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
>>editors of 'fairness categories' commit to prompt reviewing.
>There are many
>editors (metas, editalls) that can edit in every category, and within the
>tcategory tree any one category will have multiple editors that can edit there.
>And there is nothing in the guidelines prohibiting multiple editors in any one
>category. Which means no editor can "bottle up" any submission by just editing
>very slowly.
Editalls and Metas having permission to edit every category doesn't mean that
they actually have the time to do so for each and every category, right?
>Also, why would people who run info sites submitted to non-commercial categories
>think business sites deserve more "fairness" getting their sites reviewed
>quickly?
Different categories require different types of fairness. If one non-commercial
site is a duplicate of another one, the editor should pick the one with better
layout, usability and reachability. From the user's perspective, listing both
sites has no benefit. In fact, listing both sites creates redundancy and wastes
the user's time.
Commercial sites often don't contain any unique or generally applicable content.
Most of them endorse their own business, list their products and prices, give
contact information and so on. Consequently, the listing in a commercial cat has
(or should have) a different purpose. Assuming that the ODP user who is browsing
a commercial cat does so with the intention of COMPARING services, products and
prices, it would benefit the user if as many sites as possible were listed in
that cat and if the listings were as prompt as possible.
Distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial sites may not be enough.
Maybe there are more types of categories as far as fairness and user intent are
concerned. But the concept stays the same: distinguishing between different
types of categories and treating them with the appropriate type of fairness
would benefit both ODP users and webmasters.
If they don't have time to edit a given category, they wouldn't have time to edit it if there was no editor there, either. So there's no way a slow editor can *hurt* submissions, as you seem to be claiming. The slow editor's presence there can only help, since it doesn't stop anyone else who might edit there from doing so.
As for your reasoning about non-unique commercial sites, you're very much barking up the wrong tree. We have NO INTEREST in linking our directory to commercial sites which contain nothing but duplicate, non-unique content. This is explicitly stated in our submission guidelines. Please do not submit mirrors and affiliate sites to us in disregard of these rules, because it will only waste everyone's time. Including, if you have other sites with unique content awaiting review somewhere in the directory, yours.
You may not like this rule, but it is, in fact, eminently fair: NO ONE'S affiliate site gets listed, not yours or your competitors. So the net result is that no affiliate site gets promoted above another by means of the ODP. If you spy an affiliate-sales competitor in the ODP directory, by all means, snitch on them. We'll remove them ASAP. (-:
Take a category like Shopping - I *know* there are a lot of eligible sites stuck in the queue, but editing in Shopping takes time because in some categories there is an absolutely overwhelming pile of spam. Sites have to be evaluated carefully and checked, and this is something that only an *experienced* editor can do.
My advice to anyone submitting an eligible site is that the best thing you can do is carefully find the right category, write a good description that meets the guidelines and ensure that your site is fully working and complete *before* you submit it.
You're not going to get a link from the Marsupial Society of New Zealand homepage if your site isn't actually about marsupials, either. That may not seem 'fair' to you, but use common sense. Any website has the right to choose what kind of sites it prefers to link to on the basis of what kind of sites are useful to its users. Directories are no exception.
I came to the forums this morning to ask if being listed in the Dmoz.org directory carries much weight these days. I'm happy to have found this thread. Here's some interesting feedback for you. I've been trying to get listed in their directory since July, to no avail. Just recently I resubmitted my website and the very next day my log reflected http*://editors.dmoz.org/editors/editunrev2.cgi
Sure enough my site is listed! I must have caught them on a slow day or one filled with holiday spirit!
Barb
> Just recently I resubmitted my website and the very next day my log reflected http*://editors.dmoz.org/editors/editunrev2.cgi
How did you bribe them :-)
LOL! One would think! I'll have to admit that I recently revised my pages. Probably the prior version wasn't worthy! No matter what the reason, I'm not going to look a "gift horse" in the mouth!
Another site hasn't been posted. It's a perfectly legit site and belongs in the category I submitted to. But it's also a billboard type site and I think they frown on those.
I'm sure content applicable to category and shear volume for the editors plays a major role in waiting. Best wishes to all of you that are waiting, because I certainly understand.
Barb
Made a submission almost *A YEAR AGO* and still no entry in the ODP, even though someone had the time to go and recategorize my submission.
If the ODP wants to label themselves as slow, outdated and ineffective then that's fine; but the ODP, in its own documentation, proclaims itself a better solution than other directories. It's simply not true.
Volunteering stinks. You get what you pay for.
Made a submission almost *A YEAR AGO* and still no entry in the ODP
Wow, you're sure you'd get a listing if only someone would look at the site? You're equating review with acceptance. There's no strong connection between the two.
My point is that if someone looked at my site long enough to wish to recategorize my submission then they'd have enough knowledge to either accept or reject it as well.
Again: The ODP is very poorly run and they will become irrelevant.
Not true at all, sadly. Sometimes misguided people apply to wildly inappropriate categories, hoping to manipulate their speed of review by sending it to a category with a named editor, hoping to avoid long queues by sending shopping sites to informational categories, or, worse, hoping to manipulate their Google ranking by submitting it to the highest PR category they can find. This is unfortunately a very poor strategy, because what you wind up with is an editor glancing at it, seeing its complete inappropriateness, and passing it along to the right category. Where it must await review by an editor experienced in the actual topic. This can double your wait time or worse.
It may seem like a good strategy at the time, but truly, it is not. We are not badly run; we are just run differently than you assume. Figure out the actual system and you will get your sites reviewed far more quickly than your more clueless competitors. Word.
Potentially, it could be worse than that. If a site is submitted to a wildly inappropriate category, rather than passing it on to the right one, the editor may just assume this is a spam submission and delete it. Submitting to a wildly inappropriate category is a hallmark of a spammer. And if they do pass it along to another category, commonly editors don't know much about the category structure of areas other than what they edit in. As such, they may submit it to another wrong category. For example, if a legal highs seller submits a site to a very inappropriate category, if it gets passed along the editor may guess Recreation/Drugs, where I edit, is the right category. However, that site belongs in Shopping if it belongs anywhere, and since I can't edit there, what will happen is the site will sit in unreviewed until whenever I get around to editing, and then all I can do is pass it along again to Shopping. Which means even greater delay in review time.
The moral of the story is that for the submitter, there are lots of good reasons to make sure you find the most appropriate category for the site yourself.
But now Netscape is part of AOL/Time/Warner. I doubt at this point the folks who make the browser have any real connection, or influence, over the ODP. In fact, if they ever kill off the browser, I'd suspect the ODP would still be kept alive. The bad will the parent company would get from pissed off editors wouldn't be worth it. Also, that Google uses the ODP as its directory should rub off favorably on the parent company.
In reference to victor's post earlier:
>> The bigger DMOZ is, and the higher quality it is, the better for everyone. That's simple commercial sense -- and it's what editors want too.
If this is truly what the editors want, then why do:
1. Thousands of high quality sites still remain pending review?
2. The ODP not accept more applications from those submitting them wishing to become editors. I can understand that not everyone is suited to be an editor, and not every is going to be accept, that's fine.. But it seems to me that the ODP are in a desperate situation being understaffed. What makes tham think they have the luxury of being able to pick and choose so much? I know some perfectly well abled people (and highly reputable) that were rejected.
3. The editors not be more friendly on the RZ. I've never had any trouble with anyone there myself, but I have read a few threads, and in about 70% of cases where people ask where their site is, the metas shoot them down for asking more than twice in 2 or 3 months.
I mean in all honesty, if the editors are going to be so ignorant to people who only want to know why their siteis not listed, then should they really be editors in the first place.
If we didn't submit our sites there, the directory would be of no use. So do NOT act like your doing us a great holy favor by adding my site.
[edited by: skibum at 1:15 am (utc) on Jan. 5, 2004]
[edit reason] removed insult [/edit]
Hardly. Editors could find sites on their own hunting around the Net, and add the worthwhile sites they find. In fact, I could make a decent argument that the directory would be more useful if submissions were turned off. Namely, there is a finite number of total hours the editors as a whole are willing to devote to the ODP. Reviewing sites that turn out to be spam, or really low quality sites, just results in wasting editor time that they could have been spending adding worthwhile sites they found on their own. In theory, more sites per year should be added if submissions were turned off. From the directory users point of view (and, from the point of view of ODP editors, our "customers" are directory users, not webmasters), a larger directory should be more useful.
If those guys can't even review sites that are handed to them on a plate i.e. submitted directly.. Then what makes you think they would be proactive enough to actually surf the web and add sites of their own accord?
I edit a small category and have added substantially more sites via searching in search engines than from what was submitted (half of which was rubbish).
You really should refrain from making comments about which you know nothing.
Well, technically it was already in existence when it was bought by Netscape so Netscape didn't "set up" anything.
>>What makes tham think they have the luxury of being able to pick and choose so much?
Uh, because we do? We're not going to sacrifice quality in return for quantity by relaxing our new editor standards. New editors are accepted every day so it isn't as though we're closed to new editors.
>>...in about 70% of cases where people ask where their site is, the metas shoot them down for asking more than twice in 2 or 3 months.
The posting guidelines there are very clear -- don't ask about your status more than once a month. So all the metas are doing is enforcing the forum charter (as all good moderators do). You fault us for that?
>>If those guys can't even review sites that are handed to them on a plate i.e. submitted directly.. Then what makes you think they would be proactive enough to actually surf the web and add sites of their own accord?
This comes down to the common misconception among submitters that the unreviewed pool is a priority for editors. It isn't. Yes, it's *a* source of sites but it isn't the only source or even the top source. Every site added is a site added, whether it's a site an editor finds on their own or one that was submitted by the owner.
1. Thousands of high quality sites still remain pending review?
Where are they? Do you know? Of course not, and neither do I. But, if I did know where these were, I'd list them rather soon.
Another common misperception. People outside the ODP often think that processing submissions must be a more productive use of time than searching out new websites by other means. My guess is that's because they either underestimate the number of useless and/or deceptive submissions clogging up the submissions queue, or else overestimate the number of quality sites submitted there. At best, half the sites submitted to the ODP are worthwhile and unique; and it takes time to investigate each to be sure that's the case (you'd be shocked how many identical mirrors of some of the same sites there are out there).
Generally speaking, it takes me longer to review five submissions than it does to find five sites through another avenue. The ODP rate of growth during the submissions outage a few months ago actually *increased*, not decreased.
So saying "If we didn't submit our sites, the ODP would be of no use" really is barking up the wrong tree.
You're welcome not to submit your site if you feel otherwise, of course. If you find the ODP useless, you can vote with your mouse. (-:
Why would you thing adding sites would be easier if the plate was largely filled with spiced ham that comes out of a tin? At the ODP I edit in what tend to be the least spammy of categories. That doesn't mean spammers don't try submitting there hoping they'll hit the lotto and get a click-through editor doing the review. :( I have to figure that in the really spammy areas the unreviewed queues are chock full of spiced ham. If the goal is adding as many worthwhile sites as possible, looking for them in a pile that is mostly spam submissions may not be the most efficient strategy.
As for editors finding sites to add of their own accord, this really isn't that difficult. For one they can check out other directories to see if they found good sites not yet in the ODP. They also could check for links to other sites on the sites already listed in the category, as webmasters of good sites tend to link to other good sites. And then there is search engines. Really, ODP editors actually can find worthwhile sites without them being handed to them on a platter.
unreviewed queue looks like a Google search for Kissimmee hotels and motels
[google.com...]
now go through the 152000 matches to see what should be added to
[dmoz.org...]
Even if 1% of the matches are submitted = 1520
Find the valid listings from the search queue that aren't listed and we'll list them.
There is no difference. You think you are complaining about editing not being fast enough, in fact you are complaining about your fellow submitters slowing the system down by clogging the submission pools with duplicate, innappropriate, or unlistable by the guidelines, spam.
Maybe this would be a solution.
I'll admit, I was personally sorely tempted by the idea of turning off submissions after witnessing the faster and better editing during the involuntary submissions outage last year.
However, the submissions queue can be very valuable for some categories, and since no editor is *obligated* to review submissions, it would be selfish of me to ask for the feature to be removed if even one other editor found it a good source of URL's for their category.
Besides, I think offering the free submissions is a nice public service. Sure, there are thousands of webmasters out there who are irate because we didn't accept their submission or took a long time to review it, but there are also hundreds of thousands who submitted a website, had it accepted, and are presumably happy about it. Dissatisfied people always make louder noises than satisfied ones. And when the submissions were down last year, there were lots of frantic would-be submitters complaining about it, so I think it's safe to assume there are many webmasters and SEO's who would miss the service if it wasn't available anymore.
I've previously noted that my recently revised website was accepted by Dmoz.org in one day via the free submission process. This was much to my surprise, but I will say after little success with my first version, I had to rethink and take a close look at my content and design. My new version doesn't have any major bells and whistles, but the new content supports the topic and audience I am looking for and more adequately fits the category I wanted to be listed under. So I was rewarded, as I know many of you here are looking for as well.
However, I have to say that the bashing that is going on here is highly out of line. I can thank my lucky stars that I was included in the directory. Afterall, this provides me with a free promotional ticket. But I never EXPECTED it. Dmoz.org could drop this public service all together and everyone would have to PAY for their service. Even then it wouldn't be guarranteed if your website doesn't support inclusion in a specific category. Look at all the search engines that now require payment. There are very few that still provide free submission. Rather than bashing the Dmoz.org editors for doing their job and following their set guidelines, why don't you all cut them a break and take a closer look at your websites! I'm playing the waiting game on another website too. And wait I will, without being abusive!
Barb
Find the valid listings from the search queue that aren't listed and we'll list them.OK, Go to dmoz's idaho wines page. Remove the sites from idaho wines.org and replace the entire category with joeant's. When you're done I'll gladly give you more to do, because there is much.
The bizarre thing to me is that you just used a directory, not manually sorted the sites one by one to find the valid ones. You got someone else to do the sorting for you. :)
