Forum Moderators: open
One that can only be a bigger burden than ever with Google's near monopoly on search... and ODP being so deeply in bed with them.
I have no doubt that DMOZ submissions and editor apps have gone through the roof over the last 12 months.
We are constantly hearing the moaning and umbrage from webmasters that are having trouble getting their sites listed.
Think about this though...
ODP's most important order of business is maintaining a quality directory for their end users.
What do you think is a greater priority when looking at it from a user-centric perspective?
Adding new sites?
or
Making sure that their existing links and structure are on topic, valuable, and easy to navigate.
Which do you think does more damage to their credibility?
A visitor hitting their target category and finding one less link out of dozens?
or
A visitor finding just one site that is irrelevant, doesn't match the editorial description, or is now defunct.
To all that are constantly bemoaning how they've been left out in the cold by the ODP Illuminati...
All you care about is *your* site and having those visitors find you.
The reality is, unless your page has completely unique content that cannot be found anywhere else in the directory and there's a visitor specifically searching for it... they're not even going to notice that you're not included in the directory.
To heck with their clogged queues.
Given it's existing situation, I for one think that the greatest improvement DMOZ could make would be to prune an enormous amount of the dead weight and mediocre sites that are clogging it's arteries.
As for changing the existing situation...
Those app counts and submission queues are only going to keep getting more and more out of control in the weeks and months to come.
Everybody in the website promotion world is talking about the importance of a DMOZ listing now... The most important search engine in the world *declares* it in their webmaster FAQs.
You think the wait to get in is bad now?
Heh. Unless some major changes are made... see where things are at in just a few more months as this trend continues.
Now let's look at the situation as it exists, and what could be done about it.
An enormous amount of unnecessary extra work is being created for their editors in the way of duplicate submissions due to their lack of communication with webmasters.
If they set up a standard operating procedure that included a much more comprehensive autoresponder and form email system, I'm certain tens of thousands of duplicate submissions and repeated follow up emails could be averted.
There are so many things that could be automated.
Without any additional effort necessary on the part of the editors, a sequential autoresponder could send out weekly follow ups letting the submitter know that their site is still in line for review.
If a site's been in queue for 8 weeks it could be automatically bumped up to the next editor.
An automated system where webmasters could log in and check the status of their submissions could be implemented. This would even further reduce their editor's workload due to the constant barrage of resubmissions and email queries.
Some hardline standards could be added as well.
As soon as a submission's been received, an autoreply could be sent out stating that any resubmission within an 8 week period will result in a ban.
When a site is declined, they could allow one appeal within 30 days if changes have been made to the site. Then one appeal to an editor up the ladder. In the case of a double decline notify the submitter that no additional submissions will be accepted for 6 months, and violating these TOS will result in a permanent ban.
If many of these things sound like the way a paid service would be run... you're right.
No business person paying their staff would ever settle for the horrible inefficiency of the current situation. The fact that all of the editors are volunteers makes the current abuses of their time even more inexcusable.
I understand that ODP is a volunteer effort and with that comes a great deal of politics in instituting major changes... but if even a few rock solid strategies were implemented from the top down, the workload would be better managed, and the efficient use of their editor's time could be exponentially increased.
That enhanced productivity could cut down those monstrous queues and allow for more time spent checking and pruning their existing links and architecture.
End result?
A better directory for not only the editors... but for the end users as well.
Finally! A way to get my competition banned!
Finally! A way to get my competition banned!
lol :)
Easily protected against.
1) We're talking about a page that's not already in the directory. You'd have no way of knowing that they were even in the queue.
2) Password protect each submission. (This would be necessary to implement the submission status feature anyway)
First of all, I want to say that I agree with most of what you're saying. You are making valid points and helpul suggestions, and I, at least, appreciate it. On the other hand, a few lines of your post really touched a raw nerve. This the PERFECT example as to why some people feel so frusterated and feel the need to vent.
For some odd reason, you seem to have a "higher-than-mighty" attitude about the whole submission situation. One, that I might add, seems very disrespectful and totally unnecessary. One in fact, that insults me immensely. Whether or not you intended to come off this way, I don't know. If I'm wrong, I pre-apologize to you, and to Brett for wasting his server space. :)
I am not disputing the fact that there are some webmasters and Professional SEO's *do* have only their self and pocket in mind, who don't go by the rules. However, there ARE webmasters, such as myself, that are just learning, and/or might not be as highly gifted as you seem to be. Does the fact that we are new to developing, maintaining, marketing our website, AND making mistakes, automatically EXCLUDE us from the "privledge" of getting listed in the ODP?
<<to prune an enormous amount of the dead weight and mediocre sites that are clogging it's arteries.>>
Dead weight, yes. Mediocre? How can you even say that? You have to have started somewhere. I, along with millions of other beginning webmasters have created many "Mediocre" websites. With each one, and with time, we LEARN. We learn with experience, we learn with forums like this, we learn from others' experiences, and we CONTINUE to learn. Do you feel that because we are learning and may not know every little detail as to "what NOT to do", that our Mediocre AND useful websites need to be "pruned"? I'm sorry, but that is a self-righteous statement. I admit, my site may not be an award winner as of right now, but like I said, I am learning every day.
When you have this type of greater than thou attitude, it sure doesn't encourage or help the new people that come here seeking knowledge. Does this mean that I can automatically assume that you don't care about others? NO. Maybe it means you had a bad day, or are frusterated, but it doesn't allow me to judge you.
So, with all of that being said, I want to repeat myself and thank WW, and it's members, for being very polite and helpful to newbies, such as myself. I thank Brett and others, for giving me a place to learn and grow, and hopefully soon I can help others as well.
Karen
Heh. I can think of a way of knowing. Sort of reminds me of the old riddle-parody:
Q: What's green and hangs on the wall and barks?
A: I dunno, what?
Q: A herring.
A: (outraged) but a herring isn't green!
Q: So paint it green
A: (not getting it yet) but a herring doesn't hang on the wall!
Q: So hang it on the wall.
A: (last desperate plea for sanity) but a herring doesn't bark!
Q: Oh, I just put that part in to keep the riddle from being too easy.
Aha! Finally, a way to keep my competition from even knowing what his status is -- proactive submittals!
I don't have the stats ready, but last I heard the unreviewed numbers have always been about the same, relative to the total size of the directory. On average, that's less than a hundred unreviewed per editor, most of which don't even remotely qualify for getting listed.
prune an enormous amount of the dead weight and mediocre sites that are clogging it's arteries.
The ODP doesn't make value judgements on sites, nor does it hold a design contest. If a site has content that might reasonably be of interest to someone (and isn't replicated from elsewhere), then it qualifies for a listing.
If a site's been in queue for 8 weeks it could be automatically bumped up to the next editor.
Just that this "next editor" is exactly a volunteer as the first one. You also seem to operate under the assumption that submissions are assigned to individual editors. This is not the case.
As soon as a submission's been received, an autoreply could be sent out stating that any resubmission within an 8 week period will result in a ban.
The point being? Right now, a resubmission to the same category will simply replace the older one. And if a site is submitted to more than one category, then it is mandatory to check manually whether that is really redundant, or if the submitter has found a better matching category later and is simply trying to correct his first attempt.
In the case of a double decline notify the submitter that no additional submissions will be accepted for 6 months, and violating these TOS will result in a permanent ban.
The point being? The purpose of the ODP is to list websites, not to punish submitters for any real or perceived petty crimes. What is the benefit for the end users when a site is not listed for this kind of reasons?
but if even a few rock solid strategies were implemented from the top down, the workload would be better managed, and the efficient use of their editor's time could be exponentially increased.
You seem to completely miss the fact that most of the editors do their editing for fun, and that the editor community is a self governing organism. "Efficient" top-down management is fundamentally incompatible with that approach. Implementing most of your suggestions would basically mean to drive those people away in disgust who actually do the work.
Making sure that their existing links and structure are on topic, valuable, and easy to navigate.
In my experience, getting outdated URLs corrected can be a problem. Are update submissions dumped into the same queue as new submissions? If so, that's contributing to the problem of invalid URLs--and making more work for the "greenbusters."
Yes, but they carry a special flag that makes them stick out visually. Most editors will look at those first when they go through the queue, but in categories with excessive backlogs, they may get buried.
I don't think that the establishment of a seperate queue is an option given the resource constraints. But it might be an interesting option to just lift the update requests to the top of the unreviewed queue, bypassing the normal sorting.
REALLY bad logic here. Using averages doesn't work. Not long ago I became an ODP editor of a bottom level cat in the Reacreational Drugs section, with 10 site profiles in it. I promptly deleted 3 sites listed that were long dead and just redirected to unrelated sites now. And, unilaterally added unsolicited 2 other sites to this cat. There were no unrevieweds when I became editor, and no submissions since. Thus, saying "On average, that's less than a hundred unreviewed per editor..." is meaningless when you are averaging ODP editors like me with ODP editors in cats that have a thousand unrevieweds, the majority of which are just spam. It is little solace to that ODP editor with a cat swamped by over a thousand unrevieweds that over in my cat the editor has a backlog of zero unrevieweds, and my cat is in tip-top shape per ODP guidelines. The fact that in my neck of the woods at the ODP everything is hunky dory doesn't alter the fact that other areas are drowing in unrevieweds.
I think it's the other way around. Webmasters (or submission software users) are showing themselves to be quite clueless about how ODP works and how to submit _properly_ to a reasonably correct category with a reasonably good title and description. They appear to be in a hurry and appear to not care to read any of the publicly available documents (or forums) about ODP. This leads to scattershot submissions of either the annoying or humorous varieties.
And then there are the determined spammers (no doubt related to the email spammers)...
REALLY bad logic here. Using averages doesn't work.
I agree. My little category is pretty quiet (and I hope it stays that way!). For every submission that I get, the editors who handle lodgings probably get more submissions than the Party Jokes editor at PLAYBOY does in a month.
It's up to the editor involved. Nothing in the rulebook says you only get one shot at a review. In my own case, almost every rejected site gets reviewed again when it's resubmitted.
That may depend on what you want to learn from the comparison.
People tend to get upset when they read big absolute numbers, without taking into account the scale of the context. Dante_Maure assumed that submissions (and consequently the unreviewed) have gone up unproportionally during the last few months. I don't think that the evidence supports this theory.
And the correct way to test the scale of the problem is indeed to look at the average numbers, and compare them to the average numbers of last year. Whether you take the number of editors or the number of listed sites as a yardstick doesn't really matter. And I don't exptect the relative numbers to change very much whether you look at all of the directory together or just the Shopping and Business branches.
Yes, the absolute numbers will look very different. But any real growth of the problem over time would be visible in the relative numbers in either case, given its existence. In the long run, the relative growth is the same in all parts of the directory, in all of terms of active editors, listed sites, and numbers of unreviewed. The main difference between the situation two years ago and now is that the absolute numbers look more scary. Don't let those confuse you.
DMOZ has a comprehensive and always up-to-date list of hospitals in Illinois with well-written and accurate descriptions of the information available at their sites. This is not available anywhere else. There are thousands of categories like this - comprehensive, useful resources. Looking for information about Self-Psychology? Well, DMOZ is the only directory with a Self-Psychology category, or a Client-Centered Therapy category. There are thousands of other categories like these.
The noise about DMOZ is a result of the commercial categories. There will always be problems in those categories. The valuable, and I would say irreplaceable, service DMOZ provides is the wealth of information in the directory. To put it simply, no one else is doing it. DMOZ is providing a much needed service to the web community.
I personally don't see a solution yet to the problems with DMOZ, but feel confident that it will continue to evolve.
[edited typo x2]
Lots to respond to and address here, much of which appears to be based on a number of misunderstandings. Hopefully I can clear some of those up.
First a number of disclaimers...
While the "voice" used in my post was assuredly quite strong, I do not in this, or in any other matter believe myself to be the sole proprietor of The Truth. Opinions and perspectives are just that, no more, no less, regardless of how strongly they are stated.
If I was uninterested in other views, opinions, and feedback... I would never have posted this in an open discussion forum.
Karen...
However, there ARE webmasters, such as myself, that are just learning, and/or might not be as highly gifted as you seem to be.
Compared to many of the bona fide experts and authorities that frequent this forum I am practically a rank amateur. Along with you, I am very much a student learning as much as I can, and giving in return when I have the opportunity.
Does the fact that we are new to developing, maintaining, marketing our website, AND making mistakes, automatically EXCLUDE us from the "privledge" of getting listed in the ODP?
Of course not, nor was I suggesting that such is the case. Only the editors at ODP can decide whether any given site is a valuable addition to the directory.
Mediocre? How can you even say that?
First, let's define what I meant when I used the terms "dead weight" and "mediocre".
I was specifically referring to the thousands of copycat boiler plate websites that are churned out daily which offer no genuinely unique content and therefore offer no additional value to the directory and those using it.
You have to have started somewhere. I, along with millions of other beginning webmasters have created many "Mediocre" websites. With each one, and with time, we LEARN.
Every person has the right to learn and grow in their given endeavors... that does not mean that their work has a right to be showcased in a third party venue unless it is deemed to be of sufficient value.
If you're an aspiring poet, it's your right to work at your craft. That doesn't mean that the local poetry journal has an obligation to publish your work.
One of the shortcomings with the current ODP situation is that quite often webmasters do not receive notification that their site has been declined, let alone helpful suggestions as to how their site can be improved. This does little to encourage growth or improvement.
Granted, this is understandable given the sheer enormity of the task that many editors are handling. To use the poetry analogy again... it's standard practice for many of the biggest poetry journals to state that submissions are welcome, but there is no guarantee of reply. To do so would leave no time for the editing itself.
So, this leaves a new webmaster to their own devices to find useful feedback on how they can improve their site.
There are countless site review forums for this very purpose.
Personally, I think it would be courteous of the ODP to at least offer an autoresponder reply when a site is turned down for not being up to par... and perhaps even offer links to such review sites to encourage such growth and learning.
I admit, my site may not be an award winner as of right now, but like I said, I am learning every day.
I apologize for being unclear in my message above. I am not referring to graphic design or esthetics here at all. With the exception of horrible site navigation or formatting that would render a site worthless to most users, Quality is in most cases a matter of Content.
Many of the most valuable websites are practically bare in the design sense, but incredibly rich in relevant content.
I don't believe any site should be barred from the directory if it offers value to the end user in their search. Even the ugliest site in the world may be worthy of inclusion if it's providing useful relevant content that cannot be found elsewhere in the category.
The contrary of this are the hundreds of sites offering rehashed unoriginal or outdated material, often with the only unduplicated content being the "uniquely" coded affiliate links.
Karen, like you, I appreciate this forum immensely. I learn more every day that I participate here, and go out of my way to offer help where and when I can... even to the newest of newbies.
I'm sorry that you felt personally attacked, and hope the above has helped clarify my intentions and meaning.
I appreciate your candid and heartfelt sharing.
Thank you. :)
...
Bird, it's a pleasure to hear from an editor personally on these issues. Your opinions and insights are greatly appreciated.
last I heard the unreviewed numbers have always been about the same, relative to the total size of the directory.
With regards to absolute vs. relative numbers.
Even if the number of submissions was exactly the same as last year, the directory would still have grown dramatically from those that were accepted.
If the number of submissions are indeed about the same relative to the size of the directory... that means there has been a significant increase in the number of sites submitted.
The growth of the directory itself also means more maintenance necessary to prune and re-edit sites that have become outdated or shifted their content focus.
The only way for this not to be a problem is if the number of active editors has grown in proportion with the number of submissions and directory size.
I do hope that is the case for the ODP's sake. Obviously I don't have the figures myself... I've simply been observing the situation from the outside and have made some educated guesses.
More than likely the application counts have gone up since ODP's importance has ballooned. Provided the approvals are also happening in scale with all of the other growth, this "problem" may be nothing more than the creation of a fevered imagination. ;)
Much of what I stated in my first post is based on the years of endless debate I've observed in the forums between editors and webmasters.
I've never seen as many complaints as I have in the last 4 months.
Of course there could be one other explanation.
It's quite possible that with the increased (both real and perceived) significance of an ODP listing, there is just more fevered and vocal criticism that ever before when webmasters are having trouble getting in.
The ODP doesn't make value judgements on sites, nor does it hold a design contest.
As for design contests, I hope my clarification to Karen above made it clear that I am not suggesting that only esthetically pleasing sites are worthy of inclusion.
With regards to not making value judgements?
This is taken directly from the DMOZ submission page itself:
We care a great deal about the quality of the ODP. We aren't a search engine and pride ourselves on being highly selective. We don't accept all sites, so please don't take it personally should your site not be accepted. Our goal is to make the directory as useful as possible for our users, not to have the directory include all (or even most) of the sites that could possibly be listed.
Judgement is a highly charged word. Let's call it value assesment. The above quote outlines a standard of discernment in ODP's editorial policy, and I think that's a GOOD thing.
You also seem to operate under the assumption that submissions are assigned to individual editors. This is not the case.
That assumption is based on the fact that each category has specific editors listed at the bottom of the page.
Seems I've misunderstood, can you help to clarify? Pretty please. :)
Right now, a resubmission to the same category will simply replace the older one.
I definitely did not know that. I'm glad to hear it though. It makes a great deal of sense.
In the case of a double decline notify the submitter that no additional submissions will be accepted for 6 months, and violating these TOS will result in a permanent ban.The point being? The purpose of the ODP is to list websites, not to punish submitters for any real or perceived petty crimes. What is the benefit for the end users when a site is not listed for this kind of reasons?
The point is not to punish petty crimes, but to prevent volunteer editors from being punished by webmasters that can't observe or adhere to the ODP's TOS.
A site being declined 3 times by two different editors after already being informed of the reason why (which rarely happens under the current circumstances) implies that the site does not offer any significant value to the ODP end user, and that the webmaster is not willing to do the work necessary to bring the site up to the ODP's standards.
The benefit to the end user in this situation is more relevant sites being listed because the editors have more time to review other sites.
You seem to completely miss the fact that most of the editors do their editing for fun, and that the editor community is a self governing organism. "Efficient" top-down management is fundamentally incompatible with that approach. Implementing most of your suggestions would basically mean to drive those people away in disgust who actually do the work.
Once again it seems that my intention and meaning has been misconstrued.
All of the suggestions I made above were to implement automated systems that could free up more time for the editors, giving more freedom, not taking it away.
I'm not suggesting top down "management" at all. I was simply acknowledging that such broad sweeping additions to the infrastructure would require consideration, support and action from those with sufficient influence. Those people that are directly responsible for the ODP's technical infrastructure, administration, policy making, and development beyond simple directory editing.
ODP may very well be a community effort, but unless much of what I've heard is inaccurate, there is still a hierarchy in place. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I have been active in community building for over a decade, and even in organizations that are completely non-hierarchal the need for systems that facilitate greater flow of information, optimization of effort, and honoring of each active participant are absolutely essential.
Fun? I'm all about fun. I LOVE having fun. Really. :) :) :)
It's why I believe in working smarter rather than harder. This allows me more time to have fun.
It also allows me to have more fun while I'm working.
Some of my suggestions were about systems that could make more efficient use of time.
Others were about greater communication with the webmasters.
Right now there are tens of thousands of webmasters that are confused and anxious because of ODP's lack of communication ethic.
I know that it's alot more fun when my time is spent dealing with people that are feeling heard... as opposed to anxious, confused and ignored.
I'm not talking about optimisation at the expense of the editors.
I'm suggesting a conversation that seeks solutions where everybody can benefit. The Editors, The Webmasters, and The End Users. Win / Win / Win
As for reasons why these suggestions don't or can't achieve that... I appreciate all of your insights and opinions. I'd love to hear from other editors and webmasters on these issues as well.
I also invite other suggestions that could possibly serve the above mentioned Win3 ideal.
If anybody has actually made it this far... you probably have more patience than I usually do. For that, I salute you. ;)
> Seems I've misunderstood, can you help to clarify? Pretty please. <
Who can edit in a category?
That is a very much simplified list, the full picture is at: [dmoz.org...]
