Forum Moderators: open
Nowdays I only pass through when I submit new sites. In the regional area where most of my sites are placed everything seems to be showing "This category needs an editor".
For the first time ever I have a site that seems to be still waiting for a review after several months. That's not a beef, just a comment, but when looked at in the context of no editors being available, I'm beginning to wonder if this volunteer dependant model is showing signs of stress?
Any ODP people in our midst able to advise the size of the unedited backlog?
A good indicator something is foul with a site is when it has been in the directory quite a while but still shows no pagerank ( al least no PR on the directory page, go to the site and it might show in the G toolbar )
The first site I run across in the first cat I open up to has two sites at the bottom w/ no PR.
I visit one, and see it lost it's PR cuz it is a mirror site, and the site it is mirroring is listed as well. ( evidently G is giving PR to the site it considers the main site )
The point is, it is easier than snot to find these sites.
DMOZ has staff, why not add ten full timers to clean it up? Is AOL Time Warner hurting for money?
If AOL/ Time/ Netscape doesn't care about the ODP, that should say something about its true condition, no?
I submitted a site to the proper cat.
It did not get listed.
Even after I saw the editor was affiliated with a competitor, I wrote and politely asked it be included. ( Out of courtesy I did not mention that his site has outdated content; neither did I mention that mine gets 3 times more traffic. )
Still not listed, so I wrote to a higher-up editor. ( I won't mention your name <snip> )
Still not listed, and no reply.
[edited by: Marcia at 12:59 am (utc) on Oct. 3, 2002]
[edit reason] no hurling accusations at the board, please [/edit]
If someone brings up their site in the public forum, its either gonna be a good site or something that doesn't merit a listing and its usually pretty obvious from the get-go. Those sites that get brought up in the forums probably get more scrutiny by editors and non editors than most submissions that are not brought up in the forums. If they pass muster there, they can probably pass any review the category editor may give them at a later date.
It is still volunteer, nothing is guaranteed, there is no need to bring $$$$ into the equation, and it could slow some of the negative (justified or unjustified) stuff about ODP on the web.
For the exact reason you stated : "Sure, it may get the site listed ahead of some other submissions...."
I wouldn't appreciate that if I was a submitter that waited 6-months to have a site listed and someone can just post a message and get their site listed within minutes. ;)
I'm not suggesting that it should be setup so that you submit and a day or a week later you should be able to post about the site and get it listed, but if its been in the queue for a couple months and isn't already listed in the directory, a nice personable thing to do would be to list the site.
Maybe an editor spends a few hour wading through spam, maybe its really monotonous, frustrating, and discouraging to read about how bad people think ODP is. (There is nothing better on the web IMHO) Wouldn't it be cool to spend a few minutes and really make someone's day after all that just by listing a a couple of legit sites people were inquiring about? If it is Spam or an affiliate, don't even bother to respond.
It's obviously very challenging to come up with a perfect solution due to various constraints but this seems like a small step that could benefit those on both sides of the coin.
I like to think I do this with every site I add to the directory ;)
My own "opinion" is still no, there shouldn't be a fast-track to getting a listing. I get emailed quite often from submitters asking me to list their "excellent" site that is so much better then what's in the categories I edit and to top it off they "get 5-times the traffic" of the best site listed...... I do not respond.
I feel for you as a webmaster and editor.
(BTW, my sites were all listed before I became an editor and I wouldn't touch their listings with a 10-foot pole)
Webmaster has an self replicating affiliate website.
The site has some GOOD STUFF that sells only to residents in the USA.
He/she submits to [dmoz.org...]
TRUE STORY
>The enquiry part of your argument, is already operational and handles over a hundred requests per week.
...great place but it's not "official"...and as someone pointed out, not everybody knows it exists. It is also not part of the application process, nor does ODP ever mention it besides the listing. What I suggested was one single official place to go... a place where I can list a url or state an editors name, unlike here.
>I wouldn't appreciate that if I was a submitter that waited 6-months to have a site listed and someone can just post a message and get their site listed within minutes.
I still maintain the problem is waiting 6 months... and that isn't the worst of it ...not knowing if the end is in site, not knowing if you are actually waiting, or forgotten, or rejected.... that is what compounds the anxiety. If you knew it would be only 2 months, the end would be in site and it wouldn't be so bad... but I agree with this.... you can't have such discrepancies in the same cat or between cats.
Here is an idea... write it into the code that a site can't be accepted or rejected out of que... meaning that the editors would be powerless to help someone unless they wanted to do so by editing the sites in front of them. That would be a great idea. I bet the editors would hate that though... it would take away quite a bit of their power to help friends or their selves... no more favors. Then what would happen is all the people who have learned to be 'nice' to get a site in, wouldn't have that option available to them.... and then you would start to see the masses turn a little ugly, because these are the more vocal people... and pretty soon somebody much smarter than me would recommend a 2 month cap on a backlog:) First Come, First Served.... sounds painfully fair to me. Can't think of one legit reason why an editor would need to let some site in ahead of another...ever.
>And for those that keep insisting that Yahoo has increased in “quality” since PFI – think again.
I haven't heard anyone say that... the only thing I said was that it cut down on the spam they got.
>The only piece missing is to inform the submitter what happened to the site
That is the ONLY piece that matters to me, the submitter.... that is the part that makes it fair. I am finally starting to see a pattern here.... I think the editors ought to take off their X-ray vision goggles and take a look at what the average Joe sees.... which is nothing. If an editor wants to see something, they say, 'well, I'll just log in here and get a good feel for the situation'... well, poor dumb Joe can't do that... he's like a mushroom (heheeh kept in the dark and fed crap all day:)) I, for one, am sick of all the secrecy.... ODP ain't so OPEN IMHO
>Even if we guaranteed a reply email, I'll bet that many would not be received due to being temporary on nonexistent email addresses quoted.
Well, that is the fault of the spammy submitter... might give them an incentive to use a real one.... but who cares about them? What about all the legitimate people who use real emails? These are the people who deserve the reply. Sure many wouldn't, but 'many' isn't 'most', and the ones who didn't get it took themselves out of the equation... you at least gave them a chance.
Let's take a look at what I refer to ODP generated spam. When I can find a page from a site listed in a category and this same page has devoted equal space to text as it does to ads(these ads are not country specific). All this implies is that, this is the standard I must meet or surpass to get a listing anywhere in the directory. And, if I do have a large site that covers many topics, it is acceptable to submit any page to any category as long as it is relevent. What I have just discribed generates some of the spam that the editors are complaining about.
I will let anyone know the exact page and category that is listed in by sticky mail. We should track this one just to see if this is the policy and standard of the ODP.
...that's a strong link. That's more in line with what I was thinking... something that's tied in... and on the 'thank you' page after the submit, so the submitter knows it exists and, more importantly, is endorsed. To me, there are too many forums and places to go... there needs to be one central official place so that there is no confusion, and nothing outside 'the system'.
DMOZ has staff, why not add ten full timers to clean it up? Is AOL Time Warner hurting for money?
Unless someone has been doing a lot of hiring on the quiet, as I understand it DMOZ is literally down to 2 full time staff
write it into the code that a site can't be accepted or rejected out of que(ue)... meaning that the editors would be powerless to help someone unless they wanted to do so by editing the sites in front of them
Seems like a very good idea, perhaps one of the lurking meta's could say why this is not eminently feasible?
perhaps one of the lurking meta's could say why this is not eminently feasible?
First off, I don't dislike the idea entirely. However you have to remember that the unreviewed queue is not the be-all or end-all. Editors are encouraged to go out and hunt for sites by themselves, and they are allowed to circumnavigate the queue entirely and add the site directly into the directory.
Secondly, it would prevent an editor from going through the queue and deleting all of the spam submissions (which is the first thing most editors do), before getting down to the meat of the actually queue.
First, you don't want a response, you really want a listing: and requiring responses with each listing would take more time, not less; would cause more stress for editors, not less; and would therefore leave the ODP with fewer people to do less work. If you want to kill the project, this is an excellent and perhaps an optimum approach. But you can hardly expect cooperation from the editors.
Second, there are basically only two kinds of responses (other than "I'd be reviewing it now if I weren't being interrupted by expletives-deleted demanding responses.") One is: "it's listed," in which case obviously no response is needed since the reaction is visible. The other is, "it's not worth listing -- it's just spam:" and the submitters of those sites are the ones that for the good of the project we generally should NOT respond to -- these are the people whose help we most especially do not want to have! May they go away in frustration and bug somebody else! May they die a slow, debilitating, disfiguring, and painful demise, exacerbated by the niggling frustration of not knowing how, or even whether, their spam is progressing through the alimentary system of the ODP! Should we relieve them of their misery, or rub nettles in their bedsheets? For the public good, and not only for our own satisfaction, nettles are strongly indicated.
So, agreed, the editors generally don't respond to submitters. That is the advice we give them. Editors do have a choice to respond if they wish. Some do: some wish they hadn't. That's why we give that advice. Nobody's wishes can change the facts we've learned by experience.
Understood, the submitters don't like this. But we are willing to do without help from people who cause more work than they help with: and requiring responses to submittals, quite simply, is more work than the submittals are worth. You can add this to the (long) list of things that the ODP is not, and can't be.
Off the wall aside: I reviewed a site yesterday and had problems accessing it. I actually went to get the e-mail address to contact the submitter. He had given a false e-mail address to protect himself against something -- perhaps spam, perhaps recognition as a known spammer. It didn't matter, in either case he got his wish -- no contact. And no listing.
In theory, this sounds pretty good. In reality, if the queue is long in a given topic, it is sometimes more efficient to deal with the obvious, quick decisions - spam deletes, moves to other cats, obvious on-topic submittals of legitimate sites that can be accepted quickly. Some sites take more study - perhaps researching to figure out if there is a better cat, checking for mirror sites, waiting for what may be a transient server problem to clear up... I confess that although I always sort by date for editing (putting the oldest first), I will sometimes skip ahead if I see sites that can be accepted or disposed of very quickly.
I do agree, though, that such a system might help clear backlogs. On the other hand, might not a crooked editor eager to list a new site of his own resolve that problem by deleting the sites ahead of his in the queue? As a site owner, I guess I'd just as soon be sitting in a queue as opposed to being deleted out of hand; at least in the queue, I stand a chance of a higher level editor or new editor stepping in to cut the backlog.
the unreviewed queue is not the be-all or end-all.
The glib response would be that it is the be all and end all if it is over a million long!
The more measured response is that I would doubt that many DMOZ editors actually go out and build categories any more. Apart from the odd frenzied soul who is building their "career" in DMOZ most additions to the directory are from the queue. But despite the substantial efforts of all concerned, unreviewed appear to be doomed to continue to grow at an increasing rate.
I invite you to call my bluff on that statement.
To:-
write it into the code that a site can't be accepted or rejected out of que(ue)... meaning that the editors would be powerless to help someone unless they wanted to do so by editing the sites in front of them
it would prevent an editor from going through the queue and deleting all of the spam submissions (which is the first thing most editors do), before getting down to the meat of the actually queue.
I don't dislike the idea entirely.
(ahhh... I knew I spelled it wrong... even my spell checker didn't know what I was talking about)
>Editors are encouraged to go out and hunt for sites by themselves, and they are allowed to circumnavigate the queue entirely and add the site directly into the directory.
...that's ok... but if they are going to tackle the queue, then do it in order.... I'm sure every editor has their own style but if there are a 100 sites that need reviewed, it will take exactly as long to go through all of them, no matter how you do it.... if you like to kill all the spam first and get down to the 'meat' it may look better that you made 100 into 20, but realistically I don't see how any time was really saved... so might as well do it in order?
>The other is, "it's not worth listing -- it's just spam:"
... you missed one... "I'm a crooked editor and nobody, including you, knows what I'm doing, so I'm going to do what I want"... you HAVE to give me that... not EVERY site rejected is spam... you have never addressed how a submitter is supposed to deal with that.... for all we know, it's still in the queue.
>May they die a slow, debilitating, disfiguring, and painful demise
....And same to all the crooked editors, and the lazy ones who don't update their cat once a month:)
>Apart from the odd frenzied soul
ROFLLLLLLL
Quite true, however the eggheads that develop theories of how to maximize customer satisfaction through efficient manufacturing note that a factory can employ different scheduling strategies. One of these, "smallest jobs first", actually produces the largest numbers of satisfied customers (at the expense of those customers with the longest jobs who wait forever). In fact, most operations employ a mixed strategy that combines "first in, first out" with other strategies like "squeeze in batches of small jobs between big ones". Not to get all theoretical on ya, dogboy, but the same total time isn't necessarily the same total level of customer service. ;) (Did you ever get in line behind the guy who's ordering hamburgers for the entire office when all you want is a small coke? If the clerk handles the orders FIFO in that case, he's going to have an angry mob on his hands.)
>> Here is an idea... write it into the code that a site can't be accepted or rejected out of que... meaning that the editors would be powerless to help someone unless they wanted to do so by editing the sites in front of them. <<
It has merit, but another potential flaw would be that people might then submit worthless rubbish ad nauseum to a category in the days after the category is edited, so that newer and relevant submissions from rivals are then caught behind a big queue of spam.
>> in DMOZ most additions to the directory are from the queue. <<
Most, probably are ('most' meaning more than 50%) but there are huge areas of the directory built entirely by editors adding sites they have found rather then ones that have been submitted: many parts of Regional are built by editors looking up every business in their town, in newspapers, phone books, web searches, and looking at storefronts. Many hobby categories are built the same way. In a part of the directory that I edit in, only 5 out of 275 sites were submitted 'from the outside'.
[edited by: g1smd at 11:22 pm (utc) on Oct. 4, 2002]
if there are a 100 sites that need reviewed, it will take exactly as long to go through all of them, no matter how you do it
Actually that's not true at all. I'm not going to explain why exactly, but editors have several methods of reviewing a site in a queue.
And same to all the crooked editors
I wholeheartedly agree.
and the lazy ones who don't update their cat once a month
And we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Simply because an editor does not touch a given category in a month has no relation to how lazy they are.
>> Simply because an editor does not touch a given category in a month has no relation to how lazy they are. <<
I know of several categories that haven't received any submissions for at least a year, and at least one that hasn't had a submission since sometime in 1999, so what exactly is there to 'update'.
I agree there is a problem, but I doubt it is the editors fault. Is the system.
The ODP editors refuse to edit - they hang around here instead.
I have resisted responding to this thread because it tends to be an 'us vs. them' towards the end.
However, for what it's worth, I have spent many, many hours over the past week editing. I did this in spite of the fact that my own website need some updating. I kid you not. I have spent hours upon hours editing and adding new websites based on this thread alone.
I am not pleased. I am busting my butt, (even doing it at work where I would get into trouble)...I am working to list everything I can to help.
Yes, the unreviewed may be stacking up. So I try to do my best, at the expense of MY OWN website to get everything listed that is proper.
I am distressed by the blanket statements and accusations that are on this thread. Not every editor hangs out here.
Some of us are actually quite busy...and this on top of a full-time 'day-job'.
In summation:
I'm sorry your website hasn't been listed. Perhaps you could lend a hand by applying to become an editor? I sure could use a break to get some time to update my own website....
What's the use?
1. They need more editors
2. It's a given that some editors are selfish.
How does DMOZ know I'll be good or not without giving me a chance? Who knows? I could be a terrific asset. Instead, I'm turned down with a canned reply.
<added> Just realized I've been here a year! Could I have a shout out please?!
If somone is knowlegeable in a field, wouldn't it be likely that they have some financial ties to it?
So if I own an ecommerce site in the category I am applying for, does that automatically disqualify me?
Would it be better if I masked my identity and said that I have been a <insert category> enthusiast all my life, but could never endeavor to profit from it?
Why filter people BEFORE they become editors? Wouldn't it be better to focus on filtering the people who are not doing a good job as editors now? And keep adding editors and give them a chance to prove themselves?
