Forum Moderators: open
Nowdays I only pass through when I submit new sites. In the regional area where most of my sites are placed everything seems to be showing "This category needs an editor".
For the first time ever I have a site that seems to be still waiting for a review after several months. That's not a beef, just a comment, but when looked at in the context of no editors being available, I'm beginning to wonder if this volunteer dependant model is showing signs of stress?
Any ODP people in our midst able to advise the size of the unedited backlog?
The editors' main gripe seems to be all the spam submissions... and of course it's all in the shopping and biz cats, where you would expect them to be.... I said you ought to charge for listings. I still think that is a good idea in that area because you basically would shut down all the multiple submits into multiple cats.... you would also get higher quality sites, because no one would risk submitting a crappy site if they had *anything* to lose. The response is that the ODP was supposed to be free... and everybody likes that idea, because it seems fair, the editors aren’t financially obligated to do anything, and it sounds good in theory. However, for that very same reason you, like all engines and directories before you, are going to get overwhelmed with spammy, crappy sites... so IMHO you either need to come up with a good way to prevent this, or you need to shut up about it, and suck it up...by not putting up any barriers, you cause the problem by letting everyone submit... and I haven’t heard one good alternative to charging that would solve your number one problem... so if you aren’t willing/can’t solve your problems, then you are going to have to live with them... and in this case, it means wasting your time. As far as seeing all the editor notes, and all that stuff, I simply don’t care... I’m not an editor, I don’t want to be an editor, nor should I need to be an editor to get my site listed... if I submit a legitimate site, spam doesn’t apply to me, nor should it affect me... I should get reviewed and let in. Period. Your spam problems are your problems because you have no filters/barriers. If I’m wrong, tell me your solution.
Another major problem is editorial abuse. That is because everything is done behind the scenes. I hear you on telling the spammers what they did wrong might give them an edge... but I don’t buy it. You made a system where the editors are judge, jury, and executioner.... there is no balance/separation of power. That is why I suggested a public court.... that way editors wouldn’t have to deal with fighting with spammers.... if a spammer had a problem, or, more importantly, if a non-spammer had a problem, there would be a single place to deal with it and you wouldn’t have to go to another editor that should be spending their time editing. Last time when I said this multiple people wrote that writing back and forth with submitters wastes time... let me say again, the whole point of having a place to deal with issues would SAVE editors time so they could JUST EDIT. The editors are the only line of defense against spam... so in this way they are like the police.... and therefore they should let the innocent alone, make field decisions on whom to arrest or write tickets, and move on... Any person who gets a ticket should have their day in court, if they don’t show up, then the decision stands. But if they DO show up, then they should know what the charges are, and who made them... right now the public knows nothing.... no wonder why there is corruption... there is no accountability.
And lastly, I want to address the time issue. ODP ought to have a list of every site that has been in que for over 2 months.... edit-alls, or whatever you call yourselves, should concentrate on that list before keeping other areas current. In other words, you shouldn't have to wait 6 months to get something reviewed when other cats are updated on a daily basis.... you need to address this. If you can’t speed things up, you at least should level the field... 2 months max wait in all cats would be a good start. As far as I’m concerned, there is no argument that can be made to support why there is such a discrepancy in review times. Anything in the 6 month time frame is rediculous.
...so there you go. I might be a basher but I have also tried to offer solutions that address the problems. Right now I am waiting in a cat that hasn’t been updated since the first week of August. There is no editor in that cat, nor in the one above it. In another cat, the date changes almost every other day, but not a single site has been added in over a month since I started watching. The editor has a ton of cats under his belt... major ones... there is no way one person can edit that many and do a good job in each... power hungry and spread to thin... and allowed to be that way. In another one, a tech cat, no edit in more than a month.... the worst form of corruption in the odp isn’t always the obvious things like actively editing... its NOT editing, or selectively editing... no one is the wiser, and the editor looks like they are doing something... no flags are raised. No edit in over a month in a competitive area? Let's talk about THAT. Who knows... maybe all the sites had bad spelling?
Spam is the outgrowth of software and spammers and SEOs disregarding ODP's guidelines -- not a result of free submission policies. The more we active editors try to educate the SEO world about the problem, the more we get to read folks saying 'go with the flow, your policies are too restrictive' or 'it's your fault for being free' or 'it shouldn't be that hard to list the good sites.' Baloney baloney baloney. It's a spam crisis, not an editor (or editorial policy) crisis.
As Google continues to confound the so-called experts and the spammers realize that their favorite categories are completely jammed up with worthless submissions, I sincerely hope that ODP will stop being a target for those who only want high placement in Google and a few other major databases.
and I haven’t heard one good alternative to charging that would solve your number one problem...
Good point, neither have I. However charging for submissions is a non-starter. The opening paragraph of the ODP Social Contract [dmoz.org] states: "We promise to keep the distribution of ODP data, and the submission process to this data, entirely free." This, along with a multitude of legal issues, is why the ODP will not have a paid submission system (or an expedited submission system as well).
You made a system where the editors are judge, jury, and executioner.... there is no balance/separation of power.
Neither does Google, Yahoo, etc. The system you're asking for is one where you have a bunch of automatons writing titles and descriptions for sites approved by a seperate body. Sort of takes the "edit" out of "editor", doesn't it?
. . . there is no accountability..
I've addressed the same issue in post25 above.
ODP ought to have a list of every site that has been in que for over 2 months
I agree with you, unfortunately this is a feature that we are still waiting to be incorporated into the software.
there is no way one person can edit that many and do a good job in each... power hungry and spread to thin... and allowed to be that way
Again, as I've mentioned before, there is no duty inherent in being an ODP editor. This is not a job - it's a hobby. People have different interests, you can't chain them down and say you have to do this. It's not a matter of being power-hungry.
No edit in over a month in a competitive area? Let's talk about THAT.
Or let's talk about the fact that the editor just had a son/daughter/grandson/grandaughter born? Or that their wife/husband/sister/brother was just diagnosed with cancer and perhaps editing wasn't their number one priority that month. Or just maybe they lost their job that month.
I have the opposite problem - my job keeps interfering with my editing time! ;)
If, as you say, duplicate submissions are thoroughly checked, then how can it be that resubmissions are quickly "interpreted" as spam? If there is any level of human interpretation involved then I stand by my statement that it is academic, from a web programmer's perspective, to get someone else's site flagged as spam. And once the site is flagged, the actual publisher would never know why.
Operating on the "we're not telling spammer's nuttin" philosophy is sophmoric and a bit fascist in my opinion. Using a "government" analogy, it would be much like labeling a citizen as a criminal and taking away their rights without allowing them any opportunity to defend themselves. It's one thing to investigate someone for spam, but once you've blacklisted somebody in your system, the most honorable thing would be to notify them openly. Do you honestly think ODP spammers would attempt any sort of appeal?
there is no way one person can edit that many and do a good job in eachthere is no duty inherent in being an ODP editor
no duty? you're kidding right? just cuz they're volunteers doesn't mean they have no duty. They signed up and said "I'll edit this or that category" - that adds up to duty.
I used to volunteer at the local hospital. I didn't just show up when I felt like and do what ever I wanted. I had a set of duties that I signed up to do and you can be sure that I did them and that someone was watchin over my shoulder to make sure I did what I volunteered to do.
I can certainly understand there are circumstances where editors become unavailable due to illness, kids etc... I've got no problem with that but that excuse seems to get thrown around alot and I can't believe that it's that big of a problem. If in fact it is the main problem it would seem a large percentage of editors are either sick or pregnant or whatever - and it would be foolish to believe that's the case.
There are lots of people (webmasters/seoers) that want to help edit the backlog and we are all agreed that help is needed. That said it doesn't seem clear to me that ODP realizes this since they keep denying new editors. OK - you say that they might be applying for a cat that is too big for a newbie or has too many pending edits or the cat is so small there is no action in it and no need for an editor. Ok - fine. These are 3 reasons that are outside of the applicant's application - the applicant could be a good editor and if they had applied for a different cat they would have been accepted. Why not tell these people that? "Hey applicant, the cat you applied for is not suited to a new editor but here's a list of cats that you might be interested in..."
Nobody would moan about not getting an ODP listing if it weren't for Google. So send up a flare to GoogleGuy!
Its time for a change GG. The ODP database is outdated, the editors are overworked and the organization is undermanned. Everyone knows it ... so do something!
Certainly when a site is resubmitted, the person doing so can put a note to the editor in the description field, below the proposed description itself. It will be read. But clearly, the odds are very high that the site owner isn't privy to the reason a site was rejected the first time. However a nice note could improve chances of getting an explanation...and/or acceptance.
Are you authorized by AOL to "offer to sell" ODP to Google? ;)
Liane: Are you authorized by AOL to "offer to sell" ODP to Google?
No, but I'd be willing to negotiate the deal! ;)
Seriously though Mike, the ODP database is hardly representative of the internet today. It has had its day. The system is too flawed to be of lasting import any longer.
Unless and until some company "like" Google buys it out and runs it as a proper (business) directory, it will never improve and it will never be perceived as a serious entity.
Volunteerism is a wonderful thing, and kudos to those who take the time to do what they do ... but if they intend to continue "as is", then why not just limit themselves to not-for-profit, informational sites only and have done with it.
The problem it now represents is that "some" commercial sites get in while equally good or better sites are left out in the cold. They, together with Google have unwittingly created an uneven playing field ... and that is simply wrong.
<<Dogboy: >>
<<The editors' main gripe seems to be all the spam submissions... and of course it's all in the shopping and biz cats, where you would expect them to be.... I said you ought to charge for listings. I still think that is a good idea in that area because you basically would shut down all the multiple submits into multiple cats.... you would also get higher quality sites, because no one would risk submitting a crappy site if they had *anything* to lose.>>
1) Spam is not only in Business and Shopping cats
2) We don’t judge if a site is “crappy”. I have seen some very poorly designed sites that have a wealth of “original” information.
3) I have always believed that is what makes the ODP so valuable is that it is one of the last remaining places that you cannot “buy” your way in.
<<Your spam problems are your problems because you have no filters/barriers. If I’m wrong, tell me your solution.>>
I am sure if you could come up with a script/program that can crosscheck 10-20 domains that are owned by the same person but sometimes registered with “false” whois data ODP would be happy to take a look at it. Of course querying whois alone on such a massive scale would have you immediately blocked.
The spam problem hurts the “honest” person/company trying to get a site listed more than it does an editor.
Simple question to you would be: Who pays for “shoplifting or theft of goods” when stolen from a store – the “honest” customer, as it is figured into the cost of goods sold.
<<I might be a basher but I have also tried to offer solutions that address the problems.>>
Maybe I’m blind but I haven’t seen a workable solution offered.
<<Oilman>>
The only duty I believe should be placed on editors is already in place. Don’t join just to list yours/affiliated sites and then become inactive. This is “volunteer” work . I can appreciate an editor that performs five good edits a week compared to an editor that does 200 bad ones in the same amount of time. I have looked at editors profiles and their categories and have seen some editors around for a couple of years and have only added a few hundred sites. They have excellent editing skills. Would the ODP be better off without them? Would it have been better if they never joined?
<<"Hey applicant, the cat you applied for is not suited to a new editor but here's a list of cats that you might be interested in...">>
And I know that many times applicants are told just that.
<<There are lots of people (webmasters/seoers) that want to help edit the backlog and we are all agreed that help is needed. >>
Would they be willing to edit in categories that they have no affiliations to start with?
It is not that hard to become an editor or I surely could not have become one :)
I can just speak for myself although I am sure many could repeat these words – There are days that I sit and edit for 7-8 hours straight and there are days that have gone by without a single edit made. I am not going to feel guilty about those days when I don’t edit. I have a real “working” business that sometimes consumes 12-14 hours a day and I have a wonderful family that thinks I’m “nuts” for considering my editing time a form of relaxation. Would the ODP be better without me – you tell me.
[edited by: The_Contractor at 9:44 pm (utc) on Oct. 2, 2002]
I agree... everyone has good intentions (well, almost everyone ;)), but in some cats inclusion will occur in 24 hours while others may take 24 months.
Some kind of business express would take the worst pressure off, and maybe prove too costly for many of the spammers and deep linkers... It still doesn't address the fairness issue between editors/cats, but it would be a start.
No, not one that even comes close imho.
<added>
>prove too costly for many of the spammers
Do you think the quality of the Y! directory has gone up or down since PFI?
[edited by: NFFC at 9:44 pm (utc) on Oct. 2, 2002]
Does anyone know how many sites are included in Yahoo versus ODP?
I was. I never even came close to applying for cats I'm affiliated with. I applied to cats where it would be hard to even come up with a commercial relationship at all.
>> Don’t join just to list yours/affiliated sites and then become inactive
That's not a duty - it's a rule that goes with becoming an editor.
I'm not saying I want editors to spend every free moment editing but come on - you've got a ton of deadwood in there.
>>couple of years and have only added a few hundred sites
ok - 730 days and let's say 300-400 sites. In my book those are decent editors. That works out to adding a site every couple days or a handful a week. No problem. If all the editors would pop in at least once a week and edit even just a handful you'd see the back log disappear in a hurry I figure.
I know that everyone seems loath to put any kind of quota's on volunteers but what would the real harm be? Require a once a week login and minimum of 3-5 edits or something more flexible like 15-20 edits a month total. If the the quota isn't met you get a warning - 3 warnings and you're out. Warnings can be lifted for reasonable circumstances - holidays, new baby etc...
>no way to guarantee 2 months (or any particular length of time).
...I disagree. It's a matter of priorities... editors don't care how long it takes... it's their hobby... they have no obligation (or duty) to do anything if they don't want to... they have jobs and personal lives, and blah, blah, blah.
>It's a spam crisis, not an editor (or editorial policy) crisis.
...get used to it because apparently you don't have a solution either. Free submits aren't the problem, but charging would be a solve part of your problem. You don’t like my solution, come up with your own.
>However charging for submissions is a non-starter.
I hear you... Hutchenson referred to the charter as well. Well... it's not the Bible... it was written a long time ago... any document that stands the test of time needs to be flexible when encountering something it didn't anticipate... apparently your document didn't address some of the problems you are encountering... I would suggest updating it, but I’m afraid of getting burned at the stake.
>Neither does Google, Yahoo, etc.
ok... lets compare apples with apples.... toss Google out of the equation, and any other crawler based engines... they have a different set of rules and problems. You get PR0ed in G its because you tripped a filter and then a human reviewed the site(s). Lets talk Yahoo and the Old L$... both sent you letters of confirmation or denial, did so in a timely fashion, and allowed for a resubmit. The editors also had a responsibility to do their job. There wasn't rampant accusations (and proof) of editorial abuse. The editors were simply gatekeepers with no hidden agenda. There is nothing else out there exactly like ODP.
>The system you're asking for is one where you have a bunch of automatons writing titles and descriptions for sites approved by a separate body. Sort of takes the "edit" out of "editor", doesn't it?
I didn't say that at all... as an editor, you would review a site, accept or deny, edit the Title/Desc as you saw fit and move on to the next one. If you nuked a site, you would make a notation in a log, and an auto reply would be sent to the webmaster that said, 'the site you submitted was rejected. Your case number is 75676575567 if you have any other questions regarding this submission, please take it up with the review board by going here: [fghgfhghfghgf.com'...] end of story, move on.... and then you better have a good excuse as to why the site was rejected, so if I accused you of being crooked, the board would say 'no. it's because the editor found 4 affiliate links, 2 broken links, bad spelling, and no unique content.... and we confirmed this.... when you have corrected this, please feel free to resubmit... NEXT' ...Sounds pretty fair to me. Especially when a site was rejected for a bad reason and you got called on it.... no more editor abuse IMHO... a 'check' on the system... more efficient as well. And maybe you do have another life, and a job, and husband *BUT* WHEN YOU LOGGED ON AS AN EDITOR, YOU WOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR EDITING... even if you made one edit a month. that isn't a lot to ask.
>It's not a matter of being power-hungry.
probably not for you, because you seem ok, but for others it can be all about power.
>Nobody would moan about not getting an ODP listing if it weren't for Google.
..you underestimate me:) ODP was important before G... it's important in general... if it wasn't, it would be useless.... the whole point of the project, I was told, was so everybody could use the info.... don't turn it around now and tell me the problem is that it is being used.
about the same... the real question is how much spam is no longer submitted there
Hand on heart?
Please don't run over to the ODP and critique the category...I have only been editor there for a week and I've been out of town at my sister in-laws wedding for most of that week.
please take it up with the review board
Ok, who would be on this review board? How many people would you need? How are you going to pay them (they can't be volunteers or otherwise we'd be going in circles). Would you charge for a case to be reviewed (a review couldn't be free or otherwise everyone who was rejected would ask for review - more going around in circles).
As for a paid express review system - it will never happen because it's an intractable legal issue for AOL. If they were to start charging (even assuming that the Social Contract were to be modified), it would immediately fall in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and a host of other federal and state regulations.
I agree with much of what you say. I think that it is reasonable to expect a certain “reasonable minimum” amount of edits over a period of time unless something arises in the editors life to prevent this. Of course an editor will time-out if they do not sign in - but that's not the same thing (signing in versus actual editing).
I still believe that editor applications are treated fairly and it would actually be a tough job accepting/rejecting applications. This is akin to hiring someone based upon their resume alone without ever having contact with the person. We all know that resumes can be very misleading. Maybe the application process needs some work ;)
And for those that keep insisting that Yahoo has increased in “quality” since PFI – think again. If I wanted to pay Yahoo I could submit as many mirrored/like content domains as my charge card could handle – does this make a quality directory?
With all of the inevitable flaws that any directory can/will have – ODP is still the best thing going. I believed this long before becoming an editor and still do.
should have read:
Once in Topical (by Subject) and once in Regional (by LOCATION) is enough. <<
>> If, as you say, duplicate submissions are thoroughly checked, then how can it be that resubmissions are quickly "interpreted" as spam? If there is any level of human interpretation involved then I stand by my statement that it is academic, from a web programmer's perspective, to get someone else's site flagged as spam. And once the site is flagged, the actual publisher would never know why. <<
Duplicate submissions are always spam, but there are amny ways to find out if the site owner or their rival is sending it.
>> Operating on the "we're not telling spammer's nuttin" philosophy is sophmoric and a bit fascist in my opinion. Using a "government" analogy, it would be much like labeling a citizen as a criminal and taking away their rights without allowing them any opportunity to defend themselves. It's one thing to investigate someone for spam, but once you've blacklisted somebody in your system, the most honorable thing would be to notify them openly. Do you honestly think ODP spammers would attempt any sort of appeal? <<
Oh no, persistant submitters are warned before being banned. We contact the owner of the company directly, just in case its some crazed SERP PERP who promises to submit to a gazillion search engines monthly to guarantee you the #1 spot on every keyword.
>> Why not tell these people that? "Hey applicant, the cat you applied for is not suited to a new editor but here's a list of cats that you might be interested in..." <<
If an applicant appears to have merit, then I believe that process is already what currently happens.
>> ... as an editor, you would review a site, accept or deny, edit the Title/Desc as you saw fit and move on to the next one. If you nuked a site, you would make a notation in a log, and an auto reply would be sent to the webmaster that said, 'the site you submitted was rejected. Your case number is 75676575567 if you have any other questions regarding this submission, please take it up with the review board by going here...<<
This is pretty much what already happens every edit, every move, every add, every delete is logged, by site, by category, and by editor, with notes added each time. The only piece missing is to inform the submitter what happened to the site - the submitter may not have been an agent for the company, it could have been a rival. Even if we guaranteed a reply email, I'll bet that many would not be received due to being temporary on non-existant email addresses quoted. The enquiry part of your argument, is already operational and handles over a hundred requests per week.
>How many people would you need?
many as it takes... BTW it doesn’t have to be a board... individual judges are fine.... lets just get it in the public.
>How are you going to pay them (they can't be volunteers or otherwise we'd be going in circles).
I don't think they have to be paid.... if you can't charge for submissions then you have no money to pay.... you all like 'free', so let's stick with free
>Would you charge for a case to be reviewed (a review couldn't be free or otherwise everyone who was rejected would ask for review - more going around in circles).
...I wouldn't charge, nor do I think everyone would ask for a review... if you got busted for spamming, you wouldn't engage the judges.... what stops them now for not writing the editors? Personally, I would send the notes along with the auto reply... it just sounded like you all didn't like that idea. It would cut down on the manual reviews.... hook it up with that status bar someone mentioned... great idea.
