| This 195 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 195 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 ) > > || |
|Getting Listed in DMOZ|
Difficult, Difficult, Difficult
| 8:01 pm on Sep 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am new here, glad to join such a wide range of intelligent people. I have been building websites for a couple of years, and now I am trying to become a better marketer. One of my biggest issues is Google PR. I though it would help to get into DMOZ, but what a pain. Either my site gets denied, or there is not an editor for a category, so I never hear anything. Anyone have any suggestions to building PR using Directory other then DMOZ, and any great tips for getting into DMOZ?
| 5:16 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think you are saying that WebmasterWorld is for Webmasters, and therefore everything discussed should be for Webmasters? Yet Dmoz isn't for webmasters or to promote webmasters, so what's the relevance. The fact that dmoz isn't for webmasters then isn't this discussion against the webmaster 'theme'.
| 5:19 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I canna speak for all aspects of the directory, as I canna even tell you what's in many of the categories (having never looked) but as for the areas I edit, I know the target audience well:
Folks who seek information about a couple of
major youth organizations whose missions I
believe in and endorse.
When it comes to ODP, those folks are my concern and my target. When a webmaster has a site that's useful to those folks, I wanna know about it. It matters not to me if I learn about it via a personal discussion with an organization member at some outing, or from a discussion list I read, or via a dmoz submission suggestion, or coming across it as a surfer.
Someday, I'll likely care about another area of the directory, but for now, I'm involved at a sufficient enough level to both enjoy the time offered and feel as though I make a difference in doing so.
| 5:28 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The fact that dmoz isn't for webmasters then isn't this discussion against the webmaster 'theme'. |
lol ..Actually the discussion is appropriate because the webmaster members need to decide if they really care to listen to DMOZ continually promoted here while offering them the webmasters nothing in return.
They dont want to discuss where your submission is at ..but they will discuss how you can clone them! It's a freaking joke
| 5:42 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|When a webmaster has a site that's useful to those folks, I wanna know about it |
Kevin - clearly you represent the good ideas behind DMOZ, but in your experience how much abuse goes on?
Somebody suggested under the table payments to editors?!
My biggest concern about DMOZ is the black box elitist nature of the editor and site review process.
Why not allow more information to flow in the very active public forum space (eg rejected sites could ask to be publicly reviewed in the support forum as an "appeal" process) rather than privately and in subjective ways as now.
| 5:53 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Why not allow more information to flow in the very active public forum space (eg rejected sites could ask to be publicly reviewed in the support forum as an "appeal" process) rather than privately and in subjective ways as now. |
All information needed to know why a site is or will be rejected is already publicly available. Just read [dmoz.org...] and [dmoz.org...]
From the numbers I have seen my guess is that around 5 to 6000 suggestions are rejected each day just because the they suggested a site which is not compliant with the DMOZ guidelines. Do you realy want us to waste extra time discussing why we rejected all these spam sites.
| 6:05 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Do you realy want us to waste extra time discussing why we rejected all these spam sites. |
Perfect example of the arrogance of DMOZ..
You just lump every site in that dosent quite meet the guidlines as spam ..
and god forbid you might actually respond to a submission.. we sure wouldnt want you to actually make an effort ..
If you dont wnat to take the time then LEAVE the DMOZ
| 6:24 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I canna speak for all aspects of the directory, as I canna even tell you what's in many of the categories
Hang on a sec, I have looked at dmoz and it's a general directory covering every category thinkable, so we have 590'000 categories, many of which are B2b, websites/companies/services. So - are the editors all saying that these businesses aren't owned by Webmasters - as they aren't allowed.
It's just that out of the 5,165,140 sites listed, I find it hard to accept that the majority of sites are all corporate businesses with million pound budgets etc. Are these editors trying to tell me that all or most of these b2b sites aren't owned by webmasters.
The sites that are accepted, cannot all be large corporates. ie a lot must be webmaster owned/ran sites..... What about the editor's websites - I suppose these guys are all NOT webmasters. Ok, I know they get a free link when they sign up to becoma editors but they are STILL webmasters aren't they..
| 6:29 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|waste extra time discussing why we rejected all these spam sites |
Arrghhhh and NO! In fact I get the idea DMOZ editors are already forced to waste most of their time rejecting spam. The problem is that quality sites and potential editors are caught up in this due to DMOZ failure to implement obvious solutions such as adding new editors.
I don't want to personalize this too much but I'm an example of somebody who is arguably one of the most authoritative in some regionally focused fields that need editors, also I'm known statewide as a straight shooting honest guy, yet I've been rejected for even the most trivial categories many times.
True, you can't know I'd be fair so have a PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS where editor decisions are subject to the review of the community, rather than the black box as now. I think early DMOZ was great and sincere, but abuses and overwhelming spam mean that DMOZ now fails it's own test of creating an open and impartial review process. Transparency is a virtue and DMOZ is one of the web's least transparent entities now. Wikipedia is a super example of using community and transparency successfully.
How to fix this? USE THE ONLINE COMMUNITY! rather than wasting your time rejecting that community as DMOZ does now.
apologies for ranting but I just got rejected again *today* for perhaps the 10th time, asking to edit an unedited category for which I could get 100 officials and insiders to say "yup, he's the guy you want editing that category!"
| 6:41 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
On approval times
>> That information at a category level would be very useful from DMOZ. <<
Useful for what? When your site is listed, it is listed. Until that time it is awaiting review. If you are waiting for a rejection so that you can resubmit as soon as it is rejected then you are working to the wrong plan.
>> If estimates were available for listing times in each of the major categories, and maybe one level down, that would help answer some questions. <<
We have given that information many times and it serves no purpose. If you really push for an answer then all I can say is that review may be done in a couple of days, or it may take a couple of years. Some categories are edited several times per week, and some are reviewed once per year. On average (and this average is meaningless in any context that you think it might have meaning) a category is visited by an editor every 6 to 8 months.
I've experienced both ends of the spectrum, from sites that are accepted almost instantly to sites that have to wait over a year. Knowing the average waiting time and queue size is useful because sites change over time, and DMOZ does not issue rejection emails.
Imagine a site has 100 pages of high-quality content added over the course of a year, since the first submission. Perhaps the site was originally barely listable, but things have improved. Should the site owner resubmit and risk overwriting the original submission, or is it better to leave it another few months?
Perhaps the directory would save some bandwidth as a result?
| 6:45 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>problemwith that theory is DMOZ dosent send much
>traffic so the end user obviousely isnt using it
Depends on the topic. I think it's rare for anyone to use dmoz.org or the Google directory to find commercial sites. Academic, educational and informational sites DO see a fair amount of traffic from the ODP and the Google directory, though. An educational website I help to maintain sees more traffic come in from the ODP and the Google directory than from Yahoo or MSN searches.
So there ARE a lot of end-users of the ODP, but I think they're very rarely looking for something to buy. I suspect that if the ODP *were* to put in a paid review service, the way some of you want, it'd really be doing nothing but screwing commercial webmasters out of their money. There's not much traffic visiting any sector that would pay to have it, and I really think it's a myth that the mirror sites pass any advantage on at all.
I know it's hard to believe, but some things really do exist for valid, useful purposes that don't have much to do with business. Which, in a roundabout way, answers Dauction's plaintive question. Not all webmasters have commercial sites. Some people are the webmasters of educational, academic, artistic, or personal hobby sites. Some webmasters actually spend a lot of time on sites that aren't going to make them a penny, and still want people to visit them, and still care about directories and search engines anyway. DMOZ may be REALLY USEFUL for such a webmaster, even at the same time it would be COMPLETELY USELESS to you.
So what skin is it off your nose if they people to talk about it? Or even complain about it? *shrug*
| 7:41 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> You just lump every site in that dosent quite meet the guidlines as spam <<
Spam is anything that was submitted that should not have been.
>> failure to implement obvious solutions such as adding new editors <<
There are several dozen new editors starting out every single day.
>> PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS where editor decisions are subject to the review of the community <<
If, by community, you mean review by all of the editors then this already happens. Every editor can see the entire history of every site, the entire history of every category, and the entire history of every editor. Any error that any editor spots with any site, any category, or any editor can be flagged by any editor at any time, and anyone with permission levels for that category can fix that error at any time, and everyone can see every action that was flagged and acted on.
If you mean people outside of the editing community, then any problem with any listed site can be reported using the "Update URL" link at dmoz itself, or by writing in the "Report Problems" thread over at some other forum. Several thousand problems have already been flagged and fixed in that one thread alone.
>> Knowing the average waiting time and queue size is useful because sites change over time,
There is no way to know what any editor is going to do today and past performance is no guarantee of any future event, so it is possible for a category with 100 suggestions waiting to be cleaned up tomorrow, and another category with just one suggestion to not be touched for another year. It is also possible for the one site to be accepted today, and the 100-site category to not be visited for a year. It is impossble to give anyone a timescale for any category, site, editor, or any other statistic other than "every day about 1000 sites are added".
| 7:42 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Some of the all-out worst editors I've seen are ones who were considered experts in areas where they were editing but couldn't edit according to ODP guidelines to save their lives. And some of the best editors I've seen have had no expert qualifications whatsoever in the area where they're editing. How authoritative you are in your field is really largely irrelevant as an indicator of how well you're suited to being an editor (that's a general "you", BTW, not anyone in particular).
|I'm an example of somebody who is arguably one of the most authoritative in some regionally focused fields that need editors, also I'm known statewide as a straight shooting honest guy, yet I've been rejected for even the most trivial categories many times. |
| 7:46 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> Perhaps the site was originally barely listable, but things have improved. Should the site owner resubmit and risk overwriting the original submission, or is it better to leave it another few months? <<
If you haven't seen any action within 9 months to a year, and the content has massively changed, then one more submission is OK. Note the major changes in the description field in [square brackets].
| 7:58 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> Most Webmasters simply want DISCUSSION.. acknowldgement .. has a site been reviewed , has it been rejected if so what can be done to correct the problem <<
There is a live and up to date list of sites that have been reviewed and accepted. It is at dmoz.org.
If a site has been rejected, then we no longer want to spend any more time dealing with it. In particular we do not offer a service to webmasters where we tell them what bit of their site to change to make it "barely eligible for listing".
We expressly do not want to include "sites built for dmoz" in exactly the same way that Google don't want to include certain types of "fake" sites built purely to be ranking in Google SERPs.
Google has a set of documents that tell webmasters what to do, and what not to do for their sites. The ODP has a similar set of documents.
>> Or that their site is uninque and will be reviewed in xx amount of time <<
To tell you that your site is unique, I would have to review it right now. That would mean someone would have to feed me a queue of stuff that I have to look at. I never signed up to be a queue processor. I signed up to build categories.
However, why do you need me to tell you that your site is unique? You know whether you wrote it, or whether you copied it from somewhere else. People asking us whether their site is unique, are generally asking us did I disguise my plagarism well enough to get past the editors eyeballs? - and we don't play that game.
>> I'm naturally curious and suspicious about people that say "We are in this for the passion" <<
Your question covers the same ground as "why do thousands of people spend hundreds of hours each editing at WikiPedia?"; "why do thousands of people spend time editing at Project Gutenburg?"; "why do thousands of people spend much of their free time in moderating forums?"; "why do millions of people spend time answering questions, for free, in forums?".
In fact, why are you here?
| 8:29 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If, by community, you mean review by all of the editors then this already happens
Probably not, I think he meant a private forum for the site owners, to vote on editorial decisions concerning sites that were excluded for personal agendas.
I'd have to check with him to ensure that was what he meant.
| 8:53 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|There is a live and up to date list of sites that have been reviewed and accepted. It is at dmoz.org. |
Really ..#*$! I thought you said DMOZ isnt a listing service
|If a site has been rejected, then we no longer want to spend any more time dealing with it. In particular we do not offer a service to webmasters where we tell them what bit of their site to change to make it "barely eligible for listing". |
And yet you find the time to post here on the subject of not qualified sites everyday ...here's a suggetion spend less time here and more time listing sites at DMOZ.
Maybe DMOZ should simply be banned from WebmasterWorld simply because to keep them from being distracted from their great contributions to the world by listing in DMOZ?!
It's clear than DMOZ editors spend far to much talking about what a great job they do than actually doing that job
| 8:57 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|It's clear than DMOZ editors spend far to much talking about what a great job they do than actually doing that job |
That is the nice thing of being a volunteer. I can spend as much time as I want on anything I want.
| 9:00 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Your question covers the same ground as "why do thousands of people spend hundreds of hours each editing at WikiPedia?
My statement could cover that Yes, but it's not what I meant lol.
It could also cover a multitude of sins, but your guesswork as to my real answer - would be way off.
In fact, why are you here?
That's none of your business. Now, can we get back to a sensible discussion or I'll inform a moderator about you're attacking presence.
| 9:04 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just think if some of these DMOZ editors with 2800 posts and more could simply have decided it was more important to reply to questions from companies and webmasters (instead of posting in a webmaster forum)as to the status of their submissions ..what a real difference that would make.
Maybe DMOZ needs an offical represenative so all the editors dont have to spend so much time here. One DMOZ Guy so all the others can get to work .
I mean with the editors being so far behind in their great contribution to society building the largest human edited directory that no one uses
[edited by: dauction at 9:06 pm (utc) on Oct. 2, 2005]
| 9:06 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|That is the nice thing of being a volunteer. I can spend as much time as I want on anything I want. |
yep, I see your point , hell after you have your site listed your free to never list again ..
That what I love about you volunteers always out doing so much good for everyone else
| 9:16 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|That what I love about you volunteers always out doing so much good for everyone else |
I'd appreciate it if you'd disclose who is paying you to post on this topic.
If no one is paying you, that makes you a volunteer of the ODP. The difference being that pagode is a volunteer editor and you are a volunteer critic.
Your sneer smears yourself.
| 9:22 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I'd appreciate it if you'd disclose who is paying you to post on this topic. |
Why? does the very discussion of banning DMOZ make you nervous?
DMOZ offers a submit your site but offers NO support to submit your site..other than canned policy statements.
If DMOZ refuses to offer support for webmasters on their submissions then I really see no reason that DMOZ should be allowed to be promoted here.
[edited by: dauction at 9:35 pm (utc) on Oct. 2, 2005]
| 9:30 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Just forget dmoz and their problems. They are not interested in helping webmasters - and there are pleanty of other options out there, that will list sites faster.
Webmasters want dmoz as it's easy masses of traffic for no outlay. If they can get in, and the editors ensure you can't. Editors aren't doing this for dmoz, so don't be fooled by what they say on a forum.
They come here, as WebmasterWorld is the best of it's kind - they know they will be heard, and to cover their behinds when people start to ask questions that could expose them and their agendas. It's called Damage Limitation and they don't want dmoz finding out they won't do the editing job properly, once they have their listing. I could be wrong though.
Yep, they do need a proper professionally qualified rep to do this for them. This can't be good public relations for dmoz.
| 9:49 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You guys are really barking up the wrong tree thinking of the ODP as a professional organization like Google that has a commercial agenda. It's a collaborative hobbyist project. It's much, much more like Project Gutenberg, or like the library website I also volunteer for, or, for that matter, like one of the online fiction websites I am a participant in. These are all projects that multiple people spend their time working on because they find it satisfying. These are all projects that people work on when they have time and inclination, and the other participants are happy to see their contributions and don't really care how many each person makes per day. They are all projects that make no money for the people who work on them, and the people who work on them don't care. So they are also projects where no one from outside can tell the participants what to do.
These discussions get so circular so quickly, and eventually the WebmasterWorld moderators get annoyed and lock comments. But the fact is that every website has a niche. DMOZ's is that it is a volunteer, amateur directory run collectively by, for lack of a better word, fans. It is by far the biggest and best website of that kind, and because of this I think it's become one of the biggest and best directories available period. But if you don't like the concept of a volunteer amateur directory, you won't ever like it no matter what happens and no matter how big it gets or how successful at the goals it's aiming for. So patronize, or create, the biggest and best website of a type you DO like.
You really can't go around expecting that the ODP is going to become a pay-for-link directory staffed by $8-an-hour techs, or that Google is going to give up on trying to rank link popularity and become a search engine based solely on on-page contents. Websites are built on themes, and they do the best they can within that theme. The ODP is no different than any other site in that respect. It's useful for some people and useless for others. Just like any other site.
| 9:59 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
...Oh, and sorry to break it to you, but: you really don't care how many hours I spend editing the ODP any given day. Because for me, it's one of those labors of love you're so skeptical of, and I've been spending the last several months doing nothing but adding sites on obscure authors to the literature category. As far as you're concerned, it's completely irrelevant whether I do this for one hour a day or twelve, whether I spend some time playing a computer game or reading a forum instead of editing. Because it's not going to benefit you financially regardless.
And since I'm more interested in other literature geeks' ability to find sites on my directory than I am in your financial status, that's unlikely to change any time soon. (-:
| 10:01 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've never been offered anything to list a site and
I canna imagine anyone would ever make such an offer in the corner of the dmoz world where I edit.
Has it ever happened to anyone in any category? Probably, although I base that solely on the general human condition. There are folks who try to buy the better tables in dining establishments, to slide higher up the wait list at a private school, and even something as simple as slide further up the line when waiting for a movie. So yeah, it would be impossible to say that no one ever tried or succeeded at getting a listing at dmoz in some other than honorable manner, but I have no direct knowledge on the matter.
Regarding dmoz being discussed here, and it is discussion, not promotion, notwithstanding one position repeatedly taken. It's quite rare to find any thread here about dmoz that is kicked started by a dmoz editor. Based on memory and not detailed study, I suspect most threads involving dmoz are far and away shorter than this one. The threads generally involve a Q, an answer, some other discussion and a new Q or 2 and answers and then the threads die off, much like any other thread on any other topic.
This one seems to be one of those that's destined to continue until it is shut down by a local mod. It's not difficult to look at the last 3 pages or so and figure out why this thread continues on and on.
In general terms, it would be helpful for folks to remember that simply because an answer isn't the desired answer, this doesn't mean it is a wrong answer.
| 10:04 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Funny, if no ODP editor ever posted in any of the ODP threads that pop up here (or in other webmaster forums) with regularity, people would be griping about the "conspiracy of silence".
|They come here, as WebmasterWorld is the best of it's kind - they know they will be heard, and to cover their behinds when people start to ask questions that could expose them and their agendas. |
| 10:23 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Why? does the very discussion of banning DMOZ make you nervous? |
Not at all, and completely irrelevant to the question.
You raised the issue of motivation for volunteers.
If you are a volunteer in this discussion, then you were talking about your own motivation (in very disparaging terms).
If you are being paid to be part of this discussion, then the motivations of your paymasters are as equally on the table as the motivations of volunteers, whether ODP critics or editors. [They are on the table because you raised the issue; for no other reason].
It's striking that many of the volunteer critics of the ODP who repeatedly raise the issue ot its "openness" go so coy when asked a direct question themeselves.
Why not embody the openness principle, and answer the question rather that bluster?
| 10:26 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> There is a live and up to date list of sites that have been reviewed and accepted. It is at dmoz.org. <<
>> Really ..#*$! I thought you said DMOZ isn't a listing service <<
I said it lists all the sites that editors have reviewed (wherever they found the URL for the site was not stated) and accepted into the directory (accepted, as in they met the guidelines and therefore weren't rejected).
>> And yet you find the time to post here on the subject of not qualified sites everyday ...here's a suggetion spend less time here and more time listing sites at DMOZ. <<
>> It's clear than DMOZ editors spend far to much talking about what a great job they do than actually doing that job <<
See, that's the great thing about being a volunteer at the ODP. No other editor can tell me what to do, where, or when, or how much; and the outside public have even less influence. Whether I go down the pub, watch TV, post in forums, edit at the ODP, is none of your business.
You're a poster at this forum; why don't you go and post in all the threads that have a single unanswered post. I blame you for all of the threads where people have aked questions and you ignored their request [webmasterworld.com]. You should get to it right now.
| 10:41 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> Just think if some of these DMOZ editors with 2800 posts and more could simply have decided it was more important to reply to questions from companies and webmasters (instead of posting in a webmaster forum)as to the status of their submissions ..what a real difference that would make. <<
Since you've aimed that question at me, I'll answer it.
Over at some forum that cannot be named here, I answered many hundreds of status requests; and in the couple of years that the expermiment ran well over 10 000 sites were given a status report by various editors that volunteered to do so. At the same time, there were thousands of editors who never even went to that forum at all.
For most of the status threads, and for most of the time, the answer was "submission received, someone will look at it eventually". For many others, the site was a site that was not listable, or had been spamming us for some time. When we told those people we would not list their site, the thread turned into an argument, every time.
There were many people asking what looked like innocent questions, but were merely testing how our spam filters worked - those people did not merit an answer at all - and there were a lot of them.
There were only a few dozen sites (out of 10 000) where some editing error had seen a good site failing to be listed, or some technical problem (especially around the time of the ODP server upgrades a year or two back) seeing a site submission get lost in the system. So, the ODP has tried public review, and status reports, and feedback -- and it doesn't work.
If this forum offered that service then there would be a hundred threads per day - all like this one. WebmasterWorld does not need that. The editors don't need that. Hell, the world does not need that.
>> what a real difference that would make <<
It would make no difference at all. Been there. Done that.
There have been over 2000 posts at WebmasterWorld this year about how the ODP works - and you still don't get it. No way are we going to have anyone starting several hundred to several thousand threads per day on that subject, one per site submitted.
| 10:51 pm on Oct 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
DMOZ editors control who gets a piece of hundreds of millions ...maybe billions $$$$ now
Interesting. How would these millions be divided up exactly. Each editor getting a bung for maintaining quality or some other service?
| This 195 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 195 ( 1 2 3 4 5  7 ) > > |