Forum Moderators: open
Dave
I think it would be very helpful for you to take up victor's offer for personal feedback on your submission and/or visit Resource Zone and read the Editor Applications forum.
<added>
dmoz won't accept every editor who applied, because they want to be a large but high quality directory and would rather maintain quality at the expense of size. That's also why existing editors who abuse their position are removed from dmoz.
Most editors who get rejected make similar mistakes e.g. not listing three examples of sites, listing sites with mainly affiliate content, not writing approximately guidelines-compliant titles and descriptions, i.e. descriptive not promotional, no unnecessary words, applying to a category that is just too large for a new editor (over approximately 50-100 sites including all subcategories) or applying to a category that requires some editor experience in spotting spam and affiliates, such as the Paris hotels category or the online gambling category. Making these kinds of errors takes very little time to spot for experienced metas and the standard rejection e-mail is sufficient so turnaround time can be short. It's not that they haven't given the necessary attention to the application.
It's not the only way of building a directory - Yahoo is an example of a large pay-for-inclusion model with fast review times but also a skew towards sites that can afford to be listed. I know of at least one purely informational site with tens of thousands of pages of content that isn't listed in Yahoo because it can't afford to pay.
</added>
[edited by: John_Caius at 1:58 pm (utc) on July 15, 2003]
Why not try again, keep a copy, and if the rejection is on a whim with a BS message, sticky me a copy, or discuss it over at Resource-zone?
Otherwise, all we are discussing is your memories, with no shared objective material to evaluate the situation.
And, who knows, this time you might get in!
I liked the ethos of ODP, I respected it for its objectives but they were weeping because they had so few editors.
I offered help.
They rejected it.
Now the more I read, the more it becomes apparant that among the genuine people who really want to get involved with dmoz there are far more in some ego pod.
I don't want to be there too.
I didn't keep a copy..it doesn't matter.
Otherwise, all we are discussing is your memories, with no shared objective material to evaluate the situation.
It doesn't matter about evaluating this particular scenario - another will pop up like another rubber tree plant:)
Demoz has an unhealthy habit of churning our case histories like this.
Afraid you do. :(
If you read the comment
>>If dmoz has chosen not to e-mail everyone with personal e-mails when their site gets rejected, it's for a reason. If dmoz has chosen to recommend that editors don't generally reply to e-mails then that's for a reason too. <<
It does sound suspiciously like not questioning the tablets that have come down from the mountain.
I would suspect that many of the reasons that DMOZ does things in a certain way are more to do with money (lack of) than with how the current incumbants of "management" posts at DMOZ would like to see things done
That’s the kind of question that drives me crazy. Of course DMOZ editors care. DMOZ editors care more about building quality on the Internet than any other group, and they demonstrate their commitment day in and day out.
What’s really disheartening is the way DMOZ is vilified over and over and how its profile and prestige has declined due to pervasive money and ignorance in the Internet community. I’m not just talking about criticism on these forums. Take AOL’s astonishing, incredible dropping of DMOZ as provider of its main search results. AOL members should have quit en masse after that outrage. How can you expect DMOZ editors to maintain their enthusiasm when they are insulted like this time and time again?
Here we are with certainly the best directory on the Internet, an invaluable work comparable for today to what the Oxford English Dictionary was for around 1920, and we’re ignored! Yesterday was one of those days that drive me absolutely crazy. The search engine news was dominated by stories about Yahoo and Overture, with references to how their merger would affect Google and MSN. No mention of the Open Directory, or the tremendous work we’ve done in building the directory. It’s almost like people who work for Google or Yahoo are more important than DMOZ editors!
I don’t know how much longer we can be expected to take this diminution of status. What would a world be like if DMOZ editors and other high-integrity creative professionals just stopped working altogether? For an answer, I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
The DMOZ meta community is the Galt’s Gulch of the Internet. Whoa to those who fail to recognize that.
I too shared your views and opinions .... once.
Like many I am jaded by dmoz.
What you read here and elsewhere is a catalogue of complaints not malicious gossip.
In the fullness of time you too may join the band of disgruntled people.
Hopefully the powers that be at ODP will read the writing on the wall and act upon it or as the sub title relates "they no longer seem to care".
>Why is there a "send mail" form?
So the e-mail won't be visible.
>Then why isn't the e-mail visible?
Because a few (maybe one in a thousand) submitters are aggressive and vicious jerks who, when frustrated in their spamming attempts, will electronically and physically stalk the volunteers.
>OK, so I send mail. Why doesn't the volunteer reply?
Because ... a few (maybe one in a hundred) e-mailers are aggress... anyway ... the sort of folk you wouldn't want knowing your e-mail address. Responding to e-mails is like playing Russian roulette.
>Then why have a way to communicate to editors at all?
In order to receive constructive suggestions about improving the directory's usefulness to surfers. Generally, no reply is needed. Usually, suggestion is either helpful, in which case the response is to take it -- or it's not, and there's no need to ask why.
>Why doesn't someone appoint me ODP dictator, so my every whim can instantly become law without having to run the gauntlet of so many reasonable objections?
Search me, it must have been an oversight.
Seems like this conversation has occurred once or twice before.
Having the ability to see all the possible rejection letters, I can say there's no letter that contains a statement anything like this. The rejecting meta could have added that to the letter, but it would look rather silly with all of the reasons that would be attached to it (all the rejection letters have a list of reasons).
It does, however, sound a lot like the statement you get if you were an editor and you've been removed. Note that I'm not saying you were an editor that's been removed--I don't see any evidence of that--but I'm wondering if you didn't get a list of generic reasons, plus you've read that statement in complaints from editors that have been removed, and are now mis-remembering the actual wording.
>>Make it commercial, pay the people. Make them accountable and run the ship properly ... not like a high street charity shop. <<
These types of statements often come from the differences in point of view. You see the ODP as a vehicle to promote websites, yours and others. When ODP doesn't run the way you see it, you insist that it should be run that way, that it won't survive or be a good resource if it doesn't become what you want it to be. I understand why you would have this point of view--and I don't blame anyone for looking at it that way--but it is the wrong way to look at it.
Sometimes, there are legitimate complaints--"When I search for widgets, I can't get any good information about widgets"--but most of the time, the complaints are, "When I search for widgets, I get a whole bunch of widget sites that aren't mine." There is no consideration in that complaint for the possibility that the user will get plenty of information and resources about widgets, even if the site in question is never listed.
The fact is, submissions will never take on the importance to ODP editors that they have to the submitters, the webmasters and SEOs. Personally, I think life is too short to let that frustrate you so much.
How can you even post on this topic if you haven't taken the time to go to Resource Zone and investigate yourself?
It's genuinely scary how people try to blame others for their own laziness.
I have a reasonable understanding of the Queen's English.
I have earned a living as an Editor.
I understand the ways of the WWW.
I obviously didn't fit :)
It is a selective process and I'm pretty sure they have a 'type' that they look for.
You've almost got it! Can you add this to your list?
* I work well with others.
I suspect not. One need not be a gung-ho team player to be an ODP editor, but a willingness to play by the rules of the game is a fundamental prerequisite.
You accuse us of deafness, and reject several attempts by Victor to assist you personally. You say the large majority of us are in "some ego pod", with no actual knowledge of what even a small minority of us are like. You speak of a "catalogue of complaints", accepting the fundamental principal of yellow journalism -- guilt by accusation.
I would be a fool to say no compaints are valid. I would be a bigger fool to say all complaints are valid. How does one tell the difference? Start with this. Editors work for ODP users, not submitters.
"Who do those people think they are?" I cannot speak for "those people", but obviously I am not shy about speaking for me. I am a volunteer on a project whose goal is building the best human-edited directory on the planet. When my first application for editorship was rejected, my ego did not prevent me from applying again. I know I have no ownership of my work, and indeed one reason I was attracted to editorship was the fact that my work is openly available to anyone who wishes to use it. I feel I am adding value to the universe, the same as if I were a contributor to Linux, Apache, Mozilla, or OpenOffice, or the author of a popular, open-source, non-commercial, interactive colorwheel. (Hey, I said I wasn't shy! Now where is my ego pod? I know I set it around here somewhere...)
I doubt the one who reviewed your editor application knew it, but your words here indicate you are not the right 'type'. I hope I am wrong; I believe you have the capability to be a good editor.
-- Rich (ODP editor "rock")
* I work well with others.I suspect not. One need not be a gung-ho team player to be an ODP editor, but a willingness to play by the rules of the game is a fundamental prerequisite
Sounds about right to me, so the editor in his/her wisdom predicted that I am not willing to play by the rules.
Where does the occult come into the profile? :)
You accuse us of deafness, and reject several attempts by Victor to assist you personally. You say the large majority of us are in "some ego pod", with no actual knowledge of what even a small minority of us are like. You speak of a "catalogue of complaints", accepting the fundamental principal of yellow journalism -- guilt by accusation.
Deafness, I never mentioned any form of hearing impediment. There are none more deaf than those not willing to hear"
I never rejected Victor's 'attempts' to assist - I said I didn't keep a copy of the original online form!
I would be a fool to say no compaints are valid. I would be a bigger fool to say all complaints are valid. How does one tell the difference? Start with this. Editors work for ODP users, not submitters.
"Who do those people think they are?" I cannot speak for "those people", but obviously I am not shy about speaking for me.
With all due respect I do not know you, I did not refer to you and your personal policies ought not be highlighted here.
I am a volunteer on a project whose goal is building the best human-edited directory on the planet. When my first application for editorship was rejected, my ego did not prevent me from applying again.
You might want to read my posts again, I feel you are now shooting from the hip:)
... and that is where you showed your true colours... or this also an official ODP statement?
I doubt the one who reviewed your editor application knew it, but your words here indicate you are not the right 'type'. I hope I am wrong; I believe you have the capability to be a good editor.
This is posted, perhaps with different wording, somewhere in ODP official documentation IIRC. Our editor-in-chief recently reiterated the same in an internal forum discussion.
I can fully understand why editors may *choose* not reply to emails (although this in itself makes the system very inconsistent), what I do not understand is, why this is not made clear and an Avenue made apparent where people can know that their email has made it through. Even after emailing the paid staff on at least 4 occasions I get no indication that my email has not simply been zapped in hyperspace.
While I take no pleasure in saying so, DMOZ (IMO) has/is declining in being a good directory. When I first discovered DMOZ many years ago, I found it's categories very well organized and relevant. <rant>Although, I have always found a category that is in alpha order to assume the user knows the name of the site they are seeking and greatly favours certain names. Googles page rank order makes more sense.</rant> When I use it now, I get doorway pages, dead links, sites with little or no content, redirects, umpteen pop-ups etc.
HOPEFULLY, this will be read as I indented and not get a black mark next to my name.
Dave
You don't need to take me seriously. I'm a fairly junior editor at the ODP and speak for no one but myself.
I caught up on a number of Webmasterworld threads today, and you had posted to a couple of them. Some of your posts were neutral-positive concerning the ODP and its editors, and some were negative. Your harshest criticism seemed to center on the allegation that you had applied to be an editor and were rejected "on a whim".
I decided to reply as a defensive reaction to your implication that ODP editors are either ineffectual and clueless do-gooders (the few), or uncaring egomaniacs (the many). Perhaps I misunderstood. At any rate, I consider myself neither, and I tried to let you know who this editor was.
My basis for saying you were likely not the right 'type' to be an editor was the negativity in several of your posts. Your application for editorship was rejected, and you wonder, "Who do these people think they are?" Many others, now editors, reacted differently and applied again. If you don't get it and still wonder whether I am spouting some sort of official ODP policy, then I doubt you'll ever get it.
-- Rich (who kind of likes orange, blue, and burgundy)
You have valid criticisms. The very existence of Resource Zone indicates that a number of editors feel communication is an important part of our mission. If you check there, you will see that reports of problems like doorways, dead links, hijacked sites, and redirects are taken seriously and dealt with.
Neither pop-ups nor general ugliness are reasons to prevent listing. Popups can be dealt with by using a real browser like Mozilla or Opera. To date, no solution to ugliness has been found.
-- Rich
"It's not a good directory that relies on whether the editor in the chosen category is dedicated or not."
It most certainly is. In fact, this is the very core of how a volunteer operation works. If people care, they do something about. Whining for other people to do something is not in fact "doing", even if some people seem to think so. If the only people who care are those who would rather sit around in a crying circle than do what needs to be done, then nothing is going to be done, and that is just fine.
At the same time, many areas of the directory are up to date and in excellent shape, and provide users with high quality, useful material. This is because someone(s) cares. People who pursue quality get quality; people who like to whine and cry and do nothing get exactly what they deserve.
Or, use IE with one of the many pop up blockers. Or, the Google toolbar which now can whack pop ups.
You appear to be one of "Many here seem to take the points of others personally, rather than a constructive means to an end."
If you see something that could be better, then for heavens sake have some initiative and do something constructive to make it better.
I have, and have others, already stated that I tried to do "something constructive to make it better." I can only assume, as DMOZ will not reply, that (A) my emails never made it through (b) They were ignored (c) They were read and no action taken. Posting both here, and at Resource-Zone is also doing "something constructive to make it better".
It most certainly is. In fact, this is the very core of how a volunteer operation works.
But some "volunteer operations" work better than others. look at it this way, the editor has a REALLY bad day at work, he/she feels obliged to do some editing for DMOZ. The results of what makes it in that day and what doesn't will be infulenced by the volunteers mood. If they were paid, they would be accountable. But as they are volunteers, people such as yourself, keep saying they are above questioning based soley on the fact they are volunteers.
If people care, they do something about. Whining for other people to do something is not in fact "doing", even if some people seem to think so
This is the second time I have said this now. I applied to be an editor and was rejected, I have no problems at all with that. I have sent emails to the editors and the paid staff and have no idea what happened from there. See my second paragraph in this post. I have also posted here. Now, after discovering Resource-Zone (the URL of which could be placed in an automated reply, or pasted by the staff member or volunteer) I will post my "constructive critisism" there.
At the same time, many areas of the directory are up to date and in excellent shape, and provide users with high quality, useful material. This is because someone(s) cares.
Yes they are and it's a job well done. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the areas that are not in "excellent shape".
People who pursue quality get quality; people who like to whine and cry and do nothing get exactly what they deserve.
I feel it is yourself that is doing all the whining about anyone who dares say anything that's not praising DMOZ.
Dave
My basis for saying you were likely not the right 'type' to be an editor was the negativity in several of your posts. Your application for editorship was rejected, and you wonder, "Who do these people think they are?" Many others, now editors, reacted differently and applied again. If you don't get it and still wonder whether I am spouting some sort of official ODP policy, then I doubt you'll ever get it.
Before you personally albeit behind your official capacity as editor for Dmoz, deem me the 'wrong' type, may I suggest you practice some very basic editing skills and read properly my post relating to "who do they think they are" -
My point is this ... don't whinge about the lack of editors and throw back volunteer help. It begs the question, who do these people think they are?" My original application was in the spirit of help - not for the kudos, if there is such a thing nowadays. It was returned far too quickly to have been considered properly and rejected on a whim.
If you are representing Dmoz in these statements and you are the 'type' - .... hmmm?
Thanks for the rejection chaps :)
Slow down with the personal attacks, you do not know me, you are not reading the posts properly and making statements on behalf of Dmoz about my attributes - or lack of them, based on what you summise by reading between the lines ...and as a Dmoz editor too:)
Can we please get back on topic?
Dave_Hawley has had a response over at resource-zone.
It would seem (apologies if I am misreading) he thought he was trying to get a site moved to a new category, but the ODP saw it as a request for an additional listing of a mirror site of the original -- thus aiming for a third listing of the same content (which is already listed twice in the ODP).
I'm not an Excel category expert, so I'll pass on whether the request to be recatted is a valid one.
But I do know that, as an editor, I have only so many free minutes to give to editing the directory. People start hitting me with mirrors of sites already listed, I am likely to lose interest in reviewing their application. I'll move on to other applications and come back to that one when the rest of my cats are cleaned up. The result is that I get to add more sites than I would if I stopped to figger out the needlessly complex case.
I don't know if something like that happened with Dave_Hawley's site -- editors respond differently.
Dave suggests over at resource-zone that the situation could have been created by his use of third-party paid-for submission services. If so, another avenue of approach for him would be to go back to those people and suggest their advice for constructive steps forward.
But a good lesson to be learned (if the third party did create the problem) is that getting an OPD listing is too important to be left to people you simply pay to do stuff.
Talking about emails is hardly constructive. *You* need to do research then *you* need to do something. telling other people to volunteer to do something is more than a little silly.
"If they were paid, they would be accountable."
This just shows why you should take some responsibility here. There are a myriad of levels of accountability in DMOZ, regardless of whether you care to learn about them or participate in them.
"people such as yourself, keep saying they are above questioning based soley on the fact they are volunteers."
Why is it you feel a need to exaggerate and basically just make up nonsense? I keep telling you that questioning is up to you. Doing is up to you. And yes, even aimlessly complaining is up to you. You and others seem to simply not grasp what dmoz is. It is what you make it. That's it. If you don't participate then it won't benefit from any positive impact you could make. Stop insisting others take your responsibility and do your job for you.
"I applied to be an editor and was rejected"
You say that like you were shot or something. Stop complaining. Apply again. Ask for tips about applying. People offer to help you and you just complain. I have no idea of the exact percentage but a large percentage of dmoz editors were rejected their first application, including me. *They* didn't just mope around and quit. Apply again. And then again if necessary. Learn to write an acceptable application. No one else can make you take responsibility here.
"that doesn't mean we should ignore the areas"
"We" aren't. You are. I don't care about the topic area you care about. If you in fact care, then do something.
"I feel it is..."
You feel like generalizing, and arm-waving, and attributing motives and actions to others. You can do what you want, but I'd suggest taking some responsibility for yourself.
And that asking a question where it should be asked is a good thing to do.
1/ Do away completely with contact between submitters and editors. I mean everything - the contact details, resource zone, the lot.
2/ Give some TLC to the submission form. It seems to have many different failure modes (incompatability with browsers, proxy servers. etc.; redirect mechanism failing on submission). This begins to build frustration within submitters. I guess this has something to do with abuse protection, but either way it needs sorting.
3/ Allow submitters to assocoiate a password with their submission so that they can quickly view the status of their submission in the queue; and if rejected the brief reasons for rejection.
(3) would virtually eliminate the reasons why submitters try to contact editors, so hense (1). All DMOZ has at the moment is a vicous circle with the submitter becoming angry that he gets a heated response from an editor that is becoming angry becasue he is being swamped with email from angry submitters!
If DMOZ isn't there for the submitters, why offer them the means to contact editors? That I think is the cause of the image problem that DMOZ has self inclicted. However, to do away with contact with editors you have to offer submitters something MUCH better; hence (3).
Just one blatent example is this:
[qoute]You say that like you were shot or something. Stop complaining[/quote]
Tell me you are kidding? What I wrote was "I applied to be an editor and was rejected, I have no problems at all with that" How on earth did you come to your conclusion on this statement?
I wont bother replying to you again Steve as the communication gap is too wide :o)
Dave
As for contacting editors, some editors reply to emails, others don't. I doubt there are more than a miniscule number of editors who would close their eyes and not read the email. But in any case why is someone sending an email to an editor that they want a reply to? If they want a reply, resource zone is far better since multiple editors are there to deal with any issues.
3) is not better, and is frankly very bad. One aspect of editing is wasting time on spam. Your suggestion would be very useful to spammers and hardly anyone else.
How does being able to view the status of your submission help spammers? I'm not saying it doesn't, but I can't at the moment see how it would make a spammers life any easier than it is now...
[edited by: dmorison at 7:55 am (utc) on July 16, 2003]
Some people unfortunately can't manage either, but you must do the work to make a commitment to take some responsibility. It's up to you, nobody else.
