Forum Moderators: open
The good: none of my competitors have been added in 4 months.
The bad: No sites have been added in my category in about 4 months.
I follow up with RZ, every month, on the dot, to check status, and all I get from the editors over there is sarcasm and insults.
Why does anyone even bother with DMOZ anymore? Thanks to DMOZ, I wish the machines took over the world in Matrix Revolutions.
jd
"Note: Do NOT use this form to send URL suggestions
or updates to editors. Use the Add URL or Update URL
links from the category page instead. Thank you."
I read that as site suggestions and update requests be done using the forms provided for the purpose. Use this form to contact an editor for any other reason.
Background:
Using the Add URL or Update URL forms puts the suggestion into the pool of sites waiting for review in the category, in which case any editor with permissions there may review the site. It also means that the site will have editor notes attached when it is listed/ moved/ deleted/ left for another editor.
Using the feedback form means that only the named editor recieves the message and there is no entry of the request into the logging system. If you send it to an editor that is inactive that message may be unread for a long time.
Feedback is fine to use if you want prompt an editor to look at a category, but not to request your site be given precedence over other sites awaiting review. In the areas I edit there are over 100,000 sites awaiting review, why would I respond to 100,000 messages asking for 'my' site to be listed?
If you feedback me for instance I *may* reply if there is something I don't understand on the site, or I require information to clarify where to list it - but if I do it'll be from a disposable email address. From experience I've had about a 50% non response rate from *submitters* when I have requested further details. But I won't go list a site *because* I got feedback,it might make me aware of a category that needs some work though and I'll add it to my list.
A note, polite or not, is not permitted if it relates to your site submission.
To re-itterate a note *is* permitted, whether it relates to your site submission or not. A not polite note is, however, just a way to get a human offside, and if continued may be considered editor harassment.
If you really need to know your submission status there is a public forum for that express purpose.
To re-itterate a note *is* permitted, whether it relates to your site submission or not.
I understand that you are saying it is permitted, but that is not what DMOZ states.
I have been to RZ numerous times and always been informed not to contact editors in regards to a specific submission as that is not permitted.
I would also like to state that RZ has not been helpful. Generally you will receive negative feedback about your submission because it isn't an editor relevent to your category that finds your request. It is a meta editor that does not actually know much about the category at hand, but still attempts to deal with so many requests that it would be impossible for him/her to look at every request appropriately.
I have been to RZ numerous times and always been informed not to contact editors in regards to a specific submission as that is not permitted
I read nearly every english language thread there and do not recall that ever being stated. It is common to be told that contacting an editor will not speed up your listing and that you will not receive a response (very few editors reply to feedback messages). That's not telling you not to contact editors, just trying to let you know that the result you desire by doing so may not be realised.
Are you talking about argueing about a rejection, after finding out it has been rejected? If so, yes, feedback would be discouraged. RZ should be able to help you know why it was rejected if you don't already know.
If it has changed content or an error has been made a single request for a re-review via feedback is appropriate. Repeated badgering is not, If the editor chooses to respond they must provide a reply email address which is why many do not. If they do, dialogue is at the editors discretion - it is not required.
Can't fool me, man. There are a sum total of about 10,000 panicky posts over in the Google forum right now all about how non-trivial it is to get a good listing at Google. (-: In fact, it looks like Google offers you a comprehensive choice of all three options: a first-page listing for a searchterm if you're willing to work your butt off and be patient for 6-12 months to get it (good and free), listing #354 for your searchterm if you haven't put the time in or aren't willing to wait patiently (free and fast), or an adwords sidebar thing if you're willing to pay (fast and good).
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. I'm periodically rather amazed how many people expect a good (i.e. better than average, preferably top 10%) listing for their site in any directory or search engine, for free, starting next week, and then complain when they don't get it. As long as we're dreaming, I'd like a pony. (-:
Yes, except for Google.
Fast, Free, and good.
Flicker, I thing this was aimed at the users of Google, not the webmasters trying to rank high :)
Here's an excerp from an RZ thread I just checked out today:
SUBMITTER:
Hello all,This is my first post here, and I know it might not be a nice way to start, but I still have to ask for a favor. I have submitted our website, ******* to DMOZ more than a month ago and our site has still to be added or reviewed. Our website looks to be right within the policy so there shouldn't be any problems.
Here is the link to the appropriate DMOZ category: ******
I hope one of the editors can be kind enough to look into my case, and maybe help out in one way or another. Thank you all in advance.
EDITOR1:
As our posting guidelines state quite clearly: "Please note that posting in this forum will not lead to site listing in itself".Your suggestion is waiting to be reviewed together with a lot of others.
SUBMITTER:
Hello,Yes, I didn't do this to get listed. I just thought that the editor might not be available anymore or something might be wrong with my site. From that, is the editor still active in the category, and how long might it take to get listed? Is more than a month or two normal?
Thanks
EDITOR2:
Two hours is fast, two years is slow. Anything in between is a normal review time.
SUBMITTER:
Could you please tell me what you mean with a lot? Is it really so many that I will have to wait a long time, or is it quite possible that I will be added within the next week or two?Thanks again all.
EDITOR1:
We can't predict that, as ***** stated. To many factors.
This is not unique as most threads on there are the same thing: Submitters inquiring, being told that their submission is waiting, and that's it. Any requests above and beyond that are met with un-helpful comments.
I'm not saying this is the "wrong" way to run things. DMOZ can run their directory any way they please. My concern is that if I were to receive this sort of customer service from Google, my jaw would hit the floor. From my experiences, Google's customer service has been spectacular, and it is disconcerning that they would readily affiliate themselves with an organization that does not provide similar customer service, volunteer or not.
Whether you've been told that it's okay to contact editors about site submissions, the warning above the contact form clearly states that site submission or update inquiries should be directed to the automated form.
flicker and dirkz: I think the main reason Google has survived and became as used as it was was that it was free (no commercial saturation), it was fast (no argument there), and the results where top notch (an index of the web).
Whether it is currently like that or not, it was at some point. :-)
Google - provides a free index of the web, includes most things of some quality, not everything. Doesn't usually answer personal e-mails of the form "why is my site with hidden text and PR for sale banned?". Representatives participate openly in public discussion forums.
dmoz - provides a free directory, includes most things of some quality, not everything. Doesn't usually answer personal e-mails of the form "why is my affiliate link farm site banned?". Editors participate openly in public discussion forums.
In addition, Google provides some services that generate revenue, e.g. Adwords, Adsense. E-mail responsiveness is understandably excellent.
In summary, if you consider good customer service to be responsiveness to e-mails asking a free system to change to benefit you, you probably won't get much happiness from either Google or dmoz. Google will build its algorithms as it sees fit, dmoz will develop its guidelines according to internal discussion. When it comes to the revenue-generating bits of Google, as with any other company, customer service is critical to get right.
:)
I think the better answer is look at an ODP listing as icing on the cake. It helps a little, but isn't that important.
Google's system is based on math, not human editors. Therefore you are limited by what you can and cannot request of them. Any questions about being added into their results are answered simply by "We have no control over that.", which is entirely true.
In regards to any questions that they have control over, I have yet to be ignored (except for a request made long ago to drop DMOZ as their directory provider). Their replies to non-paying users such as myself have been spectacularly direct, to the point, and professional. My questions relating to restricted links, hidden links, being dumped from the database, and being penalized have always been answered well by Google staff.
Their business projects such as Adwords need not even be discussed, as if their free service is as responsive as it is, the paid service will supercede that.
I agree lately Google's results have been questioned but they are going through changes. I dont' agree or dissagree with them because I do not know enough about what these changes are. However, I can't say I have found a viable alternative.
I don't think it is at all valid to relate Google and DMOZ. Google obviously has a great reputation as a result of its spectacular customer service and professional method of business.
I think a solution many webmasters would enjoy would be to publicly announce that DMOZ listings do not increase your page rank. I sincerely doubt this board would be flooded with the DMOZ related posts it receives right now. I don't see how this is possible since many sites source DMOZ data, but it is just an idea.
I mean, if everyone understands that DMOZ is a good directory, well made and doing the best it can, then how many people who visit WebmasterWorld can honestly say they would attempt to get their sites listed with them if Google didn't use them?
Not many, I'll bet. DMOZ is like Google's little brother... tagging along, and we all have to be kind and gentle else Google won't be as good a friend.
My guess is that Google is seeking an alternative, has one in mind, and just hasn't voiced it yet. Who knows, maybe they will acquire DMOZ.
Two hours is fast, two years is slow. Anything in between is a normal review time.
Of all the rotten... I hope the editor had a good laugh at that one because then at least someone finds it funny. One of the downfalls of free anything... zero care for the user.
If there was some kind of revenue stream they would think twice about saying something so aggravating. And if it was true, you can bet they would have been tripping over themselves trying to fix it.
Vive le capitalisme! :)
From the perspective of the ODP, webmasters are NOT the users. If the currently listed sites are adequate for what they are looking for, that other sites that say basically the same thing are still in unreviewed isn't a major problem.
So what you are saying then (and I agree) is that it is up to the editor to decide whether your site is worthy of being listed in DMOZ (hence Google Directory). Whether it be his/her personal reasons, logical reasons, illogical reasons, or capitalistic reasons, he/she has the right to decide, regardless of whether the content is similar (never exact) to other content already listed, whether a site is included.
This seems completely contrary to the theory (as I see it) of Google. Google's results seem to stem from a completely unbiased perspective, and their spidering methods remove human decisions from the search results. Their results, to me, represent a "voting" scheme... whereby the number of sites that link to you are "voting" for your site, and Google rewards that. Sort of like a Democracy.
Therefore, theoretically, the most sound way a directory is created (according to Google methodology) is to have submissions voted on by visitors. I don't know if this is possible or not, but having directory results decided upon by one sole individual, with personal humanistic reasons and reactions to each submission is more like a Dictatorship than a Democracy.
DMOZ Editors simply don't have enough to lose. Without any income involved, without loss of revenue, the possibility of human emotion dictating how an editor edits is too great, and I don't think Google should rely on such an unreliable source for such a large portion of its service to customers.
I speak from the perspective of a webmaster, but also a user. Would you rather see the results JoeShmo thinks you should see? Or would you like to see all the relevent results, and decide yourself?
That is the beauty of paid submissions. The employees are (hopefully, and from my experience) there to make sure it is relevent, online, not under construction and that is it. Including their personal choices in the matter is not possible, if they hope to keep their job. That is a good form of quality control according to me.
Google's directory should be an index of the web, not made up of individual people's decisions about what they think Google should deliver.
I seriously doubt it. And, if you hadn't noticed it doesn't seem that Google sees its directory as a priority. Google went for several months without updating their directory, even though the ODP was generating weekly RDF dumps. They just have it because it is free, and useful to at least some users.
I can't see this being possible without Google spending money to achieve that. The amateur sites can't/won't pay, and Google would need to have to hire editors to review those submissions.
Also, note that Google users have the option of using the Google search engine instead of the directory if they want an unbiased selection. Statistically very few Google users bother with the directory. The directory can cater to those people who actually like having editors pick what they think are the best sites. If it looks to them the editor has done a poor job, they can use the search engine. Think here perhaps of someone who wants an answer to a question that is objectively true. If they can find a site that has the answer using the directory, they are satisfied.
And, the ODP editors do have to follow guidelines. They aren't allowed to use any criteria they want on a whim.
My guess is that Google is seeking an alternative, has one in mind, and just hasn't voiced it yet. Who knows, maybe they will acquire DMOZ
Google would need to have to hire editors to review those submissions
I hear advanced profiling and autocategorisation has come along way over the last couple of years. Maybe a human-free directory will balance DMOZ nicely. Then we will really see if 'humans do it better' ;)
Based on Google's history in product development, this is my 'best guess' of what Google will replace DMOZ with one day - if ever.
Decius wrote:
Whether you've been told that it's okay to contact editors about site submissions, the warning above the contact form clearly states that site submission or update inquiries should be directed to the automated form.
shasan wrote:
Of all the rotten... I hope the editor had a good laugh at that one because then at least someone finds it funny. One of the downfalls of free anything... zero care for the user. If there was some kind of revenue stream they would think twice about saying something so aggravating. And if it was true, you can bet they would have been tripping over themselves trying to fix it.
Decius wrote:
This seems completely contrary to the theory (as I see it) of Google.
One of the downfalls of free anything... zero care for the user.
Perhaps a more obvious downfall is that so many people want the results for free without giving anything back.
What you can give back with DMOZ is time and skill as an editor.
Simple math: DMOZ has a net growth rate of 500,000 sites a year. Make some simple assumptions about linkrot, spam suggestions, and so on, and that probably means well over 2,000,000 sites to be reviewed each year.
With the usually quoted figure of 5000 active editors that's [you do that math] sites per day per editor.
More active editors = more sites = more care for the user.
If you care for the user, be an editor. It's simple. If you don't care for the user, don't expect others to do it for you.
It's so easy to attack things, but at the end of the day the ODP is by far the biggest and highest quality directory in the world. It's a quality product, but like all quality products, still has faults. Trying to focus all the time on those, as some people do, is a little tiresome.
Back to the opening question in the thread: "Time to give up on DMOZ?"
Well, actually, with the main Google index... shall we say, not exactly on top form at present.... the DMOZ directory is perhaps more important than ever. Pick a cat and at least you can be pretty much sure the sites are on topic. A search on Google, post the update?
Perhaps but then the ODP isn't Google and we are under no obligation to conform to the theory of Google or anyone else.
Exactly my point. Google should have nothing to do with an organization that runs itself so differently.
Also, unless you are openly stating that it is permitted to contact editors directly regarding your site submission, you are not dissagreeing with me. I have yet to hear any meta editors suggesting submitters contact editors directly. Therefore, if it is permitted, it is still frowned upon, which in a directory dependant on human emotion, could mean the difference between you getting in and you getting out.
And I have yet to meet a webmaster who does not perceive the warning above the contact form as stating that they should not contact the editor directly in regards to their submission. Whether or not it legally includes such requests, it easily gives off that impression, and could be clarified well.
victor and Napoleon:
Certain people have certain responsibilities they have accepted. Some people are webmasters and some people chose to be directory editors.
Would you suggest a person go out and create a website on Widgets if they were researching Widgets but found innadequate information? Of course not. Because it is not their responsibility.
Why then should it be the responsibility of a webmaster to become an editor in every directory they wish to be included in? Dmoz isn't the only directory there is. What if every directory gave you the same hassles as Dmoz? Applying, updating and waiting to become an editor in ten directories would be a full time job.
Even if you wanted to become an editor, my experiences have led me to believe that it is extremely difficult, and takes a very long time to become an editor at DMOZ. Especially if you have competing sites.
As for it being a high-quality directory, that may be a possibility. But I doubt this will continue in the future. You just can't treat hard working driven webmasters in the same way that you treat spammers. Currently, spammers are in line just as legitimate, hard working webmasters are. There should be a way to distinguish between these two parties, and I believe submission costs would remedy it.
I just don't see any benefit to DMOZ being free, and the editors not being hired and paid. It makes submitting useless sites so much easier, it aggravated editors, it places legitimate webmasters in the same waiting line as spammers and in general it lenghtens the submission process.
I understand that "free" is a wonderful concept, but just not globally viable. I mean, a $50, refundable submission fee can probably reduce DMOZ waiting pools by a half, increase the quality and thought in submissions, and entice editors to work harder and more professionally.
My ideal world would begin the day Google acquired DMOZ, charged a submission fee, and hired a staff to manage the directory. I don't know if this is possible (based on the numbers posted), but it's good to dream.
Certain people have certain responsibilities they have accepted.
So neither of us has anyone to complain to
Decius, earlier:
there is nothing you can do to include your site in the directory if they don't want you in the directory.
How is it different from any other website that you might want a link from?
I understand that "free" is a wonderful concept, but just not globally viable. I mean, a $50, refundable submission fee can probably reduce DMOZ waiting pools by a half, increase the quality and thought in submissions, and entice editors to work harder and more professionally.
Personally, I continue to be in awe of what community development can achieve from the Linux boxes I've been hosted on for the last three years and now use at home to the incredibly professional PostNuke install I went though last night to start dev on a new site.
I see the 'goddmanit this is how directories should work' argument as suffering from the same fallacy as is frequently at work with people's understanding of evolution; namely why isn't a penguin more like a human given that we're 'obviously' the best creature around given how we've taken over. The penguins survive because they have a niche that is sufficient to support them. So does DMOZ. If you want directories that charge a submission fee then there are plenty of them. I don't generally use them. I find DMOZ's processes generate the directory results I find most useful and I suspect it will continue as long as it can find a niche that will support it, even if that is not the same niche that it currently occupies.
Shifting to a submission charge would be like moving a polar penguin to the tropics. There's a chance it might survive but it isn't really the environment to which it is adapted and may well not thrive even if other tropical animals do so.
I understand that "free" is a wonderful concept, but just not globally viable. I mean, a $50, refundable submission fee can probably reduce DMOZ waiting pools by a half, increase the quality and thought in submissions, and entice editors to work harder and more professionally.
Try to submit to DMOZ. If it doesn't work out: It's not critical. There are plenty of places to get links. No need for DMOZ to be successful.
A fairer comarison will be to compare it with the time taken by a random website (submitted/non-submitted) in the same space. Most don't get even included! A person who submits, on average, is better off both in terms of probability of getting included in DMOZ and time it takes to get included - by a wide margin in most categories.
As victor has pointed out repeatedly active editor shortage - about 5000 reviewing about 2,000,000 sites - is one of the major culprits and unless some major changes are brought about, the situation, as hopeless it seems to most of us, is bound to remain the same.
On the other hand, as mentioned by GoogleGuy and others, Google considers link from DMOZ to be just like a normal link which means except for smaller website owners with only a very few links, the importance of DMOZ's link is not that great for most owners.
It wasn't intended as a joke. Suggestions can take anywhere from minutes to years to be reviewed. It's not nice but it's the way things are.
exactly, but if there was some money involved it would probably be different. Also, if there were more projects like DMOZ, the dynamic may change as well.
but if there was some money involved it would probably be different
If DMOZ was monetarized like Yahoo, that would be "some money involved" indeed.
4 million sites and perhaps 2 million reviews a year. Call that 5.5 million total fees for review and/or inclusion per year (no refund for being reviewed and declined, of course).
5.5 million by Yahoo's USD299 is around USD1.5 billion a year.
What's really needed is some time. A 3000 extra editors each making just one review/edit a day will clear the one million site) backlog in under a year.
If you want to be part of that backlog clearance, become an editor. If you don't, don't; and the backlog will continue to clear at the current rate.
That's your choice. Just don't blame DMOZ for your decisions.
In my view, commercial categories are the worst culprits and result in burn out of many editors who get tired of reviewing tens of thousands of similar sites. On the other hand, because of diversion of lots of talent to the commercial sites, the informational categories suffer and are probably much behind time in covering curent issues of concern.
A viable idea will be to for DMOZ to get out of commericial categories either completely or make them low priority.
Right. The ODP is a volunteer organization. Some areas are hard to find good volunteers for. Particular some of the areas that attract massive amounts of spam. And, the spammers sometimes even submit to some of the most riduculously inappropriate categories, so even the editors in non-spammy areas have to deal with it. :(
Flaw:
ODP Says:
Come help me, I have more work than I can handle; I am trying to make the web a better place.
Majority Joe Public Says: Sure, I can help, I am qualified, I can spare a little of my valuable time to assist you, what does it pay, how can it benefit me?
ODP Says:
O, We pay nothing for your time, effort, frustration. Everyone here works for free!, We just want to make the web a better place.
Majority Joe Public Says: Nothing, as in no response, a few utter words I cannot post here, giving direction as to what to do with the request for help.
A Small percentage, perhaps .0001 of Joe Public Says: Hey I love to work for free! Sign me up!
ODP Says:
Out of you .0001 Joe Publics that signed up, Only 1/2 of you qualify.
Hence the ever growing shortage of Editors
Hence the incredible, ever-growing backlog of submissions.
ODP is an Openly Doomed Project, due to design flaws dealing with human nature.
In a perfect world, everyone would volunteer, and ODP would be a perfect, up to date directory! I do not live in a perfect world.
I too have submitted to ODP long ago, to both Regional (in my town there are no other submissions waiting), and Business Categories, and both are still waiting in Queue to be reviewed. Unfortunately I have given up, and wonder if my site will even make it in ODP, before it’s demise.
thumpcyc
