Forum Moderators: open
Many of the common DMOZ questions relate to submission status, it can be quite frustrating at times for a submitter just not knowing if a listing has been denied, moved to another cat etc.
Why not use a referal string as a quick and cost free method of keeping a submitter updated. We are all used to seeing the editunrev in our logs, if that could be fleshed out just a little to include more information. So, if the site was moved to another cat then just send a refereal dmoz.org/blahblah/movedcat, listing denined dmoz.org/blahblah/notlisted etc etc
Also, there are a lot of internal actions an editor can perform when reviewing a site, not only accept/move/reject, and most of these should remain editor-only information.
Moreover, the editunrev referral is sent when an editor clicks on the link from the dmoz category unrevieweds editing interface to look at the site, before any action is taken. Any following action doesn't produce a referral on the site (in fact, the site can be moved/reviewed and listed/rejected/etc. after closing the window previously opened to look at the site). I'm not techie, but I don't think this suggestion could therefore be implemented.
Perhaps it's fear on the part of dmoz that's keeping dmoz from providing feedback. It's definitely easier to do nothing than it is to be humane.
A submitter should know whether they submitted to the wrong cat and that you:
Deleted it because you're sick and tired of random submissions or
Moved it to a proper cat.
It's amazing how many people want their deep links.
Then, I've seen many url's get bounced from one cat to another, then to another one, then back to the original place it started at: Like a hot potato nobody wanted to handle.
In a case like that, a little communication and feedback to the submitters might also help speed the submission along. It can be a win-win situation.
It's a good thought but I think it's easier for things to stay the same.
Just my friendly observation. :)
That'd send an automated email to (say) postmaster@submitters.domain telling them what I'd done. So I get a choice to inform them, or not.
For non-DMOZ editors: the update button does one of three things: publishes; deletes; or moves to another category. It may do the first and last similtaneously
I'm a DMOZ editor, and I don't see any major reason why I can't have an "update and inform" button on the edit console along with the "update" button.
Can I get an AMEN! :)
Sure, but whereas I'm no techie I honestly don't see how a referral could be sent when the action of moving/listing/etc. is done after having looked at the site (which is the call which can send a dmoz referral string).
Editors who don't click on the link and visit the site from the dmoz interface won't in any case send any referral whatsoever.
>> I don't see any major reason why I can't have an "update and inform" button on the edit console.
I do see at least a very good reason: additional server load. If you think about the number of sites reviewed and listed every day (just look at the dmoz growth) and add to this update (url, title, description) actions, keep in unreview actions, move to another category actions, you total thousands of possible emails to be sent every day. The ability to send an "update and inform" email is therefore not a feature which is likely to be implemented.
Think about all the "in the dark" submitters hitting the site everyday (hour)..too see if they have been listed.
I did some html emails for a client, sent out 20,000 emails in an hour. There were no problems.
If I can blast out 20k HTML emails in an hour from one small little office, in my mind, I don't see how 20,000 emails spread out over an entire day can be a problem to dmoz.
20,000 emails seems like a large amount but it really isn't. Even 50,000 isn't so much.
Again, perhaps others more familiar with mail servers can drop their two cents here, and I may stand to be corrected, but based upon my real-world experience, I don't think there's any reason to be afraid of editors sending short, preformatted text emails (that weigh what, 10k?), throughout the day.
** How many sites get published on DMOZ a day? Let's say 4,000 (I got no idea, so don't quote me). So it'd be maybe a couple of times that for all status changes (where a site is deleted or moved to another cat). 10,000 emails, which could be batched and sent at a quiet time? Not a great load.
I can see several other minor problems (minor to me):
-- Can't send to the submitter's supplied email address: they may not have given one; it could be a wrong email address -- maybe a competitor is submitting their details maliciously and inaccurately. Which is why I suggested to the "postmaster@" But
-- That doesn't work for shared domains like geocities and members.aol. Or at least not without a lot of fiddly URL parsing and exception handling.
-- Some people may not want a progress report -- strange but true. The submit form would need a checkbox "do you want progress messages". And what is the default for all the sites submitted before the change? That's probably have to be "no message" otherwise some people will report the progress message as a spam.
-- If DMOZ sends an email -- even a automated one -- some people will reply to that. Sudden Dialog! Not DMOZ's core competency!
None of these are insurrmountable.
Last week I had an editunrev followed by [I think not got acess to the logs from here] a newlisting string? The job is almost done, I submitted, they looked and added. Just expand that to notlisted and/or movedcat and there is a system there, quick feedback, transparent to the editor almost cost free.
dirt.netscape.com - - [27/Nov/2002:01:36:21 -0500] "HEAD / HTTP/1.0" 200 0 "http://dmoz.org/Business/Widgets/Wholesale/" "ODP-Notification: moved for review to /Business/Widgets/Green/Fuzzy/"Now there would be some issues to solve with that. First, there is a certain minority of submitters, that we would prefer to keep in the dark as much as possible. Providing additional information to spammers about how to best abuse the system is not a good idea, after all. The procedure also shouldn't cause any noticeable slowdown for the editors when a site is unresponsive. This means that it probably would have to be handled asynchronously. The editing activity would put that request into a queue, and the server would execute it when it gets around to it.
The third and most severe obstacle is in the fact that only staff can decide and implement things like that. And the one friendly technical staff member we have faces a ton of more urgent problems, with no real prospect of that changing any time soon. As has been said elsewhere, getting the RDF dump out of the door has top priority. After that, tools that make the work of the editors easier come next. And anything for the benefit of the submitters is generally very low on the list. That's a disappointment to many, but not likely to change.
In short: Nice idea, but unfortunately only with a marginal chance of implementation in the short term.
Status: Published/Deleted
Location: i.e. where it actually finally ended up
Title and Description.
If deleted then ANONYMISED editor comments should be listed. And the email should come out from an anonymous no-response address @dmoz.org.
I think if you want to make ONE improvement that would make submitters happier it would be improved feedback on site status. :)
The ODP can't send out 10k+ e-mails per day to unverified addresses. All hell would break loose if they did that.
The ODP can't send out 10k+ e-mails per day to unverified addresses. All hell would break loose if they did that.
Sure it can. And why not try to sell some herbal viagra at the same time? ;)
Alright, point taken.
If I remember Zeal verifies the submitter address, but then the whole Zeal submission process is very different.
OK, how about a transaction code that they can type into a query tool to see the tracking status (like UPS say). At the same time you could tighten up automated submissions by introducing an AltaVista-style humanity check. More coding, I know.
It's the old time + money = bugger all equation isn't it?
Frankly if the search function was working properly submitters might have a better time.. at the moment it's hard to find out if a site is in the directory for anybody :( Here's to hoping it gets fixed soon.
I guess that's life in the new millenium.
[A]n "update and inform" button on the edit console along with the "update" button
Meaning that the editor has a choice of update-as-now or update-and-inform. Those with spammed cats might ignore the "inform" option.
Or, maybe given a bit of development, the "update-and-inform" button could exist only for certain cats -- such as those safe from spamming and seriously backlogged.
But as bird notes, nice ideas are not enough. DMOZ needs somes resource to make things happen.
Maybe we should have a collection to buy them a couple of week's work from a contractor :)
Now this idea I like. I wouldn't mind that option for sites I approve. Also for some rejections. For example, I rejected one site and sent a brief e-mail myself the reason was that it was still underconstruction, and submitted to a totally wrong category. However, as for spammers sending them to the bit bucket is all I say they deserve. That same spammer just spammed my cat again in the last hour. :(
Maybe we should have a collection
I know! A charity calendar to help defray the cost of updating dmoz!
Nick_W can pose on a bear skin rug with some css code tossed about in strategic places. . .
You mean they weren't smart enough to demand that the keywords be stuffed in the anchor text as the name of the site? ;)
