, or if you don't see anything happen, then please take into consideration contacting an editor higher-up, or go to resource-zone.
Feedback like 'I'd like to have my affiliate site and 5 deeplinks listed with great keyword stuffed titles and descriptions in these 10 categories. And while you're there, can you cool my site?' should be ignored. It will likely lead to endless (and useless) discussions, and the editor's email address may end up on spam mailing lists, so don't expect a reply. This example is extreme, but I hope you get the point. If you want specific information about your site you'd better ask in resource-zone.
| 1:01 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Can genuine enquirers really get genuine responses from the 'resource zone' or is it just a place to send them when there is no real answer to their posts?
It would be interesting to hear from those who have had experience there.
| 1:06 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
We are sorry to announce that the patient, DMOZ, is in a coma and may never wake up.
| 1:17 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Pop over to Resource Zone and read the threads - there are loads of examples of genuine posters getting genuine answers. What's really nice to see is rejected editors finding out why in the Editor Applications forum, reapplying with a better application and getting in. If sites have been rejected then the poster is told clearly why the site was rejected and whether or not they can do anything about it.
Remember that only a certain amount of help can be given here because you can't deal in specifics, whereas you can in RZ. Plenty of the editors who post here also help out over there too.
| 1:23 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|From browsing around resource zone I see many editors making it patently clear they will NOT reply to emails. this then begs the question, why have their email visible? |
Not replying to e-mails does not mean not reading them.
Assuming the average experienced ODP editor acts like me (which I have reason to assume from discussions) we ODP editors read all editor feedback, act on a lot of suggestions (the reasonable ones) at least partially (to the extent that they can easily be accomodated within the guidelines) but as a rule do not reply (especially to someone who is professionally involved with the Web) in order not to give people the idea that here is someone they just need to send e-mail to to get things done.
Some ODP submitters are quite tenacious (one phoned me on a saturday morning when I was gently simmering in the bathtub) and frankly I don't want to encourage them more. I realize this is impolite, but I think it is a practical necessity for volunteer editors dealing with people who in part have a significant commercial interest in the listing.
| 1:36 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I call that 'on a whim'.
Can you sticky me the application you made? Thanks.
| 1:38 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The more this thread grows the more Dmoz editors ... or at least I think they are Dmoz editors...drop in to wave the dmoz flag and display their loyalty and support - I admire it.
Equally there are no real answers or solutions. We learn a lot about Dmoz in a negative way, yet Dmoz does little to redeem itself.
Does it take on board these short-comings are reject them in the dmoz spirit?
| 1:47 pm on Jul 15, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Victor >> it is an online form, I wouldn't have retained a copy.
My original application was in the spirit of help - not for the kudos, if there is such a thing nowadays. It was returned far too quickly to have been considered properly and rejected on a whim.
My point is this ... don't whinge about the lack of editors and throw back volunteer help. It begs the question, who do these people think they are?"
I keep going back to relating Dmoz to charity shops, run by some very well meaning unpaid people who are in it for the right reasons ... and those that treat it as a drop-in centre for their own gain, probably looks good on their CV;)
| This 113 message thread spans 4 pages: 113 (  2 3 4 ) > > |