Forum Moderators: open
under heavy load
under heavy load
under heavy load that's all i ever seem to get.
and someone posted about finding out if your going to get indexed in dmoz -
how hard would it be to have the page the editor runs to approve or disapprove run an email script letting the submitter know the status.
i think people/dmoz editors are getting a god complex - "how dare you ask for something that makes sense! I make the final choice - not you - you want to know - search under that category and if your in - you'll see your site - that's how you'll know... if it says dmoz is under heavy load - search again later - we are load balancing our pws ervers..."
I say this as constructive critisism - there is always room for improvement.
You could post your site on resource zone in topic: Site Submissions.
Then they will tell you if your site got rejected or still is in the queu.
Hope this helps.
[edited by: Laisha at 7:11 pm (utc) on Mar. 6, 2003]
[edit reason] Per charter. [/edit]
If you want a status check on a site submission, go to RZ, there is an entire forum devoted to them.
Finally, ODP editors have absolutely no control over the hardware, bandwidth, or any other technological aspects of the project. To complain to an editor about performance issues is to complain to a receptionist about the slow elevator in the building. The receptionist can't do much more than call the maintenance people, who are already overbooked, and what's more has to deal with the slow elevator him/herself every day to get to work.
[edited by: Laisha at 7:08 pm (utc) on Mar. 6, 2003]
[edit reason] Please read the charter. [/edit]
I cannot speak for DMOZ but as an editor I certainly have no God complex. Most of us are trying to give something back to the greater internet community by spending time, where we could be having a cold beer (or whatever blows our hair back), editing a directory that has a major place in making the internet a more useful place.
My 2c worth. It's probably not even worth that.
Paul
Which would have the undesirable consequence that in the case of spammers, this would be notifying the spammer if his spam had been detected and deleted. Knowledge that the spammer could use to try spamming again, and perhaps more effectively. With the queue backlogged with over a million unreviewed submissions, many which are spam, anything that would cause more spamming would be a Bad Thing. Including for submitters. More spam will mean it will just take longer for legitimate submissions to be reviewed. WHY would you want us to make a change that will delay your site being reviewed?
The categories I edit are not normally spam magnets. But a few days ago one had suddenly 37 new submissions across lots of its sub-categories.
Every single one was for the same site. And, oddly enough, for a site that was already listed in a 38th sub-category.
So I spent the thirty minutes I could have used to review and add maybe six sites, deleting the spam.
There's no way I want the submitter to know I've done that. What if the spambag tries again?
And of course there's no sanction I can (or would want to) take against the site itself -- the spammer may have been a idiot with no connection to the site at all.
A email reply may be possible and desirable in some circumstances:
How difficult is that? I'd say a lot harder than asking a rhetorical question.
how hard would it be to have the page the editor runs to approve or disapprove run an email script letting the submitter know the status.
Wayback, in the days of free submissions to Yahoo, they always managed to email you to say a site had been accepted!
I have not seen evidence of real live people at the largest human-edited directory in ages.
[running for cover]
I have not seen evidence of real live people
The reason for that is that, as I understand it, there are no people.
It is commonly known that Gerbils run the servers, but it is less well known that they actually do the editing.
The Gerbils are fed daily by the two staff members that, as an act of kindness, are employed solely for that purpose.
Craig
None of us at the ODP are real people. The names should have been a giveaway. Victor, for example, is obviously an acronym for virtual interactive something something something resource.
The ODP has been the longest running Turing test since the invention of the dial-up speaking clock that phone companies used to offer.
Of course, in AI circles, the ODP was often criticised for emulating a catatonic person -- hence the lack of replies from editors. Nonetheless, that strategy succeeded brilliantly for many years.
But no one until now had rumbled that the sites we pick and the descriptions we write are all software generated.
So well done, Kimberley again! We woulda got away with it if it hadn't a been for you pesky webmasters and that dog.
