Forum Moderators: open
thanks
navdeep
It seems strange that your site gets virtually no Mozilla or Opera hits. My domain gets about 8% Mozilla (actually a bit higher than 9%, but I am subtracting some to disregard my own accesses).
Top 15 of 907 Total User Agents
....Hits.... User Agent
10370 13.55% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
10043 13.12% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1
.5327. 6.96% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)
.5100. 6.66% Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko
.2809. 3.67% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)
.2637. 3.45% Googlebot/2.1 (+http://www.googlebot.com/bot.html)
.2384. 3.11% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1
.1659. 2.17% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Win32)
.1354. 1.77% Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko
.1127. 1.47% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; FunWebProd
.1095. 1.43% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90)
..959. 1.25% Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko
..883. 1.15% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Q312461; A
..756. 0.99% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0)
..667. 0.87% Java 1.1
I believe you, though. Perhaps my site receives more than average Mozilla ("Gecko") hits because it is informational and completely non-commercial. I don't really know why.
-- Rich
Making your site as broadly accessible as possible seems like a good idea not only from an ODP-review-speed perspective, but also from a business perspective. Even if only 5% of websurfers use browsers other than Internet Explorer, who would turn down an extra 5% boost in sales? (-: And where the ODP is concerned, you're giving yourself the extra chance of a non-IE-using editor coming upon your site before it would have been listed by an IE-using category editor and publishing it himself. Seems like a win-win to me!
I don't use IE to review sites (and I review lots of sites); I use Safari or Firefox or even Mozilla. Websites that say "Sorry, our site is optimized only for Internet Explorer" and then tell me to get another browser do not get listed by me. I adjust the description to mention IE-only criteria and leave it in unreviewed for someone else.
Others do the same I'm sure.
If you want a relatively prompt listing, read the guidelines for titles and descriptions, make sure your site doesn't shut down visitors for using the "wrong" browser, and put lots of original content where it's easy to find.
I submitted a site to DMOZ 2 weeks ago, expecting it to take a while - the same day (later on that night) an editor came by and listed my site on DMOZ within 48 hours.
Guess I was very lucky with the category!
Think whatever you want. And shill for the Dark Lord of Redmond wherever you want. (The moderators here have certainly allowed me to speak for standards and freedom, and I won't try to take away your right.) But I know that nobody who is interested either in free content or in personally securable computers will ever be encouraging anyone to use the IE.
But the fact remains, the ODP was sponsored by Netscape and is still part of the Netscape division of AOL/TW.
>and there are ways to protect any browser from viruses, etc.
Of course there are. I have a firewall that prevents IE from ever accessing any communication port of the machine. That's not complete protection, of course: the machine is still connected to power, but I always unplug it before running the IE.
It's worse than that. My understanding of the ODP guidelines is that if I can't review a site because of the limitations of my system, I can leave it in unreviewed with an appropriate note. Sure, some wandering editall or meta may find it. Then again, if this is the sole site in unreviewed in that cat, and I went through all the rest, why would a single site in unreviewed in a cat I can edit in stand out to the editalls and metas? It ain't like a cat with one unreviewed site stands out like a sore thumb at the ODP. Really, last I checked the ODP wasn't lacking for unreviewed sites. It ain't like alarm bells sound at the ODP if on some Tuesday I happen to review sites using Mozilla.
So I'll take it sir that reviewing sites using other than IE is acceptable at the ODP?
So the system isn't perfect. Garbage occasionally slips through because someone happened to hit on the one browser that wouldn't choke on it; listable sites occasionally get deleted because the webmaster was too dim to say up front "Yo, surfer! If you don't have the XYZ version 6.32.1.1 browser, then get lost and die now!" and the reviewer saw only a blank screen.
Thanks for the rant space!
It seems strange that your site gets virtually no Mozilla or Opera hits. My domain gets about 8% Mozilla . . . I believe you, though. Perhaps my site receives more than average Mozilla ("Gecko") hits because it is informational and completely non-commercial. I don't really know why.
I just checked my site again 100% of the hits are accounted for and it's 85% IE, not 80 and the rest Netscape. Maybe mine doesn't count Mozilla or Opera but if so then why add up to 100%? I don't know. I'm using Site Meter.
And my site is commercial but I have mega information on my site and that is mostly what draws the traffic.
Lori
Seems like the bottom line with ODP (backlogs aside) is if you want to maximize your chances of geting listed, write a good title and description, create top-notch content and make sure the site works in a variety of browsers.
There is also a browser forum [webmasterworld.com] which is a better place to discuss browsers.
More knowldgeable bowser mods in the browser forums too! :)
Seems like the bottom line with ODP (backlogs aside) is if you want to maximize your chances of geting listed, write a good title and description, create top-notch content and make sure the site works in a variety of browsers.
This is quite well summarised Skibum. It has been said before but we are volunteers. Some of us have more time than others so when submitting to the ODP this should be considered. Here are some other bullet points ...
1. Follow the guidelines.
2. Try to make your submission as easy as possible for the editor to manage.
3. Don't load Titles and Descriptions with keywords and superlatives.
4. If you have any doubts about whether a site will be acceptable it is probably not.
5. Don't do anything that will cause unnecessary work for an editor.
6. If you are not sure how to form your title and description look at how other sites in your category have done it.
Remember that if a submission looks like it has been formulated carefully and follows the rules it will only take a few seconds for an editor to include it. Make the editor's job easier and you should be fine.
I just checked my site again 100% of the hits are accounted for and it's 85% IE, not 80 and the rest Netscape. Maybe mine doesn't count Mozilla or Opera but if so then why add up to 100%? I don't know. I'm using Site Meter.
Do they break down Internet Explorer by version? If so, you would likely see IE 6, IE 5.5, and IE 5 hits listed in that order.
Within Netscape family, which includes Mozilla, you would see something on the order of 80% Mozilla 1.x, 15% Netscape 4.x, 3% Netscape 3.x and 2% a mishmash of Netscape 2.x (they're still out there), Netscape 5.x, Netscape 6.x, and Netscape 7.x. Their was never actually a Netscape 5.x, but I believe some early pre-1.0 Mozillas reported themselves as such. Netscape 6.x is a Netscape-branded Mozilla 0.9x, and Netscape 7.x is the Netscape-branded Mozilla 1.x.
About 6 months ago Netscape announced they would no longer release versions. Doing so had become kind of silly. They were Mozilla, packaged with AIM, REAL networks, and a couple other 3rd-party things. Users of Netscape-branded browsers also have access to free web-based email at netscape.com (or maybe netscape.net, don't remember).
Back on topic, with 15% of your potential customers using Netscape family browsers, do you really want to turn them away? Personally I don't design for Netscape 4.x any more. Just like IE 4.x, its support for CSS is really flaky. (Both were designed before CSS became an official standard.) Well-designed CSS sites still function in Netscape 4.x, but there will be multiple formatting irregularities. In my experience, content is still accessible, however. It's not like an ActiveX-based navigation system which actually shuts non-IE people out.
-- Rich
BeeDeeDubbleU wrote: There is a rule that we editors should basically not write to submitters. I personally think that this should be relaxed to allow us to make a standard reply to those who have submitted crappy site telling them that their site has not been accepted. This in itself would help to eliminate many of the complaints from people who think that they are on a waiting list.
Lorel wrote: And re regional submissions--how do you know that the author of the site wants it in a regional category unless you ask them? Again, you are assuming something without sufficient knowledge. Just because a person lives in a certain city doesn't mean they want their site listed in a regional category. Their business may be national in nature and you won't know that unless you ask.
Lorel wrote: Do the submission rules state that sites with flash navigation should not be submitted to ODP? Do the submission rules state which validator should be used to be certain all sites are viewed in all browsers (not all validators provide the same info)? And if so were those rules in place last year when the sites were submitted?
Lorel wrote: PS. I don't like microsoft either--Yeah MAC!
Lorel wrote: 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.
flicker wrote: Another editor who is a friend of mine was until recently using a *486* to edit from, I'm not kidding.
I've had to leave sites in unreviewed on a large number of occasions because the designer figured it was OK to just code for Windows/IE and to heck with anyone using anything else.
As designers will do! Whether you like it or not these people are in business and must make a profit. In most cases they don't have the resources to devote to minority group development. It's MAC users that have an allegiance to MACs, no one else.
I thank you are being a bit unreasonable here. What is it now, less than 1% of people who use a Mac? People are entitled to use MACs if they so choose but they cannot reasonably expect everyone else to design specifically for them. You should perhaps think about considering the overwhelming majority first.
Remember also that the ODP says that "design alone is rarely a valid reason to deny a listing for an otherwise content rich site."
My first couple of years of editing were done primarily on a 486 50MHz system (and even up to about a year and a half ago, it was my primary home computer). I couldn't view any site that loaded Flash or Java as it would lock up my system. Not everyone on the planet has a cutting edge computer...or a broadband connection.
You need to be reasonable here too. I would agree that broadband is an issue because it is not yet available in all regions but the vast majority of people use machines that are well capable of being used on the Internet. People should not apply to be editors if they do not have the tools to the job. It is not necessary or perhaps even advisable for them to use "cutting edge" computers but neither should they be reviewing site on PCs that are relics of a bygone era.
Remember also that the ODP says that "design alone is rarely a valid reason to deny a listing for an otherwise content rich site."
The difference here is between "denying a listing to a site" (i.e. deleting the submission) and "not listing a site" (i.e. leaving the submission in the unrevieweds, for other editors having the requisite plugins installed, Javascript enabled, etc. to review.).
It would indeed be unreasonable to delete a site just because it wasn't compatible with all browsers and computer systems in existence.
It would be much, much more unreasonable to insist that a Mac-using editor buy a Windows machine, though. Or that a 486-using editor upgrade. Or that an editor concerned about security install ActiveX or even Flash.
There are a lot of sites in unreviewed, and even more sites are out there that nobody's submitted at all but belong in the ODP. I could add good sites for the next 5 years without ever touching a site that didn't work on a '95 Mac running Linux, or any other weird and unpopular combination you could think of. The ODP is a big place. None of us needs to shell out for new computer hardware or software to contribute to it.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with profit. You can profit perfectly well by coding to standards. It has to do with ethics and competance. Well, the ODP lists sites by stupid and/or crooked webmasters, and yet there is no reason at all they shouldn't receive a lower priority in the vast pool of sites (submitted and unsubmitted) waiting review.
Let me see. Using my own equipment, I donate a few thousand hours of my own time, doing work for which I am unusually skilled, to make the internet a better place.
And you are demanding, as a matter of moral judgment, that I deprive all of society of what I have done (and therefore must have had the tools to do) simply because I didn't enrich Bill Gates by a few thousand dollars first?
I reject that perverse notion of obligation with abhorrence and contempt. The ODP has not and does not and will not place any restrictions on the kind of equipment or services that editors are required to purchase. We will accept whatever work they are able to do with the equipment they choose to use (even if it's the Infernal Exploder). Suggesting that we do otherwise will affect your reputation rather than influence the community.
As designers will do! Whether you like it or not these people are in business and must make a profit. In most cases they don't have the resources to devote to minority group development. It's MAC users that have an allegiance to MACs, no one else.I thank you are being a bit unreasonable here. What is it now, less than 1% of people who use a Mac? People are entitled to use MACs if they so choose but they cannot reasonably expect everyone else to design specifically for them. You should perhaps think about considering the overwhelming majority first.
Remember also that the ODP says that "design alone is rarely a valid reason to deny a listing for an otherwise content rich site."
You need to be reasonable here too. I would agree that broadband is an issue because it is not yet available in all regions but the vast majority of people use machines that are well capable of being used on the Internet. People should not apply to be editors if they do not have the tools to the job. It is not necessary or perhaps even advisable for them to use "cutting edge" computers but neither should they be reviewing site on PCs that are relics of a bygone era.
People should not apply to be editors if they do not have the tools to the job.
I did not suggest that editors had any obligation or that they had to have any specific equipment. What I was trying to say was that they could do the job a lot better and easier if they had reasonable equipment, that's all.
What do I tell a new editor: "We don't want you as an editor as you can only review 500 of the 600 sites that are waiting"? Of course not. We are grateful for every edit that every editor does.
Hmm, this thread also has some overlap with the topic in: [webmasterworld.com...]
The job of ODP editors isn't to make profits for e-commerce sites. And, I wasn't aware that all Mac browsers can't handle standards compliant code.
Actually, that's pretty darn insulting too. Are you suggesting that my friend shouldn't have been permitted to become an editor because he couldn't afford an up-to-date machine? (He is retired, living on a veteran's pension I believe, and comes from a very, very rural background.) Are you suggesting people like this should not be welcome at the ODP?
And you are telling OTHER people to get off their high horses? *shakes head* So what if he doesn't review any sites that require fancy equipment to view? They wouldn't have gotten reviewed any faster if he WASN'T there. And some of the sites which ARE viewable on his computer got reviewed a lot faster than they would have without him. What, exactly, is having him on board hurting anybody? Except your sense of--forgive me, but this is the politest thing I can think to call it--elitism?
I'm glad the people who are in charge there are broader minded than to implement any such thing, that's all I can say...
I believe the best thing for any webmaster and SEO specialist to do is to remember that the ODP is a volunteer human operated directory. I have never read rants like these about the Yahoo directory. I find that strange.
BTW, I use Mozilla because when using IE I was burned by a submitted site that planted the meanest virus I've ever seen and it took me forever to fix my computer. Now that I have learned some things about securing my computer, (can't be done with IE, really), I use Mozilla. But, I still have IE, Opera, AOL and Yahoo browsers and even an old copy of Mosaic from years back to check sites with if I can't see them with Mozilla. And yes, sites loose points with me if they force me to use IE but only a couple of points and as long as there is good content a person would want to see it will get listed.
Descriptions, titles and placing in the right category. You'd be amazed at how many points you score if you do it right so I don't have to spend five minutes fixing and finding where the site should go. Still has to have good content though as that is what it is all about.
Writing good content takes effort and a bunch of time. It isn't easy but if you want to succeed it is worth the time.
Being nice goes a long way for you. So does being a jerk, only in the wrong direction. Computer search programs don't have feelings but people do and even with the best of intentions any person is going to be less likely to help when somebody is giving them problems.
Don't make assumptions about why things are happening. The inner workings of being an editor are actually complicated and there are many factors involved with whether a site is listed, waiting, deleted, etc..
Don't give up, just learn from your mistakes. You'd be surprised at what you can accomplish.
About applying to be an editor, keep trying to become an editor and listen to the other editors, don't argue. Learn from them instead. Adding a couple of good unique sites to the directory each week is well worth the time considering that you can get your site listed (if it has unique content) without waiting in your own category. If we had a few million editors working like that there would be no backlogs. Every bit of help is welcomed, just be sure to listen and learn the rules.
About being frustrated, remember that you are not going to change anything so learn how to play by the rules instead. If you want, make your own directory. Several people do and it is much harder than you'd think. But if you want to work with DMOZ learn it's rules. Just like you learn Google's rules or Inktomi or Yahoo, etc..
:)
