Forum Moderators: open
thanks
navdeep
All of which is true ... but how much of a problem does this represent for ODP customers? The answer is actually "very little".
Because the presence of unlisted sites is no measure of comprehensiveness.
>It's no secret that some cats have tons of sites waiting to be reviewed.
Yes. And it's no secret that those same cats have sites listed. So people can find content there.
What REALLY matters to a comprehensive directory? It's not the CATEGORIES that lots of people happen to want to make money off of. It's the categories that AREN'T THERE, and thus have NO submittals waiting. Which is more important, the five hundredth webdesigner site, or the first real estate business to be listed in Lower East Podunk, New Jersey? The fiftieth hotel directory, or the first hotel in LEP,NJ?
The answer is obvious. It's the nonexistant categories that need to be created, and the tiny categories that need to be built into representative small categories. Then the large categories that need to be reorganized (usually into small categories) so people can find what's already there.
The categories that are overflowing are by definition the lowest priorities, for our users' sake.
If you care to help, all the ways that you mention are helpful. If you don't care to help very much, you can submit a site anywhere, with a list of keywords in the wrong language. Other volunteers will try to find the right place for it, and will write a description for it.
I don't have a right to tell you what you must do (although I can tell you what you're not allowed to do on dmoz.org property); you don't have a right to tell me what I must do. We both work on what is important to us.
If you need a more rigidly structured environment, that's OK. Religious cults, big corporations, youth gangs, prisons, -- there are lots of places that might fit you better. We won't criticize. (I don't care for the monastic theology, but some monasteries have provided vital social goods and services not otherwise available at the time.)
If you want to impose a more rigid structure on the ODP, you have lots of company. But ... what could you could offer to induce the ODP to accept your structure? or what force can you apply to a worldwide group of mostly anonymous volunteers? It's all just arguing about what kind of bell to put on the cat.
>Do the submission rules state that sites with flash navigation should not be submitted to ODP?
No, certainly not--flash-navigation sites will get reviewed eventually, but it's something that consistently slows down review of the site, for the obvious reason that fewer editors will be able to or want to review that site. It's an observation, not a command. I've been taken the wrong way on this point in the past. It's nothing but a good-sense tip: if you make your site accessible to more viewers, than you're more likely to have your site accessed by an editor more quickly. This only stands to reason.
I'm not complaining about Flash-only sites or even those submitted to the wrong category. They're not malicious, and they make little extra work for me. But they do have an increased likelihood of sitting in a back corner of the ODP somewhere for more than a year. Since people here are looking to avoid that fate, I thought it might be valuable advice to someone. Nothing more than that.
And it's been said by others, but you should be aware that any scheme suggesting we spend more time interacting with submitters (i.e. contacting them when they submit to the wrong place to explain to them what they did wrong in hopes that they will make better submissions in future), even if editors agreed to it, would necessarily take time away from our editing work. This would only worsen the problem with honest and savvy submitters bearing some of the burden of the spammy and clue-free. If we spent time individually instructing every inadept or guidelines-incompliant submitter about how to make a really good site suggestion, the review time would surely double or worse. For my part, I'd never go into a messy queue at all if that was the standard. Why would I want to spend 15 minutes coaching the webmaster of each bad submission in a pile of 200 submissions most of which were bad? Think how many great sites I could find and add to the directory myself during those 50 hours. ODP improvement ideas which make the submissions pool a more tedious and less time-effective place to find good sites are probably counterproductive for you as a person who'd like to submit site suggestions to us. Just a thought. (-:
There are also the Active-Virus sites (oh, I'm sorry, I mean Active-X). Even when I do start IE, I keep Active-X disabled. Javascript and Java are fine, but an addon which gives any smart hacker in the world access to my file-system? No thanks. Microsoft will never convince me they are serious about computer security until they strip that disease out.
BTW, I don't delete Active-X sites. They await review by some braver soul.
-- Rich
Because the presence of unlisted sites is no measure of comprehensiveness
It's about listing the sites ODP editors believe are the best sites for ODP users (based on the ODP guidelines). This is a constantly moving goal as old sites die, existing sites improve or degrade, and new sites come in. The further behind you get on updating a category the more useless the category becomes for ODP users. Adding the 500th site is vital if the existing 499 are dead.
CATEGORIES that lots of people happen to want to make money off of
ODP improvement ideas which make the submissions pool a more tedious and less time-effective place
to find good sites are probably counterproductive for you as a person who'd like to submit site suggestions to us
Think how many great sites I could find and add to the directory myself during those 50 hours
Suggestion one for DMoz: Fix the mailto link for suggestions. Otherwise you'll never know whether we webmasters have any useful suggestions or not. Then fix the search which is still not working. Then fix the site from going down like it did recently. Buy some better hosting or something ;)
But methinks they don't like suggestions, useful or otherwise.
.. and this thread is now beating the long dead horse's skeletal remains.
>If a category does not list the top 10 best sites in
>the world for that subject then ODP users are the
>losers.
True! This isn't in any way related to the state of the unreviewed queue, though. You can have one category that already has the top ten best sites for its subject yet still has 150 sites waiting in the unreviewed queue, and you can have another category that is missing most of the top ten best sites for its subject but has zero sites waiting in unreviewed and an industrious editor who would review any new site suggestion within a week. Not all of the top ten best sites for any given subject actively promote those sites at all, much less submit them to the ODP.
So having the best resources on a given subject missing from our directory is something that concerns us greatly, but the number of sites in the unreviewed pool is really no more relevant to that than the amount of average daily rainfall in Bermuda last August. There could be a million sites waiting there, or there could be sixteen; our directory would still have the exact same comprehensiveness level, and I'd still need to go out looking for the sites that aren't in the unreviewed queue at all if I wanted to make sure the top ten best ones were listed in each category.
As for dead or hijacked sites, our users do indeed care about that very much, and we welcome reports on that over on our board.
(interacting with submitters) would use up far too much of our time and make submissions wait even longer for processing
So having the best resources on a given subject missing from our directory is something that concerns us greatly
we welcome reports on that over on our board
g1smd, that's funny. You contradict my opinion in one line and prove that it's true in the second :)
It's linked from the ODP directory, it's linked from the submittal policy pages, it's mentioned by ODP editors so often that some people wonder if we're blog-spamming, and it's the first Google result for several reasonable ways of finding something like that. What do you want? Banners on webmasterworld? Billboards along I-20? Door-to-door salesmen? Super Bowl ads?
Macro, it was Lorel who made the suggestion about explaining submitters' mistakes to them via email so that they wouldn't make them again, not you. It was an interesting idea, but aside from the known problems with editors contacting submitters, it would use up far too much of our time and make submissions wait even longer for processing.
Yes, I said it but after hearing what you folks said about it I like Macro's suggestion a lot better--that ODP should set up a canned reply (just like they have in their submission status forum) so the editor can get useless sites out of their category quickly.
Lorel
Adding to flicker's post, using Flash isn't the only design decision which could slow review of sites. If they don't run well in Mozilla/Firefox, they frequently get skipped by editors. Compared to the general public, a very high percentage of ODP editors use Mozilla, Firefox, or Opera. Some of us will decide to start up IE then and there to take a look. Others will just keep it in the unreviewed queue. (Some editors don't have a choice -- they operate from Unix or Linux machines and don't even have IE available to them.)
Why use browsers that the public are not using? Every site I manage has at least 80% IE being used by the general public. So if ODP editors are judging sites by their favorite browser just because they find it more user friendly (or they have a Microsoft bias) doesn't mean it corresponds with the needs of the public.
PS. I don't like microsoft either--Yeah MAC!
Lori
Why use browsers that the public are not using?
Think about something. One name for the project was "Directory Mozilla", and most people still refer to it as DMoz -- even people who author IE-only sites. I don't think the disconnect is at our end. :)
-- Rich
It's not a policy decision. Editors use browsers they like. We're volunteers, and they couldn't force us to get a different computer set-up if they wanted to. (-:
ODP editors websurf a LOT. We open a lot of sites we know nothing about other than that they've been submitted. Some of them have spyware, adware, viruses, and other @#$! on them. We probably have to deal with that sort of thing more the average computer user, so it's not surprising that many editors tend to use browsers they feel are more secure and easier to protect, keep Flash and ActiveX and whatnot disabled, so on, so forth.
We don't discriminate against sites that don't work on our browsers, but if a site doesn't work on my computer, and I come across it, and have to leave it for someone else, the site has just missed one chance at being reviewed. Who know if it will miss another.
The best way to ensure that the very first editor who notices your site reviews it is to make sure it works on multiple browsers. Really, it's so easy to do anyway. Even if it lets only one more visitor/potential customer into your site per day, it's probably a good marketing decision on its own merits, and it can't be denied that it helps your chances of a speedier ODP listing too.
I spent ten years professionally reviewing, implementing, and testing to standards. I KNOW what they are worth in a way that you could never imagine. In a heterogenous environment like the web, I pick my browser not for my "likes" as you so sneeringly put it, but because it is in my judgment standards-compliant. If a site looks fine to me, it will probably look fine for anyone, forever, who chooses a standards-compliant browser. And anything -- ANYTHING -- I can do in my editing work will be measured against this criteria: DOES IT PROMOTE STANDARDS?
But you'd have me use the Mycosoft excreta-du-jour, knowing full well that next month they're going to put out a new release that breaks this one? (Not to mention there's no way in earth, heaven, or Redmond I'll let that virus-vector known as the Infernal Exploder on MY computer within spitting distance of the internet. I have valuable personal material there, and if your site doesn't get EVER reviewed because it's only viewable by opening my personal material up to every virus known to man, then you will have been well served.
I do not volunteer to shill for the Dark Lord of Redmond. I volunteered to help make information available to everyone, even those who couldn't afford the Microtrash Tax. That is a predeterminate decision based on religious principles. And your sneers, whines, and imprecations will not touch the hem of the garment of that decision.
Standards are every programmers' (and every users') protection against such vandals. But by their "embrace and extinguish" approach Microsoft tries to rob us of that which not enriches Bill, but makes us poor indeed.
And anything -- ANYTHING -- I can do in my editing work will be measured against this criteria: DOES IT PROMOTE STANDARDS?
if your site doesn't get EVER reviewed because it's only viewable by opening my personal material up to every virus known to man, then you will have been well served
This is another thing wrong with ODP. Editors can not review a site purely because they have a vendetta or paranoia about a particular browser even if that site is viewable by most of the rest of the internet population. An editor can exclude a site just because he doesn't like Microsoft and the site only works in a Microsoft browser?! An editor can effectively ban sites just because they were created in a certain authoring program? And if there isn't another editor for the cat then that site will stay forever in limbo?
Sure, you've got a big collection of ways - what you may believe are funny ways - of referring to Microsoft and its products. This only adds to the impression I have of a raving bigot who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a job involving using objective judgement and the ODP set of rules to include or exclude sites.
Sure, eds are volunteers, sure eds can use whatever browser they want. Sure, there is a bias if some pompous, self-appointed standards campaigner rants and raves about sites not deserving to be included if they are only viewable in the world's most used browser. And if such paranoid editors are allowed to edit on ODP - that's another thing wrong with the directory.
I wonder if BeeDeeDubbleU, flicker, et al concur with hutcheson's sentiments. Do you see ODP as an acceptable platform for waging a war to ensure standards compliance? Or, for that matter, to campaign against a particular browser?
BTW my "personal" site is Made with DW and "java'd" to work with IE ..cos thats what 99% of it's visitors use ...
but IE ..Secure .....ROTFALOL ....what I could do to those who come in with it if I wished to ....!
I surf ..from laziness and lack of space on this machine with IE 5.5....most of the time ...
ALSO ... I DO SECURITY ....and need to see what is trying to get me and others..... but "doze" secure ...hee hee ...no really ... : )))
My own practice is to view the site with some standard-compliant browser, and to list it if it's close enough to standards-compliant for the browser to handle it. If it is so broken that a standard-compliant browser can't view it, I label it as a warning, and leave it for someone else. As you probably know, I've recently argued in these same forums that Google shouldn't enforce standards for the universe; and the ODP can't either, for approximately the same reasons.
It should be self-evident that this is not "waging a war against any browser", it's refusing to be used as a tool to wage war against all non-Microsoft browsers. It's not a "campaign for standards," its a refusal to campaign against them. Microsoft is waging the war, and its shills regularly descend to personal attacks on anyone who doesn't close ranks against standards. Microsoft is the one who is bribing and tricking people into using proprietary codes to force other people into using the IE. I am not doing any of that. My own generated content is either XHMTL-validated, or verified to degrade gracefully to HTML 3 -- and as much as possible, both.
But the standard ODP policy is that any editor may decline to review any site at any time for any reason. If a reason is not universal (or not universally accepted), then some other editor can review the site. I'll not wage war AGAINST standards even for the ODP.
If you actually read flicker's post, rather than sneering and namecalling, you might have seen the reasons why many ODP editors avoid the IE. Anyone who has done serious surfing on the open net will have seen the same thing. On the same (public-access) computers, under serious load (that is, three or four browser windows, looking at any site submitted) you could count on the IE exploding within 30 minutes to 2 hours; and it would often bring Windows down in shards around itself. But even the version 1.0 Mozilla browser, running in a more hostile environment (that is, pages coded to attempt to break it: and since it is so much faster, often with more browser windows open) would often run all day without crashing, and never broke Windows. The current Mozilla seems to crash once a month or so, and never goes through the Window in its death throes. Viruses? None at all with Mozilla. Anyone who's had sysadmin experience on multiple platforms will tell you that a Microsoft system takes 5 to 20 times more time and effort to keep running than an equivalent *X system.
And as for "the latest patches:" you obviously have never had no contact with software engineering in any form. It has been generally known for forty years that the average patch for a mature software product introduces (on average) two new bugs. The IE was "mature" when Microsoft first bought the code, and it's positively senescent now. (There are ways of rejuvenating code, but a company has to recognize that the problem is not the bugs in the code, but the code around the bugs. Political managers are usually fiercely resistant to budgeting time for that, and so it takes a real technical commitment or a recognized major disaster to make that happen. You can probably guess how much managers like to recognize a major disaster in their bailiwick?)
And -- anyone with two neurons to rub together should have figured out by now: there's a new CRITICAL vulnerability discovered every week or so, and the average time between ANNOUNCEMENT and fix is several months. And the most important issue is the ActiveHex mentality: Microsoft doesn't consider it a bug that any web page in the world can do anything it wants to your system's hard drive and BIOS configuration! That's a "feature" that "customers were demanding." Their take on the problem (they really say this in public!) is that when you use software not approved by themselves, the fault is your own. And the solution is to change the hardware so that it will run no software not approved by Microsoft (hence the Palladium project.)
There is nothing in any of this that gives any sane person any confidence at all that a patch will improve things. Nobody in their right mind would suppose that a fully-patched system is safe in any sense at all.
[edited by: hutcheson at 2:01 pm (utc) on May 7, 2004]
but IE ..Secure .....ROTFALOL
Rubbish IE as much as you want for all it's bugs and problems. But ranting and raving about IE to the extent of saying that anyone who builds a site that is only viewable in IE deserves to and should be excluded from the DMoz directory is odious. To then add that excluding such sites is doing those webmasters a favour does not sound to me like sane, rational thinking; it does not sound to me like it's in the spirit of the ODP; it sounds to me more like an anti-Microsoft campaign. I don't find any mention anywhere that the ODP encourages this.
You can bang on about critical vulnerabilities and worm and viruses but the issue under discussion is not Microsoft or their business practices or what make of socks their CEO uses. It's about using ODP as a platform to vent your anger at a particular company. I've got no issues about how strongly for or against Microsoft you may be. I'm concerned with the extreme feelings you have against them that seem to be influencing this volunteer work you are doing.
As we've seen - this happens, and is obviously allowed to happen. I add this to my reasons of why I think the ODP is broken.
But ranting and raving about IE to the extent of saying that anyone who builds a site that is only viewable in IE deserves to and should be excluded from the DMoz directory is odious
Who said that, please, any when?
Thanks.
No, and neither does Hutcheson. He has strong personal and professional opinions about standards and computer security, which he has explained quite articulately, and the ODP is never going to force him to use an operating system he despises or a browser that doesn't have sufficient security for him. I use Internet Explorer, because that's what's on the computer I do most of my editing from, but the ODP is never going to force me to download Flash, which I don't want, or turn ActiveX on. We're a big-tent kind of organization. Hutcheson and another editor who is a Microsoft employee may be happily working side-by-side. We won't demand Hutcheson use Internet Explorer just because a lot of users do, and we won't demand the Microsoft employee test sites using other browsers for completeness' sake before publishing them. If sites will only work on Internet Explorer, Hutcheson won't be reviewing them. If sites don't work on Internet Explorer, then Microsoft Boy won't be the one reviewing them. We all do whatever work we're capable of and interested in, and at the end of the day, quite a bit of work will have gotten done. Why is this so difficult to understand?
It's not as if we go through *deleting* sites that require browsers or add-ons we don't use. But we're not slaves; we can use any personal computer setup we choose to for any reason we want, whether it's a well-thought-out reason like Hutcheson's security argument or a lazy reason like my finding it convenient to use a shared computer that already has a certain setup. Heck, I could buy an IMAC tomorrow sheerly because I like its color scheme. That would be my complete and total right. Whereas it's not really your _right_ to have your site reviewed by me, any more than it's your right to have your wares purchased by me. If you want to reach me, or Hutcheson, or Microsoft Boy, or anyone else, it's your responsibility to make sure your site is viewable by us. If you have a site that only functions on a Windows platform running Internet Explorer with Flash and ActiveX running, you are limiting the pool of editors who are able to or interested in reviewing your site, just as you are also limiting the pool of potential customers who are able to or interested in viewing your site. That's just common sense, man. The more compatible your site is with all possible users, the more likely it is that all possible editors are to be able to access it.
That's really all that's going on here. It's a matter of practical advice, not ODP policy.
*two cents*
[edited by: flicker at 3:10 pm (utc) on May 7, 2004]
As far as I can tell, no one has promoted the exclusion of IE-only sites. What we said was that the review of such sites may be delayed, or they may not be. A lot of editors use IE as their primary browser. They are not even aware that a site is IE-only, or buggy and fails to work in standards-compliant browsers.
The editors who do use standards compliant browsers have a choice. We can waste valuable editing time to support a webmaster who couldn't be bothered to check his site with Mozilla or Opera. Or we can skip by that one and review sites which work well. Note that a site need not be standards compliant to work in, say, Mozilla. It simply needs to avoid a dependence upon proprietary Microsoft "features". To a lesser extent the site should also avoid blatant standard-overrides Microsoft includes in its browsers (and adds as a default to its editing tools).
Mom & Pop operations may not be aware that FrontPage is a propaganda tool which is designed to make Mozilla look bad. (Microsoft refers to such practices as "innovation".) I feel sorry for them. But not too sorry. They can download Mozilla for free, and check that their site works. Not to satisfy ODP editors -- but to support all of their customers.
BTW, it is not just the Mom & Pop sites which fall prey to Microsoft's predatory behavior. It happens on sites of multi-million dollar companies too.
That all said, I will usually start up IE at the time I come upon a Mozilla-unfriendly site. Sites which intentionally block access by Netscape or Mozilla, though, are more likely to be reviewed at a later time. At that point I know the problem is not ignorance, but intentional disregard of their customers/visitors.
-- Rich
[edited by: RFranzen at 3:11 pm (utc) on May 7, 2004]
In a heterogenous environment like the web, I pick my browser not for my "likes" as you so sneeringly put it, but because it is in my judgment standards-compliant. . . . .And your sneers, whines, and imprecations will not touch the hem of the garment of that decision.
You are misinterpreting my intent here. There was no SNIDE comment and no SHEERS either.
I based my earlier comment on years of watching site meters on multiple sites (plus reading up on the same in a multitude of SEO articles) and I have NEVER seen a majority of anything but IE on the results and I don't even recall ever seeing a Mozilla or Opera ever visiting one of my sites--some of which have 3,000 visitors per week.
And therefore I still think that if ODP wants to reflect what the public uses then they will encourage their editors to use IE--and there are ways to protect any browser from viruses, etc.
PS. I have a MAC which is pretty much immune to PC viruses and I use a quality hosting service so it's not likely one would get a virus from my site. I also just got a PC but I will more than likely install Linux on it.
Lorel
This is a volunteer organization, Lorel. They can't make us change our personal comupter setups for such a ridiculous reason, and they wouldn't ask us to.
Another editor who is a friend of mine was until recently using a *486* to edit from, I'm not kidding. Undoubtedly a lot of modern sites didn't work on his machine, and he must have had to leave them for somebody else. Do you really think the ODP was going to 'encourage' him to buy himself a new computer out of his personal funds? Of course not! As long as he adds good sites to our directory, he's doing a great job as far as we're concerned.
Everyone does their share, and it's not terribly important to us as an organization WHICH 3000 sites get added on any given day, as long as they're good ones. Because it's important to webmasters, I try to give advice like "make your site accessible to non-Flash-users and non-IE users, submit it to the one correct category, use an appropriate title and description." This advice may make it more likely that YOUR site is one of the 3000 new ones added, which understandably matters to YOU. But even if your site requires IE, Flash, and Active-X, is submitted to the wrong category, and has a horrible title and description, it will eventually be reviewed, and if it's a good site, listed. The one who cares if this takes an extra 9 months is actually you, not us... there are plenty of other sites to review and add, after all, and it doesn't matter to us which one is first and which one is last. If it doesn't matter to you either, then please feel free to disregard the advice. It won't affect anything except the speed of review. (-:
Go to the category where I want to submit a site--run several sites through the ZDnet validator (which shows browsers the site will not be compatible with) and take note of which browsers they are compatible with and if there is a definite pattern then make sure my site is compatible with the same browser before submitting--or watch the ODP forums for that editor and try and find out what he/she prefers.
It will take hours and hours to do this but what the hey! that's less than 12 months going the other route.
