Forum Moderators: open
Try doing a search for news on the Open Directory - there is none....
Who appoints the sennior ediotrs? How are they chosen? Who are they?
How is it funded? It is a huge and expensive operation?
If it is there for the community why are reasons for rejection to submitters required?
What is the real editorial policy and how consistently is this enforced. The ODP is one of the most important directories on the web, but is, to say the least, mysterious in it's operation. Why?
[edited by: Marcia at 8:05 am (utc) on June 12, 2003]
Can we get back to the subject please...?
Because the ODP forums are not public, I have no idea what goes on inside (so on that I agree), but resource zone is a good alternate. I go there when I am not sure what is going on. You can talk with editors and they actually give you answers. So if you have a question, ask it there.
Even though no one in my company is an editor, we try and do our part by making ODP more open, we tabulate which domains have the most listings and make finding the amount of listings as free and openly available as possible. Surprisingly some editors use that information and some have commented that it helps them. One of my personal pet peeves is deeplinks to broken or missing content. So we did something about it, we made it easy to see all DMOZ links a site has.
It is also good to see that they have started an abuse reporting system for bad editors, which includes those meta editors. So if you find a bad apple, report them. If like you said, you got rejected for no good reason. Then ask for re-clarification from the editor or ask at the resource zone. Surely a public forum and hundreds of editors looking at it will not be able to hide the abuse of one editor. I think that is pretty open in my book.
I just want to conclude that ODP is in my option the best directory out there behind Google Directory. ;)
My questions to these people are:
What if you are one of the people who has a site rejected for no apparent reason and with no explanation?
I would probably come on here and b*tch for a little while about it. Then follow the advice that I received which would be:-
- Clean up your description.
- Make sure your site warrants inclusion
- Try again
If that failed and I suspected foul play I would submit a complaint about the editor.
Pretty obvious really?
Why, if its such a good thing, is it not more open about ownership etc?
steveb and victor have pretty conclusively answered that.
Do you believe in democratic values?
lol - think I know where this ones headed...
If you do, how can you accept such an important community resource being run by a cabal?
It's not really a cabal though is it. Anyone can join. You joined didn't you. How can that be a cabal when even those who don't agree with the regime are able to become part of it?
Do you not think a democratic structure and constitution would logical for such an organisation if it is genuinely open?
Yes, absolutely. And that's exactly what dmoz has.
You seem to be contradiciting yourself a little bit so I'm confused now as to what you actually want. Are you after a democratic, community style directoy like dmoz, or do you just want absolute power as a meta editor so that you can "...just delete submissions without giving anyone a reason for the rejection" as per your first post?
I'm beginning to wonder if your allegations against dmoz are simply made because you lack a position of authority yourself?
I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's how you're coming across.
TJ
This is starting to look bad, stever and I agreeing on some things (the above and the wet haddock too) motsa - et tu Brute, its not that difficult
So back to the thread. Markymarky's original questions would appear to have been answered fully except:-
>>Who appoints the sennior ediotrs? How are they chosen? << sic
we have had
1. markymarky (quoting from ODP documentation)
>>Candidates are nominated in the private meta forum when noticed by metas. The metas then cast votes. Staff grants the permissions, in occasional batches, to whom they want. However, they generally go along with the meta consensus. As soon as the metas are told of the grants, the details are announced in the public thread.
2. rfgdxm1
>>The senior editors basically are a cabal. Who they are is on the public editall list. Who gets to be a part of this cabal is up to the senior editors and staff. <<
3. stever
>>Hardly any more surprising that you or I are happy with the situation here or on any other forum, where a closeknit group of people who have "proved" themselves are promoted to more senior positions on approval from the board owners.
But "cabal" or "oligarchy" sounds better, of course.<<
4. kctipton
>>To clarify, meta-editors don't "vote" on other meta candidates, they "opinionate." (Perhaps that document needs adjustment which calls it a vote.) Sometimes people become meta-editors and they were never ever discussed as such by the current metas. This ruins the idea that this "cabal" is self-perpetuating. Also, some people who get favorable opinions get shot down by staff with usually firm statements like, "not ready at this time" or, sometimes, "not ever going to be a meta." Again, the self-selection myth gets ruined. <<
5.kctipton
>>Re: run by 2 people? I don't know which document says this, but the metas and catmods essentially run/manage the people part of things, and staff runs the technical end (special permissions, computers, software).<<
So it does appear to be a self perpetuing group. From reading the above, the selection would appear to be done by metas "opinionating" rather than "voting" on candidates.
So how are candidates names arrived at for metas to be asked to "opinion" on?
It is unclear what the difference between opinionating and voting actually is in practice. It would appear to amount to the same thing, current meta arrive at an opinion on new metas (somehow)
Although the final say is with "staff", there would only appear to be 2 staff to make this final decision (and one of these two is technical).
kctipton tells us that anyway "metas and catmods essentially run/manage the people part of things"
So though there is the odd case of metas being appointed from outside the system, I sort of get the impression that in the majority of cases meta selection is from within the "ruling elite"
As I put in an earlier post, I am surprised that editors are happy with that, but there you go ;)
and finally, I agree with Lisa "I just want to conclude that ODP is in my option the best directory out there"... just be nicer if it were more open ;)
Um, the one you two brain surgeons are looking at obviously isn't this guy...
By other metas suggesting that person.
>It is unclear what the difference between opinionating and voting actually is in practice. It would appear to amount to the same thing, current meta arrive at an opinion on new metas (somehow)
Think here more of building a consensus than an actual election.
>Although the final say is with "staff", there would only appear to be 2 staff to make this final decision (and one of these two is technical).
Staff makes the actual decisions. However, the metas do have influence. There aren't that many people selected to be new metas annually. Thus, for one man to handle this by himself isn't that much of a challenge.
I would think that it is something like: Often by someone making good suggestions in internal forums, or by doing good work like cleaning up a spam pool, or reorganising a category structure. It takes at least a year, many often two or three years to become a Meta Editor. Pure number of edits, and actual areas of the directory worked in, etc, probably aren't a major factor in the decision process; it is more likely going to be things like attitude to the "job", attitude to other editors, and forum postings, quality of work done, as well as factors like other editors being able to trust that person to do a good job if they are given wider permissions.
Meta editors can edit *anywhere* they like in the directory, but one factoid I have seen mentioned several times is "Just because they can, doesn't mean that they should". They are given the ability to do almost anything, but with the trust that they will only do what they feel qualified to actually tackle.
Editors start off in a single category as a new editor. They might start in a small underdeveloped category, expand it and maybe add sub-categories (which means they are automatically given editing rights to them, but aren't actually listed as being an editor there). They may then be given editing rights in some related category, and branch sideways in the structure. There comes a time when they may have editing rights in many of the categories at that level, and rather than keep adding more to the control panel a logical move is to grant access to the category above which allows editing in all categories below that point. At this time, you would resign all the lower level categories so that you are no longer the listed editor for them (so allowing an interested newbie to apply for one of them), whilst still actually retaining editing priveledges in all of them. Editor permissions may gradually expand sideways and up through the categories, or may perform a "jump" to a low level in another branch.
At some point in the future a stage is reached such that rather than give out more categories, it is simpler to grant CatEditall status so they can edit anywhere in that single branch as well as perform some other housekeeping functions not available to normal editors. The next stage is Editall which is directory wide, and CatMv which allows the moving and merging of category structures, and then finally to Meta, which then allows additional functions like editor application reviews, category permission granting, and loads of other things.
Being a Meta isn't about wielding power, but about being given access to be able to do more important jobs. Again, "Just because they can doesn't mean that they should applies; and there are probably some Metas who have never reviewed a new editor application because they simply do not feel qualified to do so, or feel that others do a better job. There are other Meta editors who make it their lifes work to find and delete spam submissions, organise category structure, a couple who spend most of their time searching for and correcting spelling mistakes, blank titles or descriptions, and other such quality control; then there are others who review new editors work, or help people out in the forums, or do many other things that are not just simply "review and list sites". It takes this wide array of volunters for the various jobs to keep it all moving along; and there are some unsung heroes who do a lot of good stuff that the public, heck even many editors, never really get to see.
The ODP is a community, and most decisions are arrived at by consensus which is not quite the same thing as democracy. Being granted Meta status isn't, I think, so much as being given more "power" but being given more jobs to do, things that you can access and then do if you want to do them, and feel you are qualified to do so.
However, there are some things that even Meta editors have no control over (but who still get flak for in forums such as these), such as how the software works, how many servers are available for the project, downtime, upgrades, and "technical" stuff. That is down to the two hard working and over-worked staff, and whatever AOL/TW decide.
Everything in this post from me is already available elsewhere by reading previous forum posts, here and elsewhere, the various official and unofficial ODP guides, guidelines, and tutorials; but perhaps some people hadn't considered the "why?" only the "how?".
Netscape became the financial benefactor of the ODP in late 1998, early in the history of the ODP. My guess is the logic was that a directory of where to go on the WWW complememented a web browser company. As of now, the Netscape browser is something that should probably be put out of its misery and allowed to die. My guess is that AOL/TW just keep funding the ODP because they figure that the badwill they would generate if they killed it off would cost more than the current financial outlay. Think pissed of editors, and little webmasters who are proud of the ODP listing. I also think AOL/TW sees the fact that Google uses the ODP, and thus there is a connection between Google and Netscape is good for business. That AOL now has a direct business relationship (AOL uses Google SERPs) makes one wonder if keeping the ODP alive was part of the deal?
However, AOL/TW doesn't have some secret agenda with the ODP. It just came along with buying Netscape, and nothing more to it than that.
That's what I thought, judging by what Marky said in his opening post ...
Here's a question Marky - What would your alternative to ODP be and how would you propose it was funded?
If you thought about this question for a bit, then perhaps you'd agree that it's as good as it gets ...
It also appears that you're currently in the minority (by a long way judging by the contributions here) - perhaps you need some support to help slate DMOZ?
re: accountability -
Meta-editors "notice" up-and-comers who are doing and saying meta-ish or editall-ish things. Eventually someone says, "Hey, I think so-and-so may be a good candidate to be a meta/catmod/editall/cateditall." Then we discuss. Staff reads our discussions - and is especially interested in the reasons why or why not someone might be qualified for position X. Only staff has the power to "give" these permissions, however, and it takes these same permissions away at times too. So, all these top-level people are accountable to ODP staff. As I mentioned earlier, staff listens to what the meta-editors say, but staff isn't bound by it. The converse isn't true, though. All editors need to heed what staff says/posts via email or in the forums, or else those editors may find themselves in hot water or even removed.
It often takes at least a year, but not always.
>>The next stage is Editall which is directory wide... <<
Or CatMod, which allows them certain meta privileges within a specific branch.
I don't think this thread serves any useful purpose and I'd like to ask the moderators to lock it immediately.
It's actually quite a good and healthy discussion. I think the ODP does a great job, but sometimes you need someone to come along and criticise something in order to remember all of the good points.
The moderators do follow these threads and lock and delete as they feel appropriate.
TJ
*Godwin's Law: prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
All dmoz editors are Nazi's (edit: except me)!
(Just testing the codicil)
;)
TJ
I've tried to submit my site a half dozen times and keep getting an internal server error. I wrote to the webmaster but have heard nothing.
Frustrating.
Molly
Try submitting between 11pm and 7am US time (take you pick of which US time)There is less load on DMOZ servers then an I invariably can get a submission quickly made at those times.
Glad to know it's not just me....
Molly
The Meta Guidelines [dmoz.org] are public (note: some of the technical aspects of that document are dated). Some of the traits a meta should exhibit are summarized at the top.
Also, throughout the ODP's history there have been top-level category and/or superprivilege editors (cateditall, catmod, editall, catmv, meta) whose privilege grants-- and whose occasional revocation of grants-- were controversial in some quarters. This phenomenon is likely to continue. Consider especially that we have over 100 meta-editors representing a swath of personalities, professions, generations, cultural backgrounds, etc. This diversity, and the close involvement of staff, do mitigate somewhat against the problems of the "self-perpetuating elite" which one might observe in the real world in areas like industry awards ballots, newspaper editorial boards, or university faculty tenure committees (and I'm making an analogy here, not a direct comparison!).
So how are candidates names arrived at for metas to be asked to "opinion" on?
Meta-editors "notice" up-and-comers who are doing and saying meta-ish or editall-ish things.
Also, some editors have "nominated themselves" for superprivileges. Someone who mostly stays out of the internal editor forums, for example, might not be "noticed" easily despite accumulating an accomplished editing record to which editall abilities would further add and enhance. So, she might e-mail the staff, or a meta in whom she confides, asking to be considered.
I have no metric for their rate of success, however :-). And I would think such consideration would more likely be made for editall or cateditall, rather than catmod or meta where effective communication is required.
kctipton
We probably do no agree on a lot, but we both believe agree on being sceptical/wary.
The reason I phrased my comments the way I did, was that I am aware that various "personna" can be assumed. The reason that I am prepared to accept that you are a meta and not someone assuming the identity of ODP meta editor kctipton is that at least one of the other metas around would have called your bluff.
It did worry me that markymarky might not be the guy that I found in 30 secs, but could be somebody assuming that identity, and the real ******** might wake up tomorrow and discover all his sites have disappeared from DMOZ :( Still no editor reading these columns is small minded enough to do that!).
Funny thing it reminded me, as well, of an ex-editor too which is why remark #7 was made, and not as motsa erroniously supposed because I knew markymarky. The reason the I did not think it was that ex-editor, was that he is always keen to sign himself ;)
Anyway, back to the thread, Thanks to you and choster for amplyfying the procedures for the selection of metas
I re-read the whole of this thread and its quite enlightening and entertaining ;)
As an outsider, I have to say I am not confused about what the ODP is. I have read the FAQ :) So I caught on that Netscape owned it. But the little lizard (mozilla) all over the site might also lead a person to think the owner and creator of the mozilla browser with the same lizard would be the owner.
>> It often takes at least a year, but not always. <<
My typo. It should have said:
It often takes at least a year; for many maybe two or three years to become a Meta Editor.
>> >>The next stage is Editall which is directory wide... << <<
>> Or CatMod, which allows them certain meta privileges within a specific branch. <<
My typo which should have been included with CatMv.
I was typing that lot at a public terminal with a count-down-timer to logoff and machine reset (they are brutal about making people stick to booking time limits) so really didn't get a chance to fully read it, before having to hit send or lose the lot.
The Open Directory was founded in the spirit of the Open Source movement
This is an important clue to the ODP ethos.
If you've ever contributed to an open source project, you'll know that though pretty much anyone can contribute code, only people with committer status can change the codebase.
No matter how much you may want a change to an open source codebase, you gotta go via a committer. And they are solely concerned with the quality of the codebase, not your possible urgent financial reasons to slipstream in a change.
The committers form a meritocracy -- prove your worth, and you'll get that status. Complain that the existing committers don't share your priorites and won't let you play, and they'll probably agree with you.
Of course, with open source anyone is free to copy the existing codebase and add their own changes. In the same way, if you want to see your site listed in what you think is the right ODP cat, take an RDF dump, set up a website and add your own listing.
A final post on this subject from me. I've enjoyed many of the answers and some have genuinely helped enlighten me (thank you), some have thought they have answered the question, but missed the point.
The discussion of ownership...I still think it strange that AOL TW do not publicise their ownership...etc.
I think one thing is very strange in the answers...the feeling that people are trying to track down who I am? People talk about my paranoia, but I do find it strange that anyone would think that this is necessary or served a purpose. I assume these are meta editors, but maybe not.
Thanks again for the answers.
After all, you can be whatever you want to be here, but on ODP there is no hiding!
I wouldn't assume it's just metas that were curious :-)
About the AOLTW thing.. really it was an accident. I can't even remember why AOL bought Netscape, bearing in mind their use of IE.
Personally, I'd like to see an ODP free of AOLTW/Netscape at some point in the future, and for it to be a properly chartered body, possibly charitable. However, funding is the key thing, and if AOLTW weren't paying salaries and running costs, who would?
..I guess that the downstream large scale users of the data could pay a fee. And also accelerated reviews for paying sites could help, but both go against the ODP philosophy somewhat.
I don't know how you could estimate the size of the ODP in business terms, but it gets bigger every year and I think the point that markymark is raising is interesting.. the ODP has grown to be a huge thing, probably much bigger than its founders considered. It really forms part of the infrastructure of the internet, providing services that others build on (e.g. Google, Alexa). How can you meet the social obligation of the ODP and yet retain its core values? Tricky, isn't it?
[Just an aside, in Yahoo! terms 3.8 million sites at $299 per year would give a turnover of $1.1 billion. Or at a pure guess of 57,000 editors putting in one hour a week at $15 per hour that's $44 million. It's arguably a fairly large organisation if you boil it down to dollar value].
Don't think the maths are that simple...
I have no idea how many sites (or the percentage) on Yahoo are paid, my guess would be a very small percentage. Rest are grand-fathered, public service, or otherwise free.
And I don't think even ODP's most fervent supporters would subscribe to even 10% of the 57,000 editors being active.
But it is an interesting, if hypothetical, way of looking at ODP's value ;)
And I don't think even ODP's most fervent supporters would subscribe to even 10% of the 57,000 editors being active.
Then you'd be wrong. The actual amount of active editors right now is much higher than 10% of 57000.
..in other words it's BIG and I guess when you look at the semi-formal way its run, then that's quite interesting.
[Guesstimate number 3.. if there's an annual turnover of 1 million sites and you apply a JoeAnt-stlye $35 fee, then it's $35 million a year. Uh-oh, I'm turning this into a "guess my weight" competition :) ]
Do you have a ballpark figure for the actual number of active editors?
