homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.113.249
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 300 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 300 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 > >     
Problem in Dmoz
Editor Choice !
experienced

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 5:33 am on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi,

I think there is some problem in dmoz. I have seen a number of sites belongs to the same company listed in number of cat in Dmoz. And Also dmoz editors are just submitting their own sites in categories and new submission of the same cat or same industry use to avoid. Even personally i had submitted sites to dmoz those are really having good content & PR and all and did not receive any response since 3 years or so.

I believe existing editors are not following the rules and submiting their own sites and rejecting the others.

Any idea on this.

Experienced

 

victor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 9:44 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is it really necessary to use such negative terms while debating a subject? [...] Of course you have the right to call me what you want.

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.....But it wasn't me who started it....

A volunteer poster on this website sure! But a 'volunteer complainer' I'm not sure I accept that remark just because you deem me worthy of it.

It seems a politer step up from the suggestion that you are a DMOZ basher (but possible not a spammer), as you suggested of all previous volunteer critics here. (Take a trip back to message 23 in the thread).

But then why should a slag like me bother with this thread any longer?

rfgdxm1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 10:06 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

>The sites they added remain. Their editor name remains too. Their editing logs remain, and can be inspected by any editor at any time. The editor can re-apply and re-join the project at any time in the future. So, editors are not deleted. All that happens is that the ability to log-in is deactivated. Everything else about that editor remains in-situ. With forum software the user name is deleted. That does NOT happen with editor names at the ODP.

I've always presumed this was just done so as not to appear to list people as active editors of a category who aren't. Imagine if an editor dies? If their editor account didn't time out, the ODP could still be listing people as editors that died in the last millenium. This wouldn't do anyone any good. And if the editor didn't die, and just had to stop editing because of personal reasons, if they want to come back they can reapply to have their active status restored.

andysmith617

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 11:45 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

But it wasn't me who started it....

Mmmmm what a mature thing to say.

I absolutely understand that DMOZ is there for internet consumers and not webmaster. But those that try to contribute, and indeed are invited to... are terribly disillusioned by this Directory now, for many, many reasons. You only have to see the weekly DMOZ bashing here. They can't all be spammers surely?

This one above you mean? I only heard of the term 'dmoz bashing' in this forum. I didn't say I, personally had ever been part of it or agreed with it?
I have said several times (check that up) that I did not know DMOZ intimately on my first post here.

It seems a politer step up from the suggestion that you are a DMOZ basher

The polite thing to do is not to 'stereotype' people in a very public manner as you personally see fit. It's rude and bad manners to label.

And to to all the people I inadvertently called a 'dmoz basher' I sincerely apologise. I now realise you were only bringing up legitimate personal heart-felt grievances, from a personal viewpoint(rightly or wrongly), with DMOZ.

But then why should a slag like me bother with this thread any longer

You DO know what a slag is don't you? lol!

So, editors are not deleted. All that happens is that the ability to log-in is deactivated. Everything else about that editor remains in-situ. With forum software the user name is deleted. That does NOT happen with editor names at the ODP.

In the real world 'in-active' members are usually deleted off if there is a section that proclaims loudly how many of them they are. (ie on the first page), or at least has a disclaimer?

(WebmasterWorld doesn't proclaim by the way). However, there is a general consensus that the numbers on the front page should correspond roughly with the activity going on within. You cannot proudly state there are, wow, X number of editors. 'Submit a site' or 'Apply now!' Then when asked why things are so slow and people are being turned away, say, er...well actually....Thats not how it is.

Yes or no answers will suffice to the questions below that remain unanswered or ignored. I'll assume if you won't answer them then there's probably something to hide. Lissa states otherwise.

So you're telling me that none of the editors who did not do the 'apply to be an editor' form, are there today? Setting rules, regs and things? No Metas or Admin were there in the begining? None at all?

Editing privileges are not based on seniority

One more thing, I stumbled on a DMOZ post today which said there were editors profiting from status checks, I found this hard to fathom and assume it was some kind of joke? I hope you can re-assure me on this.

if you could spell and punctuate and find three related websites and avoid telling stupid lies on the application, the ODP will still pretty much take a chance on you. (Bearing in mind nearly 70 or 80% are declined,). You still stand by that?

Laisha who picked any catergory she fancied editing, in her own words.

Yes, but she still did have a great deal of power while she was there, as a 'technically unqualified' person for the job. by the standard you demand of others of course.

it was started by a select bunch of people primarily concerned with SEO. They got very pissed off because Yahoo was taking too long to list their sites

The ODP was started by SEO meisters not volunteers?

DMOZ was driven at it's very inception and core by SEO, and it continues to be.

A website is nothing without clickers

there are far too many honest, hardworking and well meaning webmasters and potential editors being sacrificed on the altar of 'reducing spam' in DMOZ. And time and manpower restraints.

You assume that any new alternative will HAVE to use dmoz

Rich Skrenta, the founder of Gnu-hoo/NewHoo/ODP/DMOZ : Dmoz has 4M sites and over 600,000 categories. This is almost too large to be useful; one can't easily click around browsing through a 600,000 page directory.

But the founder of the ODP used this problem Yahoo had to "build a competitor" using free labor and then sell it.

DMOZ IS disorganised, it IS subjective, it IS open to corruption, it IS random

Mabye answer a few of these, honestly, instead of banging your gums about things I haven't asked for or calling me names, or trying to distract me, and I might go away and stop bothering you.

This thread has just about (well in my forum experience) reached the end.

Just answer my questions please. Thats it!

lissa89

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 2:40 am on Jun 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

I joined the ODP in July 2001. My perception on the early history of the ODP is that it was kind of like the wild west. No rules, no overriding vision, and lots of strong willed folks with lots of different ideas about what the ODP should be and how it should be run. Over the first two years 1998 and 1999, somehow a community formed out of that chaos. Originally there was just staff and editors communicating via email. Then they got (I'm not sure in which order) metas, forums, editing guidelines, and staff ontologists (to reorganize certain things). By the time I joined, things were settling down and most of the editors who didn't like the newer state of things had left, leaving a more mature community. The community now is very different than it was in the first few years. My perception is that a lot of the vocal ODP detractors date from that time and while their experiences may have been true, they simply don't apply to the current community.

So you're telling me that none of the editors who did not do the 'apply to be an editor' form, are there today? Setting rules, regs and things? No Metas or Admin were there in the begining? None at all?

I'm pretty sure that some of the Admins and Metas were joined before there were guidelines or an application form. This doesn't mean they aren't qualified, it means that they were some of the people instrumental in forming the guidelines and developing the community it is today. I'm also pretty sure that there are high level category editors from this time period that probably wouldn't be granted permissions there today. This is because the category grew so much after they were listed at a high level. But it doesn't matter whether or not they would be granted those same permissions today, as long as any editing that they do is compliant to today's guidelines.

Editing privileges are not based on seniority

Editing privileges are based on editing ability and experience. Permissions like editall and meta are also based on knowledge and understanding of the community and community management skills. Some editors take years before they work up to higher permissions, others are so active that they get there in 6 months. Many a mentor has found that a mentoree has passed them in permission level (and been proud of it.)

One more thing, I stumbled on a DMOZ post today which said there were editors profiting from status checks, I found this hard to fathom and assume it was some kind of joke? I hope you can re-assure me on this.

Sounds more like someone who can't fathom why people volunteer, speculating with what would motivate them. If there were an editor profiting, they would rapidly become an ex-editor.

if you could spell and punctuate and find three related websites and avoid telling stupid lies on the application, the ODP will still pretty much take a chance on you. (Bearing in mind nearly 70 or 80% are declined,).
You still stand by that?

I am not a meta, so I can't speak with absolute authority, but yes. :)

gotta go for a bit, but I'll be back to answer the rest ...

lissa89

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 4:32 am on Jun 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

and continuing ...

Laisha who picked any catergory she fancied editing, in her own words.

Yes, but she still did have a great deal of power while she was there, as a 'technically unqualified' person for the job. by the standard you demand of others of course.


I'm not sure if you are asking anything here. I'm pretty sure Laisha's opinions and editing style, along with many of the other extremely active early editors, were a significant influence on the evolving editing guidelines and community standards. Not having an application process doesn't mean 'unqualified', it just means that the process evolved from what it was to what it is today.

The ODP was started by SEO meisters not volunteers?

The ODP was started by Rich Skrenta. Many of the initial volunteers were likely SEOs, but I know of at least a few high profile early editors who weren't. Who else was on the internet in 1998?

DMOZ was driven at it's very inception and core by SEO, ...

Maybe.

... and it continues to be.

Definitely not. Individuals may view this as their purpose, but the project doesn't care at all about SEO.

A website is nothing without clickers

A website without clickers is a hobby. The ODP is a hobby.

there are far too many honest, hardworking and well meaning webmasters and potential editors being sacrificed on the altar of 'reducing spam' in DMOZ. ...

Not sure what you are asking. Spam suggestions drowning out good suggestions does happen, which may discourage editor interest in an area. But that's not a problem unique to the ODP.

... And time and manpower restraints.

People do what interests them. If there is an honest, hardworking, well meaning webmaster who cares about a topic, and no one else does, then who is most likely to be the best candidate to edit the topic?

You assume that any new alternative will HAVE to use dmoz

It doesn't have to, but right now it is kind of hard to envision how a new alternative wouldn't benefit from using ODP data at least as a starting point. Don't most successful portal/search/directory sites start with aggregating data that is easily available (and I don't mean just the ODP) while using whatever their particular twist is on the search business? How does it make sense to ignore all pre-existing work and start from scratch?

Rich Skrenta, the founder of Gnu-hoo/NewHoo/ODP/DMOZ : Dmoz has 4M sites and over 600,000 categories. This is almost too large to be useful; one can't easily click around browsing through a 600,000 page directory.

Well, one thing on the editor wish-list is an upgrade/change out of the software in order to be able to do much neater things with the data. Unfortunately, this isn't in the control of the editors, and even if it was, the task is pretty daunting. Even so, the directory as it stands is still useful, although you may need some experience with its quirks to get the full benefit.

But the founder of the ODP used this problem Yahoo had to "build a competitor" using free labor and then sell it.

Not sure what the question is, but from my perspective this is ancient history and irrelevant to the ODP of today.

DMOZ IS disorganised

The directory or the community?

We think the directory is pretty-well organized, although there are plenty of areas where the organization can be improved. This happens because a particular method of organization set up for 100 sites may not work very well when that grows to 10,000 sites. It also happens because there may be many editors working independently on small sections of the puzzle, and it takes a while for someone to notice that they are all related and could be organized better when viewed as a whole.

The community isn't disorganized as much as it is unorganized. It's been compared to a beehive, which I think is apt in that it looks unorganized, but there is an underlying logic that applies.

it IS subjective

To an extent. There are clear boundaries as to what is not acceptable. But it doesn't mean that anything that isn't clearly unacceptable by default is acceptable and should be listed. For example, creating a category of 50 links on a topic where many of the links contain only a small amount of information, while some are extremely comprehesive isn't necessarily creating the best resource for a user. It might be better to only list the 30 best sites, so that every link clicked is fairly high quality. This is where editor discretion and experience come into play.

it IS open to corruption

Being open to corruption and being corrupt are not the same thing. Yes, people can become editors and abuse the system, and as soon as they are caught they are kicked out. One of the primary tasks of the metas is hunting down abuse - it is taken extremely seriously.

it IS random

Well, yes. It doesn't claim to not be. How would a community of this type being anything but random?

I'm not sure that the other editors who posted here before you are really the kind of people I'd like to work beside on a voluntary basis. They don't exactly make DMOZ sound a very friendly place to be. I'd be far too scared to approach with a problem or a suggestion for improvement, and god help me if I disagreed with their point of view on a subject. Again, this may or may not be fact, but based on my experiences here the last week or so.

They're pretty nice. :) There is a dedicated place internally for new editors to get help, a mentoring system, and other ways to get involved with the community.

What I think happens is that when someone becomes an editor and really starts to learn about the community, their underlying understanding about how the ODP works changes. Then it becomes easier to understand the point of view of editors in these types of threads and see what they are trying to explain. In other words, after a little while of being an active editor, this thread might not look so scary.

The other thing to remember is that different forums take on different tones depending on the local forums' culture. I have browsed many different SEO forums and find it interesting how each one has its tone and style, ranging from downright nasty to professional to buddy-buddy. Unfortunately, so many SEO forums have been hostile towards ODP editors for so long, that the frequent posters have simply put on permanent armor in defense. Believe it or not, in the internal forums most of hutcheson's posts actually make sense. ;)

As far as disagreeing goes - that happens. IMHO, some of the better discussions are ones that were fairly contentious and heated and likely didn't result in any direct change, but in the long run the community was changed by the discussion. I can think of one discussion I started where I practically got my head handed to me, yet shortly thereafter (and to this day) I saw the sentiment I expressed cropping up in discussion by other senior editors. We are all different people with many different interests and concerns, yet we are all bound by a simple interest in improving the internet in our way, and through that commonality, we find concensus.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 4:56 am on Jun 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

>So you're telling me that none of the editors who did not do the 'apply to be an editor' form, are there today? Setting rules, regs and things? No Metas or Admin were there in the begining? None at all?

That is absolutely right, there were no metas or admins in the beginning, none at all. All of that work was done by professional staff.

And, from at least the beginning of 1999, whenever an editor applied to a new category, staff permission was required -- that included an application with the suggested URLs, pretty much as you see the new-editor application.

At some point (I don't remember the exact date) "editalls" were selected -- specifically from people who had demonstrated editing skills in large categories broadly across the directory.

Later (sometime in early 1999) meta-editors were first appointed -- before that time, staff had handled all applications. For two or three years, all meta-editors were first either staff or editalls -- so they had gone through two rounds of careful peer review.

Within a matter of months, the meta-editors had started making informal recommendations about new editalls (and promoting editalls to meta-editors.) At this point, the "review" process starts leaving tracks in our records -- and metas can see just how seriously their predecessors took those recommendations. Editors would be recommended, meta-editors would watch them for months -- more closely than suspected abusers! -- and staff still had the final appointment.

The administrators were selected by staff based on their work as meta-editors.

So at every single time an editor stage of advancement, from at least the beginning of 1999, editors had to either apply or be nominated for greater privileges, and have their work "audited" by people who had themselves already passed the same rigid qualifications.

And every editor (at every level of privilege) is still responsible to staff and admins, and any editor may "review" the work of any other editor -- and, if it seems poor in any way, report it to metas (or admins).

Peer review. At every stage. At any time.

There were no volunteers meta-editors at the beginning -- I distinctly remember the announcement of their establishment.

There were no admins until the last year; before that, staff made all decisions on editalls and meta permissions.

To reiterate: one doesn't "apply" for editall or higher categories, one is nominated based on quality of work -- typically the quality of a great deal of work.

There is nobody today, and has never been anybody, who had meta privileges without that review. And that absolutely includes the admins, who were all chosen from among the metas.

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 11:33 am on Jun 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think what andysmith was asking was if there are any metas who are active today that joined the ODP without having to fill in an application to join the ODP.

Yes, there probably are, but as Hutcheson points out they didn't join and instantly become a senior editor. They may have joined and started editing without having filled in a formal application, but to get any extra priveledges they had to work hard, and demonstratwe what they had done. Becoming a meta editor isn't a promotion, but more a granting of greater editing priveledge/permission - and it isn't handed out lightly; not now, nor then.

There are a few editors at the top of the tree who have had a large category structure grow beneath them. When arts/music was first formed, someone had to start it, and start adding sites to it.

Maybe editors at that sort of tree level would not get permission at that level today, but editors generally edit where they have interest, and feel qualified. Meta editors can edit absolutely anywhere, but the attitude is "just because you can, doesn't mean you should", so they may only edit some areas to clean up obvious editing abuse or spam, but not review other waiting sites because they have no idea about that particular topic.

And, any editor can check the entire editing history of any editor at any time; or can check every edit made in any category at any time. If any problems are spotted, then there are many ways to pass a message up the chain for further investigation.

vigo



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 11:42 am on Jun 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

"And, any editor can check the entire editing history of any editor at any time"
well the same thing is on Zeal,I have joined both 3 years ago I put my pages in the cat i wanted and then i sayed Gooooobye.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 2:05 pm on Jun 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

Zeal has a different way of handling "increased privileges", based on number of "editing points", but at first everything an editor does is subject to specific mandated "peer review."

The difference is that ODP editor actions are _always_ _potentially_ subject to peer review, but peer review is not mandated at the beginning. There is a fairly unusual ODP privilege called "greenbusting", in which actions are mandated for peer review. "Greens" are "unreviewed" sites (that's the color there're shown in on the editor dashboard), and edits that are done by people with only "greenbusting" privilege in a category, must then be approved by people with normal editing privileges there.

andysmith617

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 4:30 pm on Jun 24, 2005 (gmt 0)

well the same thing is on Zeal,I have joined both 3 years ago I put my pages in the cat i wanted and then i sayed Gooooobye.

I think that the post above sadly sums up nearly everything I've been trying to say.

Thanks for finally giving me a few answers, in response :

One more thing, I stumbled on a DMOZ post today which said there were editors profiting from status checks, I found this hard to fathom and assume it was some kind of joke? I hope you can re-assure me on this.

Sounds more like someone who can't fathom why people volunteer, speculating with what would motivate them. If there were an editor profiting, they would rapidly become an ex-editor.

No I meant editors selling status checks, not inappropriately adding sites.

if you could spell and punctuate and find three related websites and avoid telling stupid lies on the application, the ODP will still pretty much take a chance on you. (Bearing in mind nearly 70 or 80% are declined,).
You still stand by that?

I am not a meta, so I can't speak with absolute authority, but yes. :)

I'm not convinced. Not by what I've seen and what's been posted on other respected forums.

DMOZ was driven at it's very inception and core by SEO, ...

Maybe.

I'd probably give that a definite yes.

and it continues to be.

Definitely not. Individuals may view this as their purpose, but the project doesn't care at all about SEO.

Yes I've gotten this from my very first post. However, I do think that a big part of the DMOZ problem is the fact that probably 90% of the people who DMOZ appeals to in some form are SEO driven. Mostly webmasters (if you're honest with yourself), the good, the bad and the ugly, but webmasters all the same.

The fact Google puts a bit of extra 'credence' in a DMOZ link. Wether you care if they do or not, makes inclusion for your users, SEO driven in the main.

You may not care, or want it that way. But pure and simple SEO is the reason so many are desperate for their site to be listed, or will apply 12 times to be an editor, or be annoyed over how long it takes for a listing, and even 'dmoz bash' if you will.
You may not be seo driven, the organsisation may not be, but the vast majority of your users are. The same can be said for all those wannabe editors out there.

They want their site in.

DMOZ doesn't give a hoot if their site is in/out/unreviewed/or the best thing since sliced bread = Big Problem.

That's an awfully big percentage of your 'audience' who are not pleased. So you'll get a lot of complaints/comments (whatever you like to call them).

A website is nothing without clickers

A website without clickers is a hobby. The ODP is a hobby

My site is a hobby, but I still need people contributing articles, joining and posting in my forums. I need clickers.

Spam suggestions drowning out good suggestions does happen,

There have been various suggestions on how to reduce spam in the ODP, from making the submission process harder, doing away with it altogether, or putting some sort of spam filter in there. Loads of them.

I agree it is not a problem individual to DMOZ, but 'good suggestions' are one of the prime motivations behind DMOZ. Be it an editor going out and looking or someone submitting a site. This is not an area DMOZ can rest on it's laurels about. It is your foundation.
Let the spammers suffer, not the people who take the time to make good suggestions. Even come to that, your editors who have very forcefully indicated they have better things to do with their time than trawl through it.

How does it make sense to ignore all pre-existing work and start from scratch?

I can think of a few, there are sometimes grounds for starting over fresh, but thats another story.

I'm not sure that the other editors who posted here before you are really the kind of people I'd like to work beside on a voluntary basis.

They're pretty nice. :)

I guess I'll have to take you're word on that ;-).

I think for me this is just about the end, I don't really have much else to say on the subject that hasn't been said or discussed before. Despite the sometimes heated nature of this debate I'd just like to say thank you very much for taking the time to respond to my questions and posts.
You've given me a lot to think about.

And for all those who no doubt wondered why I was here as Andy and no doubt Googled my username, my husband started a site and got a lot of good advice here. However, he has long since lost interest in websites, but seeing him build one inspired me to have a go. He recommended WebmasterWorld and I've just been signing in with his username the last few months. Sorry if people thought I was being deliberately secretive.
I can understand now how Hutcheson kept putting quotes round the word "midwife" lol. Sorry!

Anyway, agree to disagree seems to be the best course of action on a lot of points, no hard feelings. But for me, this thread has reached a natural conclusion.

I may be seeing you around ;-)

robsynnott

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 12:54 am on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

A lot of people seem to be under the misaprehension that the DMOZ is a service for webmasters, and is obliged to bow and scrape to them. (This is a horrible feature of modern business, by the way, that's unfortunately beginning to reach this country; the rediculous "customer is always right" thing.) It isn't; if anything it's a service for web users in general. It is certainly not a tool to help you increase your pagerank.

Stefan

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 1:54 am on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

I've always presumed this was just done so as not to appear to list people as active editors of a category who aren't. Imagine if an editor dies? If their editor account didn't time out, the ODP could still be listing people as editors that died in the last millenium.

I actually resigned at one point, being somewhat pissed-off at having applied to edit another category that had no editor, and being turned down, and when I cooled off and checked back a week later, I was still an editor of the original category, with no change to log-in or whatever. Figuring that I should let bygones be bygones, I dutifully resumed editing in my one category, that no one ever submits to, and that I can't find any other sites worth adding to, (I work on the bookmarks, this being done to keep my editorship active, not that it seems to matter), and haven't bothered to try again.

To bring my ramble to something resembling a contribution to the thread:
Even if you resign you're still part of it. Dead editors, of course, can't quit, so yeah, they might be there for a long, long time.

[edited by: Stefan at 2:13 am (utc) on June 25, 2005]

nzmatt

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 2:11 am on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

Can one of you guys please review mysite? :0)

Smashing Young Man

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 8:38 am on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

LOL @ nzmatt. :

That's what it all comes down to, isn't it? I think most of the people arguing at the editors in these sorts of threads harbor a secret wish that the editor will break down and add their site.

Oh, review mine too. :D

Atticus



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 6:24 pm on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

smashing,

If you know any DMOZ editors, please ask them not to add any of my sites to their directory.

Just wanna make sure that your misrepresentaion of some folks' motives will not negatively impact me by associating my work with a product I neither use nor endorse.

Thanks for listening...

texasville

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 7:11 pm on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

The main thing I get tired of is dmoz editors that continually refer to webmasters in a tone usually reserved for used car salesmen and shyster lawyers. Being told that they are not there as a webmaster listing service. It is impossible to criticize any part of it without getting this response. My own main complaint is that the dmoz is used by google as such a resource. And that the dmoz allows anyone to build their own directory using their data. It has allowed thousands of link farms and clutter on the web. If you are in charge of a commercial site and trying to find someone to link to, you can wade for hours thru these. Check most of the top rated commercial sites for brick and mortar businesses links and you will find that these are their links. Not all but a lot. Google can't ferret these out. I wasted several hours yesterday and found very little to link to. Almost every one of these so called directories do not allow submission because they do not maintain these sites. check almost any site with a hyphen coming up in google and it is a link farm provided by the dmoz. To me the dmoz is contributing to most of the spam on the internet. And the reason any of us complain about the dmoz is because google backbones off it. google drops dmoz? problem solved. It would have as much importance on the net as any old site and probably never be heard of again. It's parent company would shut the doors fairly quickly.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 8:58 pm on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

>The main thing I get tired of is dmoz editors that continually refer to webmasters in a tone usually reserved for used car salesmen and shyster lawyers.

No, no, no, that's not fair at all, not a bit of it.

I've known two or three honest lawyers.

The fact is, a website may be of some "value" or "usefulness" to both its webmaster and a surfer. Sometimes the benefit only goes one way or the other. But in order to be ethical and honest -- in order to deal fairly with the differences in "benefit", it is important for an ODP editor to remember exactly whose benefit the ODP is set up to provide for. We have to consciously ignore the webmaster benefits (to whatever webmasters) of listing or not listing a site, and focus solely on the surfer benefits.

As a simple example of how this works out in practice -- how do we review affiliate links or other advertising content? You've all heard the litany "Ignore the advertising content if you can (that's the webmaster benefit), and look at the information (that's the surfer benefit.)"

But don't confuse that with the "editor mandate" itself -- that guideline is the way the mandate must work out for that particular issue. There are many other places where the same conflict of interest can occur.

And whenever an ODP editor who edits a site in order to provide a benefit for its webmaster, he has left his ethics at home, and gone into abusive territory.

The same principle applies in speculative thinking also. Any time an ethical editor considers an action to be taken using ODP privileges, the first consideration for an ethical editor will always be: "why? why do this? who would it benefit? who would I be doing it for?"

And if the answer to THAT question is not "the surfer" (or at the most remote, "to help another editor help the surfer"), then that's as deep as an ethical editor will need to consider that action.

And if the "surfer help" component of that answer is missing, then you speak truly: the answer is pretty predictable.

Smashing Young Man

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 9:57 pm on Jun 25, 2005 (gmt 0)

Atticus:

I meant it in jest, though I'm sure it is the truth in a lot of cases.

I will say one thing in defense of DMOZ: like many, I, too, only looked at it as just another SEO obstacle to conquer, but after reading many of these kinds of threads and the editors' repeated mantra of It's for the surfer! I decided to actually try and use it for its stated purpose.

Much to my surprise, it is, indeed, a great resource for quickly finding quality content - especially with the amount of pure spam congesting the web these days. I was somewhat disappointed at the number of defunct links I ran across, but no biggie. I now actually use my DMOZ bookmark for more than just checking to see if my site has been listed. :p

As a webmaster, I know it's hard to see DMOZ as anything but another facet of SEO - the benefits of having a listing there are just too great to easily shrug off - but after using it as it is meant to be used, I appreciate that they have refrained from simply throwing the floodgates wide open in the interest of appeasing webmasters.

rfgdxm1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 2:43 am on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Even if you resign you're still part of it. Dead editors, of course, can't quit, so yeah, they might be there for a long, long time.

Not likely. In your case, for whatever reason, when you clicked on the link to resign because of some glitch it didn't go through. The only reason you are still an editor is because after you noticed that your resignation failed, you resumed editing. If after your failed registration you just totally ignored dmoz.org existed, after 4 months your editor login would have just become inactive. Basically, the way the software works is if an editor just doesn't do any editing for 4 months, the system effectively automatically resigns them.

Thus, unless there is some ODP bug I'm unaware of, dead editors won't be there for a long, long time. I've seen many cases where editors went inactive, and the system just removed them from being shown as an active editor of the category.

One of the features of the editor side ODP software is ANY editor can look up the editing logs of any other editor. Whether they are an active editor or not. Or whether they are a higher ranking editor or not. I'm just a lowly line editor, and if I want to see the editing logs of a meta, I can easily do so. And not only can any meta look at my editing logs, but also every other ODP editor who wants to. For any reason. Or, no reason at all. At the ODP, no editor regardless of rank can do anything in secret. Internally, the Open Directory Project is VERY open. Which IMO is how it should be. Any ODP editor with less than honorable motives is subject to the scrutiny of many thousands of other editors. I would presume that this would discourage any editor thinking of abusive editing from considering such.

(Every ODP editor has on their editor dashboard a link that says "Report Abuse". Making it all kinds of easy for any editor who has even suspicions of inappropriate editing to call attention of it to the metas.)

rfgdxm1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 2:53 am on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Much to my surprise, it is, indeed, a great resource for quickly finding quality content - especially with the amount of pure spam congesting the web these days. I was somewhat disappointed at the number of defunct links I ran across, but no biggie. I now actually use my DMOZ bookmark for more than just checking to see if my site has been listed. :p

I'm an OPD editor. I use the ODP the same way. When the topic is obscure, the ODP is great way to find worthwhile content.

Stefan

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 2:57 am on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

rfgdxm1

I stand corrected.. ;-)

You will note that I did resume editing though, (such as it is). I'm still a big believer in the thing - might even apply again some day for another category.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 4:59 am on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

>I was somewhat disappointed at the number of defunct links I ran across, but no biggie.

Although I appreciate your post most sincerely (something like that does much to keep us going!), I want to differ with you here. That IS a biggie, and it is potentially constructive criticism.

Would you mind describing what kind of defunctness the links possessed, if you noticed any pattern?

I ask this because we have semi-automated ways of catching defunct links, which exhibit two kinds of problems: (1) sometimes they don't get run often enough, or don't complete their run; (2) they may not catch all kinds of problematic links.

Thanks.

Smashing Young Man

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 6:28 am on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

hutcheson,

Most of the ones I remember coming across usually took me to a placeholder kind of page which said "This Domain Is For Sale" or something similar. I don't recall finding any outright 404s. A couple were just very stale and hadn't been updated in years (this counts as a defunct link in my mind, though I don't know if that would call for cleansing from the ODP per the directory's rules).

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 8:21 am on Jun 26, 2005 (gmt 0)

Please use the "update URL" link every time you spot one of those "Domain for Sale" pages: that is exactly the sort of update that editors give top priority to.

experienced

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 11:27 am on Jun 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Gone through the whole thread. Some cat are having a number of editors but this is not true for all of the categories or cat those are not very famous, they usually have 1 or 2 editors. But the point is if 1 editor for cat a also having competitive page and he already having listed he/she would not want to add the another in the cat because that new url is directelly competitor of his/her site. may be another editor is not visiting the cat and 1 editor are not accepting the new sites. Another thing is editor are very lazy in reviewing the site. they do when they feel like. But if they wont back to cat for whole year will sites wait for approval..? what do you think about thiese sites

like
abc.com/client1
abc.com/client2
abc.com/client3 & so on.

Are these mirror sites as the root belongs to the 1 only.

Its a huge topic to discuss but the main problem is only The editors are already having competitive pages for the cat they owned & they usually did not accept new submisssion to Dmoz unless another editor comes & review (if he/she is not webmaster again)

Do you think is there any solutions.

Exp...

cbpayne

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 11:40 am on Jun 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

But the point is if 1 editor for cat a also having competitive page and he already having listed he/she would not want to add the another in the cat because that new url is directelly competitor of his/her site.

How do you know that this goes on? Where do you get your information from?

When I was first accepted as an editor, the first thing I dd was had all my "competitors" sites to the category I edit - most of them were even submitted! ... so please do not jump to conclusions without facts.

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 4:47 pm on Jun 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> experienced

I don't think so. Pure Fantasy.

texasville

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 11:31 pm on Jun 28, 2005 (gmt 0)

Experienced brings up one point. Don't know if this is what he is referring to but:
like
abc.com/client1
abc.com/client2
abc.com/client3 & so on.
but I have seen a particular website/seo firm that has gotten itself listed and then two of it's clients site listed as being off their server this way even tho they do have their own url's. Gives the firm effectively three listings in the odp even tho they just created the other two and run them off their server. They do not own these other sites. And if you run a search for these sites in google, they return as stand alone domains. personally, I think it's kind of cheesey listings and sent in a report on it but nothing was done. This is a particularly well known black hat seo firm in this region. Wondered if one of them was an editor.

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 12:24 am on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

If they have a vanity domain registered for each customer and that redirects to some other URL, then it is that other URL that gets listed. That is the way the ODP treats sites with redirects.

There is much precedent for a domain to have multiple listings: yahoo.com, geocities.com, wanadoo.co.uk, etc. In general a site gets one listing, irrespective if there is more than one site sharing space on a single domain, or whether the owners have decided to split a site over multiple domains. One site - One listing. Do not substitute the word "domain" for "site".

texasville

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 2:01 am on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

Let me be a little more distinct. You have abc website and development. (Not a real company). They are hired by widget wonderland. They build the site for widget wonderland. They also host the site widgetwonderland.com off their server. They then submit to odp as abc.com/widgetwonderland, however, the actual site widget wonderland comes up in google and yahoo as widgetwonderland.com. You can access the site as abc.com/widgetwonderland but when you click on home in the menu it reverts to widgetwonderland.com-tell me that ain't cheesey.

cbpayne

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 3:16 am on Jun 29, 2005 (gmt 0)

tell me that ain't cheesey.

It sounds like it. Report it at the abuse reporting place. If there is really something wrong, it will be dealt with.

This 300 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 300 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 > >
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