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?
Why filter people BEFORE they become editors?
Just because you're knowledgable in a field doesn't actually mean you can be a good editor. Besides which, editing is not heavily correlated with the topic area, as much as it is to the actual task of describing and categorizing sites. There have been university professors who've made horrible editors.
As for new editors - they are limited to smaller categories so that if they make a mess (as many are won't to do), it will be easier to clean up.
The chances of anyone being approved as a new editor in a category of that size is very small, almost nil. Normally a category in a non spam area should be <30 - <50 say a small town, or a specific leaf category for a new editor, the one thing you have to take into account is the potential abuse. If it's limited to a few sites, it can be corrected relativly quickly - if it was to several hundred sites with several hundred more unreviewed (waiting) sites it could take a lot of effort to clear up afterwards. This is one reason for the acceptance to small cats being the norm.
Once someone shows they can be impartial, edit consistently, and both understand and apply the guidelines, they can apply for another category. There are no rules about where you can edit, but your previous experience is taken into account. So if you start editing in your local town the next step might be a larger town, a group of towns, or you might want to start in a small cat in games.
Please apply again, but read the publicly available guidelines before applying, and make sure that your application is completed in accordance with those guidelines.
Ciao
:)
The ODP editors refuse to edit - they hang around here instead.Try to be an honest editor, and you really don't fit in the ODP.
Try a little experiment. Go to any ODP category, ... Then, play pin the tail on the spelling errors. (Hint: Select all, copy, paste to word.)
Interesting how most discussions about the ODP degenerate into shouting loud and namecalling. Those posts are disrespectful not only to ODP editors but to your fellow members of this forum, who normally try to keep a higher standard of debate than this.
NB mosley700 - the word "compleat" in one of the examples you gave is actually a riff on "The Compleat Angler" by Izaak Walton. Maybe a good reason for using editors over Word, hunh?
If you have points to make, please do so. But drawing conclusions from the few categories you checked to all the hundred thousands others doesn't convey the image of someone who understands even the most basic logic. There are people around here who have put a lot more thought into those matters than you have. Why don't you just listen to them for a while? You'll find their well founded arguments all along this very thread.
Fact is, that the ODP is the directory out there with the largest number of quality sites listed. While it is obvious that it isn't perfect, its commercial counterparts can't even reach that quality level by a margin. Once you have accepted that the ODP isn't an advertizing agency, you'll see much clearer about the true relations between the various alternatives.
And if you really believe that an automated algorithm would produce a better directory, what's your guess why it hasn't been done yet?
It looks like it's time for a gentle reminder about the simple conditions we agree to when becoming members.
From the WebmasterWorld Terms of Service [webmasterworld.com]:
3. Always be respectful of other users, the system, and the moderators. We put the system online in good faith, please use it in good faith.20. Since this is interactive, and everyone who participates in Webmaster World.com is "in it together", please treat others the way you wish to be treated. One way to guard against misunderstandings is to read over your response before you post it. Flaming: flaming or personal attacks are not allowed or tolerated. Should anyone use inappropriate language, start a personal attack, or engage in hate speech, they will be barred from all further discussions.
>>there is not a uniform descriptive style
As well there shouldn't be. There is a uniformity in basic structure and some limitations imposed, but different categories appeal to different target audiences and it's perfectly acceptable usage of language to gear the context and semantics to the tastes of the end users. Electronics components will most certainly not warrant the same mode of expression as categories about activities or crafts geared toward children. That's the wisdom and effectiveness of having editors in categories who have familiarity with the niche.
For example, "compleat" is a niche spelling that's unique to the pagan/wiccan community and others that are related. Such as the book by Anton LeVey: "The Compleat Witch, or What to do when Virtue Fails." Spelling it "complete" would be a mis-spelling in the context of communicating to that particular cultural community.
>Money buys accountability.
Not necessarily so. In a corporate environment it can buy corporate politics and solicitous back-scratching, favoritism, nepotism, back-stabbing, and disgruntled yes-men who pander for favor but inwardly loathe their supervisors. They acquiesce because they need the paycheck and though money can buy their compliance, it certainly can't buy their loyalty, commitment or excellence in service.
>"You get what you pay for"
I personally can't agree with that, and this is not exactly the right place to render such an opinion, since those of us who staff WebmasterWorld do not get paid. We are all volunteers who caught on to Brett's vision and chose to share his vision and support his efforts by participating in serving the community and its members. Respect, loyalty and commitment could not have been "paid for" they had to be earned and deserved.
There are volunteers across every sector of society, from political campaigns to religious and social organizations, to philanthropic and social service projects, as well as online communities, including the ODP. There will always be some whose motives are primarily self-seeking, and while they think they're fooling all the people all the time, they are not. I see them every day, and though I dislike it intensely, that's just how human nature is. It's one of the things we have to learn to tolerate.
It's an imperfect world with imperfect people, including the many fine volunteers who devote their time to staffing ODP.
[edited by: Marcia at 7:01 pm (utc) on Oct. 5, 2002]
"Describe" is spelt "describe", not "describe"
I like that quote from above
Whilst there are many areas that DMOZ demonstrates weaknesses, problems, tardiness and other real or imagined sins... the one thing that they are good at is correcting spelling errors, or so I thought..
It is hard to believe, but there are some (good) editors in DMOZ who spend their whole time (I nearly wrote that as "do nothing else but") correcting spelling errors.
For the benefit of any of those (pedantic) souls reading this I was going to show an example of your good works with
[search.dmoz.org ]
to show how the common error "accomodation" had been eliminated from DMOZ....I see that its up to 136 now. Someone must be on holiday :-)
Very well stated ;)
kctipton has been a guest here a LONG time.
[been through lots of ODP rants and keeps coming back]
kctipton has ADDED VALUE HERE - imho
And at the ODP as well. He's one of the best editors the ODP has.
IMHO, large directories such as Yahoo and the ODP are no longer very relevant to the average user. Do they really serve any useful purpose besides helping Google bestow PageRank? I'm inclined to feel that they're headed for extinction (like other directories and search engines before them), and that special-purpose directories and individually owned Web sites with links pages are more useful to readers.
I'm inclined to feel that they're headed for extinction (like other directories and search engines before them), and that special-purpose directories and individually owned Web sites with links pages are more useful to readers
?Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I other words who passes judgement on these "individually owned Web sites with links pages" actually being "more useful to readers "
As europeforvisitors is involved in the travel market, I would use "Hotel Directories" as a classic example of how "individually owned Web sites with links pages" do not deliver a service that is "more useful to readers "
If I want to search Google for say "texas hotels", then I tend to get a rag bag of sites that may (or may not) merely lead me to the same affiliates. (Most) Dmoz or Yahoo listings have such spam filtered out. Without the human "second opinion" on whether a site is spam or not, how do you deliver to the browser only sites that are "useful".
Whilst I personally am also unhappy with the current directory situation, it is difficult to see what the alternative is, other than the agglomeration of such individually owned sites (mini portals) into big corporation owned maxi-portals. Which does not necessarily mean a better situation for the browser
If I want to search Google for say "texas hotels", then I tend to get a rag bag of sites that may (or may not) merely lead me to the same affiliates. (Most) Dmoz or Yahoo listings have such spam filtered out. Without the human "second opinion" on whether a site is spam or not, how do you deliver to the browser only sites that are "useful".
That human second opinion doesn't have to be in Dmoz or Yahoo. It can be in a human-edited "content site" about a specific locality in Texas--one operated by a travel writer (whether a professional or a skilled amateur) who has a passion for his or her topic and a personal stake in the site's reputation for quality.
Yahoo and ODP categories may have less spam than spidered search engines do, but they reflect more of a library cataloguer's mentality than an editorial sensibility. "Editing" is mainly a process of filtering and, when necessary, exclusion. To use a travel example, Yahoo or the ODP are more like a convention and visitors bureau directory than a guidebook. That's a valid approach for readers who want a CVB directory, but there are many readers who prefer a more editorial approach.
In reality, of course, few readers use the ODP; the ODP's main function these days is to act as a quality check for search engines like Google. Perhaps Google should buy the ODP from AOL Time Warner, since it has more of a vested interest in the ODP's success and survival than AOL Time Warner does. And maybe the ODP would benefit from an infusion of cash that could be used to provide bonuses, prizes, and other incentives to volunteer editors. That would broaden the "self-interest" appeal of the ODP by attracting recruits who weren't just interested in promoting their own sites.
But how are you going to find that one interesting site among the hundreds of indentical looking affiliate link farm sites that fill the SERPs? That is what the ODP is doing, finding the quality sites, and categorising them for you...
But how are you going to find that one interesting site among the hundreds of indentical looking affiliate link farm sites that fill the SERPs? That is what the ODP is doing, finding the quality sites, and categorising them for you...
Unfortunately, the ODP is doing a rather spotty job of finding and categorizing quality sites--and even if it had the editorial manpower and institutional will to do more than try to keep up with URL submissions, how many readers would be looking in the ODP for those quality listings? As the Web gets bigger and bigger, the large general-purpose directories become more and more unwieldy. It's far more efficient to search in Google than to drill down through a multilevel hierarchy, even if you have to browse two or three pages of search results to find what you want.
As for finding that "one interesting site among the hundreds of identical looking affiliate link farm sites," I don't think the situation is that bad for most keyphrases. It *can* be a problem if you're searching on a phrase like "(Cityname) hotels" where Google is likely to be overwhelmed by affiliate-site clutter, but if you're searching on a term like "(Cityname) travel" or "(Cityname) museums," you're likely to find what you want. And even the affiliate-site clutter won't be so much of a problem when Google gets serious about penalizing or de-emphasizing sites that use boilerplate text.
That human second opinion doesn't have to be in Dmoz or Yahoo. It can be in a human-edited "content site" about a specific locality in Texas--one operated by a travel writer (whether a professional or a skilled amateur) who has a passion for his or her topic and a personal stake in the site's reputation for quality.
There we come back to the nub the problem, viz
who or what decrees that your "content" site is "the" one for the locality?
I agree with the rest of the analysis about DMOZ, its relation to Google, AOL, etc. However you still come back to the fact that there are, on any given subject, a great many web sites. And the more potential there is to make money, eg hotel reservations, then the more sites there are on "hotel reservations", by the very nature of things fewer people want information on "museums". Many of the resulting sites are duplicates, mirrors, affiliates, etc.
Problem is the user cannot get round the difficulty of finding sites that do not fall into the above categories by going to this "content" site. First step up the ladder is for an affiliate site to turn themselves into a "content" site offering some or perhaps lots of content.
The debate about whether an affiliate site has "content" or not depends on who is putting the argument. In the end someone or something has to make a choice and filter for the user.
The original intention of DMOZ to have local or specialist editors was good. Unfortunately that concept has gone out the window. Probably through a mix of not enough volunteers and if you remain the editor of a "small local category" then "senior" editors have the power to alter your work and the ways out of the impasse are either to work to higher categories or leave. Hence very few "local editors"
Unfortunately, the ODP is doing a rather spotty job of finding and categorizing quality sites
Correct, but right now its the best available !
an infusion of cash that could be used to provide bonuses, prizes, and other incentives to volunteer editors
Both the old Go and Zeal tried this with volunteer editors. The incentives certainly produced quantity, but I don't think many thought they produced quality.
Unfortunately, the ODP is doing a rather spotty job of finding and categorizing quality sites ... It's far more efficient to search in Google than to drill down through a multilevel hierarchy
ODP's heirarchy is occasionally useful to users, but very often useful for organizing the compilation and sorting of sites - and (to some extent) directing sites to an appropriate editor.
ODP is the raw material, rather than the finished product; allowing 'down stream users' to select and use the data according to their needs.
While I'm not going to join in this good but now repetitive thread, it is worth emphasizing that when editors blame 'submitters', they really do mean 'spammers'; every 'genuine' submission is a bonus - one less site to go searching for.
But those with good sites don't need to come and moan; they get accepted :)
Content is King.
If you wish to apply to become an editor, give ODP an application they can feel good about accepting. Be truthful about why you are applying. If you own a site, say so. Look for a small category with probably 100 or less sites. Look for sites which are not currently in the directory to complete the application. Give each listing a concise description and appropriate title, not one which is full of hype like this one. "We are the BEST web designer in the State of _____. We have the BEST PRICES in the WORLD and guarantee YOU will be HAPPIEST client in the U S of A and YOUR SITE will be at the TOP of the search results. Call me NOW @ 1-8GETLISTED." Imagine the number of unreviewed sites with descriptions like the one above, then imagine how long it takes an editor to review each site and give it an appropriate description.
When you submit sites, help the editors by giving the site a good, hype-free, concise description to begin with. Make their volunteer job easier which will in turn get more sites listed in a shorter amount of time and make everyone happy. :)
