homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.204.94.228
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

This 50 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 50 ( 1 [2]     
Getting established site listed in DMOZ?
Something funny going on...
jc2005




msg:492780
 1:13 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi folks.

I run a pretty established site. Google PR of 7, 200K+ pages server each month and regarded by many as one of the most useful online resources in its sector.

However, the submission editor at DMOZ appears to have some hidden agenda, and has failed to list the site, even though it satisfies *all* of the criteria and is a heck of a lot more functional and useful than other sites which have been listed.

Any ideas how to proceed? I fear that the editor has some axe to grind but I can't think what. I feel that not being listed in DMOZ hurts my site's visibility in the world stage (even though for its generic SE phrase it ranks at #1 on Google).

John

 

rover




msg:492810
 9:45 pm on Mar 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

The ODP isn't a listing service. If an editor chooses to use the sites that have been suggested to help them build out their category, then that's great, but there is no expectation that any of those sites will ever be reviewed.

Maybe then the following should be changed on the DMOZ "How to Suggest a Site" page:

An ODP editor will review your submission to determine whether to include it in the directory. Depending on factors such as the volume of submissions to the particular category, it may take several weeks or more before your submission is reviewed.

(it does kind of create an expectation for me that a submitted site will get reviewed at some point...)

hutcheson




msg:492811
 12:51 am on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

>I'm not an English native speaker. I call the sites not yet listed (or not yet dismissed) as "backlog".

It's the same in English. But ... what does the "number of submittals" have to do with the "backlog"?

If there is is a site already up, it's already in the backlog. Submitting its URL doesn't change that. And if there is no site there, submitting a URL is just malicious spam -- we can hardly be expected to treat THAT as affecting the backlog.

So what does submitting a site do, if it doesn't affect our sense of what work remains for us to do (the "backlog")?

It helps us find the site at the propitious time -- that is, when we are working on building up a category in which that site would be a contribution to the sum of human knowledge. It's one of many tools we use (we deliberately use many tools, to alleviate the biases of any particular one) to find sites.

And if a site is submitted, our social contract promises we'll consider it -- but it doesn't say when.

g1smd




msg:492812
 1:03 am on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

We will also consider a site that hasn't ever been suggested for a review.

In fact many editors do that more often than they might look at the "backlog" of suggestions.

flicker




msg:492813
 4:15 am on Mar 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yeah, and even if we got the number of submitted sites awaiting review down to zero, it wouldn't mean our backlog was any smaller. There are millions of other websites out there to be reviewed regardless.

That's what I think confuses non-editors about the ODP sometimes. It's not that we don't review submitted sites, because we do. It's that we don't think reviewing a submitted site is more of a priority than reviewing a non-submitted site. Webmasters who submit their sites sometimes get annoyed by that, feeling that the other sites are jumping the queue; but we accept site suggestions more as a courtesy than as a raison d'etre, and consider them all equally worthy of review.

JudgeJeffries




msg:492814
 9:16 pm on Mar 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

I look at one category, into which I would like to have one of my sites added and it hasnt changed in over two years i.e. not one addition, so dont hold your breath.

hutcheson




msg:492815
 6:23 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Math sanity check:

Say an average of 3000 edits a day (a slight overestimate), and assume editors tend to cluster edits (say an average of 2 edits in the same category on the same day, probably an underestimate) and 600000 categories (an underestimate) ...

Estimate the average number of days between editing spurts in a category?

Note: the numbers above were chosen so that your estimate of the average will be conservative. (And it's an average! Some categories will wait longer, some will get hit more often.)

Also note: these numbers aren't secret; all except the clustering number can be directly checked by analyzing the RDF.

rover




msg:492816
 7:27 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Does anyone know how many DMOZ editors there are in total? About 3000 edits per day, does that mean an edit is when a site listing is either added, changed, or declined? Or does it just refer to a new addition? Just curious...

podman




msg:492817
 8:20 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think that's total edits, which could be moving categories, rewrites and corrections, deletions and adds.

According to my own very unofficial calculations, I think that over the last two years the average increase (Adds less deletes) is around 1300 sites per day.

The backlog is indeed, not the number of sites that have been suggested and are awaiting review, but all the listable sites that exist that have not been reviewed, even if those sites have never been suggested.

hutcheson




msg:492818
 8:31 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

The "edits" include adds, deletes, and changes to descriptions. There are probably about the same number (or a few more) operations on submittals, but those don't affect the "last date changed."

victor




msg:492819
 8:35 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Also worth noting that editors want to add new sites.

So proportionally few of them are interested in wading thorugh the spam pits that make up the suggested URL pool for some "competitive" or "commercial" categories.

That means those categories get less attention than they deserve.

If someone has a genuine site that fits those categories, then they are a victim of the spammers, not of the ODP editors.

The only rational response in that case is to work with the professional bodies in your industry to clean up the industry. Expecting, instead, ODP editors to donate more free time to the issue is blaming a sympton for the epidemic.

podman




msg:492820
 11:02 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

Another thing is to shun and complain and ask for your money back on the automatic submission services.

They end up either creating multiple suggestions of yourr site and spamming us, or submitting a new copy every month which wipes out the previous one. In some categories editors will tend to review sites in order, so that means your site never gets to the front of the line.

pmkpmk




msg:492821
 11:10 pm on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)

When starting in a new category, which has a huge backlog, working in order of submission is the only fair thing to do. Only if I would have entered a site myself as well, I neglect the chronology.

podman




msg:492822
 1:43 am on Mar 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

A year ago I would have agreed, and in the past would review new categories that I got edit privilges for in date order.

But then I got a category and sub-categories with over 500 unreviewed. I still tried to go through in order, but it becomes harder when you have 100 sub-categories to try and do in order. Then I got a new category with several hundred sub-categories and over 1500 unreviewed - at that point I realized it did not make sense to try and do the whole lot in order, it's much more efficient to work on related chunks. Every couple of weeks I do look at the list and try to review some of the older ones.

But eventually you realize that the order of submission has absolutely no relevance to the importance of reviewing a site. The site submitted yesterday may be more important to list than the site submitted three years ago. (But it's still nice to get some of the old stuff out of the way)

hutcheson




msg:492823
 1:14 am on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

>When starting in a new category, which has a huge backlog, working in order of submission is the only fair thing to do...

The backlog has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with submittals. It's websites, only websites. (Only an editor will realize how completely divergent those concepts can be!) The backlog is the web.

Working on submittals in order of submission is in general a miserable way of generating a very low-quality category. The best technique, and the one encouraged by the community, is meta-search: that is, using many different techniques (including Google, hand-spidering good link lists, offline sources of URLs, and ... last and least, outside submittals.)

And the ODP's concept of fairness has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with webmasters. It's about generosity, not fairness: and its benevolence is aimed exclusively at surfers. And we know very well that surfers' interest in sites and webmasters' interests are not only not identical, but may often be in inverse proportion.

But, really, to be fair, the ODP is not being generous, so much as it's mediating webmaster generosity. So being EFFECTIVE means mediating the most generous websites -- that is, the importunity or desperation of webmasters is (again) a good indication that ... their sites are less likely to exhibit the kind of generosity that we are looking for. And in fairness to our chosen beneficiaries, we should give those sites lower priority.

martingale




msg:492824
 1:41 am on Mar 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

The first thing I do when I edit a new category is go and add all the sites that are not listed that I know about from my own browsing. Second, I do a bit of a search and try and find additional sites that I didn't know about. Only third do I look at the submissions.

My goal is to create the best list of sites in my category to make browsers happy. My goal is not to make submitters happy.

tallguy




msg:492825
 1:08 pm on Mar 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

If my new site has about 7 pages of useful content, should I submit it?

troels nybo nielsen




msg:492826
 9:39 am on Mar 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

One of the most persistent myths about DMOZ is that it is possible for the editor of a category to actively keep websites out of that category. It isn't. The problem for such an editor would be that too many other people can enter that website into the category. One editor alone cannot prevent a website from being listed. You would need a conspiracy to do that. (But then, of course, many people are convinced that DMOZ is one large conspiracy.)

Another stubborn conviction is that DMOZ owe us webmasters something. They don't. Well, actually they do, but what they do owe is exactly what any other website owes us: If they choose to link to our websites they owe us to do it in a fair and honest way. And my own experiences with DMOZ suggest that they want to do exactly that. The only problem I personally ever had with DMOZ was when someone had listed one of my websites in an unfair way that was harmful for the reputation of that website. A member of this forum kindly contacted me and removed the unfortunate listing when I publicly (but without being specific about website or category) expressed my strong dissatisfaction.

For me this was a proof that there are high ranking editors who care about the fairness of listings. As an outsider I cannot know with certainty how sincere editors are in their statements about DMOZ here at WebmasterWorld. This will have to be a matter of belief, based on watching the general pattern of statements from those individuals. But what I do know out of personal experience is that one editor with far-reaching editorial rights acted to correct an injustice done to a webmaster. This seems to suggest that in spite of all problems DMOZ is fundamentally healthy. I find it difficult to believe that someone like this editor would want to work inside a system characterized by fundamental dishonesty.

--------

Thanks to kevinpate for having given me the benefit of doubt and exonerated me in message #14.

rfgdxm1




msg:492827
 6:07 pm on Mar 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

>One of the most persistent myths about DMOZ is that it is possible for the editor of a category to actively keep websites out of that category. It isn't. The problem for such an editor would be that too many other people can enter that website into the category. One editor alone cannot prevent a website from being listed. You would need a conspiracy to do that. (But then, of course, many people are convinced that DMOZ is one large conspiracy.)

[dmoz.org...]

That is a list of all the editors at the ODP that can edit in any category they please. That's a *huge* number of people. Any editor who wanted to actively keep websites out of a category would have to get all these other editors in on the conspiracy. This just wouldn't be feasible.

[edited by: skibum at 8:39 pm (utc) on Mar. 21, 2005]

podman




msg:492828
 7:04 pm on Mar 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

On top of the list of editalls is the fact that any editor can see the actions of any other editor. So if a site is submitted and refused several times by the same editor, every single other ODP editor would be able to see that. That's thousands of people.

If an editor sits in a category and does nothing except re-review his own site every three months, then every active editor would be able to see that.

I do not claim that "bad" editors do not do things like that, but it does explain why they get caught very quickly.

The Contractor




msg:492829
 8:07 pm on Mar 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

http://editors.dmoz.org/edoc/editall.html

That is a list of all the editors at the ODP that can edit in any category they please. That's a *huge* number of people. Any editor who wanted to actively keep websites out of a category would have to get all these other editors in on the conspiracy. This just wouldn't be feasible.

uhmm... the url you pasted for the editall+ list requires you to be an editor (login). Try this one [dmoz.org...]

This 50 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 50 ( 1 [2]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved