Forum Moderators: open
Those webmasters excluded by DMOZ don't think a lot of them there Humans at DMOZ.
So do Humans really do it better? Or is that ole Google bot doing a better job?
#1. Webmasters with their site included feel that DMOZ and its editors are doing a fine job.
#2. Webmasters sites that are not and/or will not be included wishes DMOZ would dry up and go away, and also believe all/most editors are crooks.
#3. Webmasters with sites that are included, but if were removed today would feel the same as #2.
I have seen no-other directory or search engine be discussed with the anger and accusations then I have seen with the ODP ;)
I have seen no-other directory or search engine be discussed with the anger and accusations then I have seen with the ODP
Have to agree with you on that, its always baffled me as to why such discussions seem to end in anger (or worse)
Spell check is a tremendous innovation and time saver. Together with automated grammar checkers, it may catch 98% of spelling mistakes. But the 2% is the doozy. Anyone who's seen "place ingredients in greased bowels" instead of "greased bowls" or "our client list is glowering" instead of "our client list is flowering" knows that no matter how many times you spell check, you'd better be sure that human editors are reviewing each draft before that brochure or catalog or report goes to press.
So it is with cataloguing the web. ODP editors obviously use machines all the time, not just the built-in editing interface but dozens of editor-produced automated tools as well. But algorithms for categorizing the known universe in all languages aren't exactly perfected; how long will it take you to create the ultimate robot to distinguish a a "performing art" from an "ethnic culture" from a "fitness" site when they're all about "dance," and then whether a "protein" site is chemistry, biology, nutrition, food science, beauty, pharmaceuticals, pet health, or porn? Given current (and forseeable in the near term) technology, any web directory with the remotest pretension to authority and usability will require humans to review most each and every site before it is listed.
As to the animosity? Well, unlike Inktomi engineers or Yahoo editors or W3C officers, ODP editors hit back :).
Not just on the categorisation issues do DMOZ editors excel, but on the need for a qualitative analysis as well.
At the end of the day we are working to create a category that is relevant and useful for the user.
How can a computer determine what is relevant and useful?
Not only cant they do it, but the progress and inovation in certain sectors means that what is useful and what is relevant will change over time.
I think, ideally, what needs to be achieved is automation of everything that can possibly be automated in order to free up editors time with the important issue of quality.
Eh, hang on..that probably means more work for me...lets just give all the work to the computers! :)
JOAT
its always baffled me as to why such discussions seem to end in anger (or worse)
Because of #2 above and the fact that a disproportionate number of members here may have sites which fall into that category?
What has always fascinated me about the complaints is that most of the expert affiliate owners are noticeable by their absence. (I remember shortly after joining WW someone mentioning the value of noticing who wasn't commenting in a thread.)
I would take a fairly sizeable bet that they are using DMOZ in the way that it wants to be used and in (mostly) complete compliance with the guidelines.
Not only that, they genuinely dont know why! :)
I think there a lot of issues on the net.
One that has been discussed a lot is the need for consumer education...in terms of letting the average surfer know its safe to shop on the net.
This has been discussed a lot because it holds a tangible benefit for us.
But, there is also a large quantity of webmasters who need to be educated on netiquete.
Its not in our interests to educate them - they compete with us.
But as an industry as a whole, its the "bad" element that bring down the name of the net.
Perhaps as a community as a whole we could do something to promote good web standards?
I would be (IMHO) in all our best interests in the long run.
JOAT
DMOZ is essentially the center of the Internet universe today. This makes it important. Obviously it will never be perfect, and it could be better (how much better is open to debate), but there simply isn't another resource out there like it. Zeal is okay, but not in the same league. (Mentioning Yahoo in the same breath is a joke... it's deeplinking standards are simply incomprehensible.)
The Internet is a mess. That is kinda the point of it. DMOZ has a mission to bring some order to that mess, and Google takes it some steps further. Clearly neither is perfect, but there is no combination close now. Perhaps in time the Internet will be made more tidy, but that might not even be a good goal.
I am in Korea and In korea Daum Search engine which is very popular these days was performing the same way as DMOZ with over 2000 Editors.
In a few years The editors made a mess of the searchengine
so they sent them away , and started a paid inclusion.
This will happen to DMOZ as well. It can not go this way I promise, I beleive in coming year they are going to do something about this.
I suppose that's in the realm of the possible.
As to what's possible and what's probable ...well, it's also possible that someday I'll carry a tune sans the bucket, but that ain't where the smart money lays.
Kevin outta Norman, America
who contemplated signing up as an ODP Editor, but
then I decided those folks have enough troubles
I agree I think DMOZ will eventually have to charge and have their own full time staff.
When DMOZ started it was new young and the internet was the same, but the internet has already in this short time matured, and IMHO you can not base a solid company or entity on free services being supplied.
If DMOZ started charging and had its own editors it would make not only a lot of money but would reinforce the branch it is sitting on.
They are going to kick out all the editors and handle the submission by themselves.
Funny...I know a long-term editor -- there from the first couple of months -- who has been predicting that for more than 2 years now.
I used to laugh at her...but now I don't know. They have most certainly veered off their original course...
In most cases, the more you pay for a listing on the net the less it is worth these days. The end result becomes a list of ads.
Seriously though I do not think charging would be such a bad thing, but i do feel the editors have to be actual employees that are at least liable, accountable and controlable in some ways.
...but i do feel the editors have to be actual employees that are at least liable, accountable and controlable in some ways.
This will change nothing.
The vast majority of DMOZ (editors) are exceptional.
And those that are not... will still not be liable, accountable and controlable by having a status of "employee".
What more... when the unethical are eventually caught and removed, there will always be others of the same caliber to fill their shoes.
The status of voluntary or employee does not change the merits of the person.
The editors worth a damn are the ones that have edited hundreds or thousands of entries..they are not in it for self interest and is easy to detect and track. All new editors should be under probation and double checked...and once an editor reaches a large number of edits, assuming there is a nominal fee for inclusion, they can be paid... Who can't afford $5 for an entry yet has the resources to create a reasonable site worth linking to? I don't think it would exclude too many deserving sites..
Tell someone who really wants a listing why they weren't accepted and they'll fix it, put up different contact info, make an a site "just barely" to comply with the guidelines.
How many of those!-#1111-keyword-keyword-keyword-keyword-keyword-keyword-domains in YAHOO! don't have at least one other "real" listing in the YAHOO! directory?
By not accepting payment for submissions ODP can much more easily weed out the dups and spam sites, but it does take a while for editors for them to plow through the unreviewed.
If your site was a mirror or other site not meeting the guidelines your money would not be refunded. This would keep out the spam, mirrors, multiple submission problems, and cut back on the trash the editors have to wade through to get to the deserving submissions.
If there was ever to be a paid submission process, this would be the one I would vote for :)
But do paid humans do it even better?
And how much do you pay for them to do it the best?
I think part of the often heated DMOZ debates are because, in some ways, DMOZ is a relic of the older, anarchic days of the Internet.
The commercial people attracted to the Internet since the Web took off have goals and ambitions that the builders of the Internet may not share.
The solution is simple. If capitalism works, but DMOZ doesn't, that's a hole in the market for an entrepreneur.
If 1% of the people who complain that unpaid DMOZ volunteers are interfering with their ability to turn an honest buck set up a web-directory consortium, they could out-complete DMOZ within 18 months.
So stop telling me you don't like DMOZ and do something about it!
But do paid humans do it even better?
That's a nice quote.
I guess taken as a group, the paid ones do do it better. They are more accountable, and the percentage of "rotten apples" must be lower
"The only constant is change."
This is true for the world in general, even more so for the web, and consequently for the ODP as well. While I understand the nostalgic feelings of someone who knew the project in the early days, I'm sure you realize that the structures and guidelines in place now are much more appropriate for dealing with the constant growth than the improvized chaos of the old times was.
i do feel the editors have to be actual employees that are at least liable, accountable and controlable in some ways.
That's an understandable feeling for a webmaster who wants his site listed. But it has never been the goal of the ODP to be accountable to the submitters, and I'm sure it never will. While submitters can be helpful once in a while, they aren't strictly necessary for building a quality directory.
But do paid humans do it even better?
I have had to deal with several of the paid editors at Zeal over time. Judging from what I experienced there, I'd trust most volunteers both at Zeal and the ODP much more to build a quality directory than the so called "professionals". Volunteers edit because they care about the directory and the sites they list there. Paid editors edit because it pays the rent. Which one would you prefer to classify and describe your site?
DMOZ is a relic of the older, anarchic days of the Internet.
If you consider any project or site that isn't in it for the money a "relic of the older, anarchic days", then DMOZ would indeed fit that description. But do you really believe that non-profit organizations don't have a place in the internet of today? Do you consider this forum here to be a "relic" as well?
If capitalism works, but DMOZ doesn't, that's a hole in the market for an entrepreneur.
Three things to prove here: "Capitalism works" (for whom?). "DMOZ doesn't work" (again: for whom?). And that hole in the market has already absorbed a fair number of self proclaimed enterpreneurs. The most well known example rhymes with an unfriendly word... ;) If you don't know what I'm talking about here, then you can take that as an indicator how successful they were.
Some guys are just suggesting that ODP should follow L$'s path. What a great idea!
Wind them up and watch them go :)
Prior to pay4placement the difference in general quality between the ODP and Yahoo seemed nominal to me. I have seen some unbelievably bad Yahoo descriptions.
It is more relevant to look at what the paid editors did to Yahoo and L$ after pay4placement. They had to become lenient or the revenue stream would dry up. After pay4placement Yahoo directory went from legendarily selective to legendarily trashy.
AOL is not going to staff up ODP without revenue stream. But where would it come from? No other directory figured it out. Before pay4placement Yahoo was losing tons of money on the directory, exponentially more than AOL pays to support the ODP. The conversion to pay4placement required the surgical removal of quality from Yahoo.
Regarding bad apples, it is a cycle with the ODP, they are usually caught, the damage is fixed, more come in, etc. It would be naive to think that some Yahoo has not had it's share of bad apples. They used to be the king of selective, do you think this was strictly for quality control purposes or is there a chance that some editors had relationships with some of the sites they published? How long does it take to throw together an affiliate site?
As Joey Tribiani would say, it's a moo point now :), when it comes to quality large directories, the others have been voted off the island, the ODP is the sole survivor.
