Forum Moderators: open
In particular, you will be able to post at the resource-zone and editors will be able to check the upgraded DMOZ servers for submission status, changes, etc.
The following was posted at resource-zone:
<summarize original quote>It may be as early as today that DMOZ will be up and running</summarize original quote>
Are you ready to dance with DMOZ this week?
HTH, WFN :)
[edited by: skibum at 3:06 pm (utc) on July 21, 2003]
[edit reason] Delinked, summarized quote, pls see TOS [/edit]
I'm sure this server upgrade will be no different.
Certainly the new server has been blisteringly fast the past couple of days, but we'll have to see how long this lasts, particularly when submissions are turned on again. Which should be in the next couple of hours.
Unfortunately particular categories will always have a massive backlog, partly because few editors want to spend their time trawling through the kind of sites that mostly get submitted, partly because there are a huge number of sites all trying to actively promote themselves. I'm thinking of online shopping for herbal medications, SEO companies etc. It is also worth noting, for those interested in Google PR benefit, that the PR passed on by categories with very large numbers of listings is very small and you would be well advised not to hang your hat on a dmoz listing transforming your performance in the search engines.
If you want to help out with the backlog, rather than just whine about your site not having been listed, then apply to be an editor. If you don't want to help out then forget about your submission and spend your time doing something more likely to benefit your site.
:)
I'm sure its frustrating to hear all this "whining". But don't be silly - I spend very little time worrying about DMOZ. I know that all DMOZ editors think that the rest of supplicants sit around waiting all day for them to wave their magic wand and add us to their index. But its not true. We are just frustrated by the overbearing influence of DMOZ, and the inability of new sites to get listed. And by the entitled attitude of the DMOZ editors, who often act arrogant and condescending.
I wouldn't care about DMOZ, except for the fact that Google places an inordinate amount importance to your DMOZ listing, because its lists the DMOZ category in the SERPs. I don't really care about the PageRank, to be honest.
My site is not an SEO, or make herbal medicines, or whatever it is you think we do. We have 80,000 pages of unique, relevant content that is used by thousands of people every day around the globe.
It's not just frustrating to hear all this "whining", it is also against the Charter for this Forum (See Forum Charter link above).
But here is a chance to redeem yourself. I'm always interested in DMOZ rejections. I'd like to collect a whole load of them -- actually get some evidence rather than just an involved party's opinion. Could you sticky me the application you made, and the response they sent you, please?
Thanks!
The last update (according to the dmoz timestamp) of the category we applied to was about 3 months ago as well.
It's not just the "backlog". There is no editor of this category, and there are no updates at all.
Since its against the terms of the charter to complain about poor service at dmoz, here's a constructive suggestion:
Actively recruit more editors. Don't just expect them to show up.
Looks like, at this time, submission status is being used as we speak!
Good luck everyone, going to check my status.
WFN:)
There is no editor of this category,
It's been repeatedly stated here and eslewhere that every category has more than one editor, named or otherwise. Past examples:
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
and there are no updates at all.
Actively recruit more editors.
Why not actively apply again? I'm always a little bemused by the people who apply once, throwaway the paperwork, then never try again. They just sound to me to be too faint-hearted for the rough and tumble of building the best directory on earth. Some advice on applying here:
[webmasterworld.com...]
Good luck!
Another pink elephant. There is always an explanation, even if a generic one.
Many people apply to categories much too large for a new editor, and then decide whining is better than applying for a very small one.
every category has more than one editor, named or otherwise
Define that. Does it just mean (as I think) that some editor for a top-level category has the right to edit in a minor bottom level category? Come on, we all know that is one of the reasons DMOZ listings are so slow getting there. Those guys have too much to do and not enought time. They can't go and care about every sub-sub-subcategory.
Why not actively apply again?
<added> No pink elephant here. In the end, I would have been happy with an email stating something like 'We don't want you. Period.'. And here in Switzerland, we don't really have too large categories (yes, I submitted to local categories, in fields I know lots about but have no commercial interest)...
DMOZ should be more reliable with the new machines. Everyone should be happy about that:)
As for applying to be an editor and getting accepted, maybe a little clear, concise WebmasterWorld how-to thread from some of the metas and others with experience here would help?
I am actually submitting an application to become an editor. The category I am after only has less than 70 sites, which is the size suggested to go after by DMOZ (they say less than 100).
For those that may be upset, sorry, but this thread is not for crying, it's for trying to get better at what you do.
Have a great day, always!
Great suggestion, skibum, on a category for DMOZ application do's and don'ts. Real experience of successful DMOZ application campaigns would be great advice!
WFN:)
I guess it's just me. Bad luck and stuff.
There are others out there just like me who've had the same experience and I'm hoping that the dmoz editors who read this board will come up with a solution that is acceptable?
For instance, if DMOZ offered a PFI model for consideration (like the Yahoo directory), I would gladly do it. Not to make a profit, per se, but to allow those of us who are at our wits end with dmoz to get expedited somehow. The money could go towards the dmoz servers, or towards a stipend for editors, or a cure for cancer.
They wouldn't even have to guarantee being admitted into the directory. Just even being considered would be enough.
Please read the charter [webmasterworld.com]
There is nothing constructive in a moan-a-thon.
Let's try and look forward to the fact that we may get rid of all the cgi timeouts and errors.
Sorry, but the current solution for those problems tackled by the ODP, IS acceptable to the providers and the consumers of the ODP (that is, the editors and the surfers.) And that is all that matters.
You may not realize that the editing community, which has NEVER placed a priority on "processing unreviewed", has recently been again and emphatically reminded (by staff and senior editors) that "processing unreviewed submittals is NOT our mission!"
The mission is building a directory. The unreviewed queue is not, and will not be viewed as, a "problem" that requires a "solution." It is, rather, simply one of a range of optional directory-building strategies supported by the editing software.
_Our_ problem is not delays in reviewing unsubmitted sites. _Our_ problem with the unreviewed queue is spam submittals. And, oddly enough, an unpredictable delay in reviewing sites is a very powerful tool against spammers.
The mission is building a directory.
So the mission is just to build some directory? Nothing about completeness? Guess not, else unreviewd sites WOULD be considered a problem.
ODP editors are out to build a directory. It is a stated goal to become the definitive directory, but it does not say that it is already the definitive directory-- any more than anti-poverty campaigners would claim that because of there hard work, there is no such thing as poverty.
There are heaps of directories out on the web-- free and paid, specialty and universal, professional- and volunteer-maintained, etc. Why the obsession with this one, when it has been countlessly pointed out on this board and elsewhere that an ODP listing grants you no special boost in Google rankings, that the vast majority of the public has never heard of dmoz.org and may never, that a well-designed and well-marketed site will perform well regardless of whether it is listed in the ODP or not, that in fact Google negates as duplicate content many or most ODP clones, and besides that Google is hardly the only search engine in town?
You're complaining because your definition of a word is in Merriam-Webster, and in Webster's Revised Unabridged, and the Columbia, and the American Heritage-- but not in the Cambridge International. You're complaining because your story is covered in the Miami Herald, the London Daily Telegraph, the Asahi Shimbun, the South China Morning Post, andthe Johannesburg Mail and Guardian-- but not in the Wall Street Journal. Maybe you're even complaining that you're in Who's Who, the Forbes 400, and the WEF, but not in the Social Register.
Well, get over it.
stated goal to become the definitive directory...which IMHO they won't reach if they don't regard unreviewed sites as a problem.
You should at least have received a confirmation email for your editor application. You have to reply to this email, otherwise the application will not be considered (I think it will not even appear in the list of applications to be considered).
And no, building a complete directory is not the mission. (Most) Comprehensive, user-friendly, high-quality are the keywords.
You may not realize that the editing community, which has NEVER placed a priority on "processing unreviewed", has recently been again and emphatically reminded (by staff and senior editors) that "processing unreviewed submittals is NOT our mission!"
From [dmoz.org...] (under "2. We Give Back to the Web Community") :
We will make every effort to evaluate all sites submitted to the directory.
Now I can understand a 'complete' directory is not possible and not a goal, since it would include lots of spam. But OTOH, how are you supposed to deliver high quality if you have sites you haven't even looked at and so are unable to know whether they are good quality?
It doesn't say list them all, nor to actively add/delete all of them within X days, nor does it mean that this is the top priority of editors. As long as they're "sitting there" they can be evaluated, and, to top it off, editors are told over and over to NOT delete sites which are listable _even_ when submitted to very wrong areas; rather, they should move them to a better area. That's "every effort" for you.
Anyways, hip-hip-hooray for the new server. It's fast and fun for editors :)
Set up a Yahoo account, or some other email account. It sounds like your ISP is filtering out the auto responses. Apparently that happens sometimes.
The public listings should start showing the updated pages by Thursday mid day pacific time. I don't know the technogeek stuff but they are pushing the new data to a mirror and then to the public side.
You appear to be laboring under several misapprehensions.
1) The Open Directory is finished. It's not, and we're still working on it.
2) There is some logical connection between site existance and site submittal. I can assure you there is no such thing. Many good sites never get submitted; many sites that never existed still get submitted multiple times.
3) A site suddenly gets more useful when it gets submitted. It doesn't: it's still the same site, and has exactly the same value it did before it was submitted.
4) There is some positive correlation between site submittal and site quality. Even this isn't true. From my experience, the correlation is negative: many of the best sites never were submitted, but of the many sites that are submitted more than 50 times, almost all are not worth listing once.
5) A directory has to be complete to be good quality. It doesn't. Yahoo is useful, although it hasn't been as large as the ODP for years. If someone shopping for Chiral Widgets finds a dozen Widget vendors, then the directory is useful to them.
But what if your site isn't listed? Think about it this way: if you dropped dead tonight, how many people would die for lack of your product? how many would even notice your store was closed? and how many people would just find another source, or live a perfectly fulfilling life without it? If the answers are "none," "hardly anyone", and "everyone" -- then the internet can survive without it, and the Open Directory can certainly be "comprehensive" without it.
