Forum Moderators: open
[edited by: engine at 1:54 am (utc) on June 1, 2003]
[edit reason] No urls, thanks. See TOS [webmasterworld.com] [/edit]
There is little point in complaining publically about the delays, it is unlikely to help, and could hinder
I actually got my r-zone login deleted bcz of querying why a site that was submitted 12 months ago had not been reviewed/included when (many) other sites in the same cat were added.
Several editors wrote lengthy responses defending the reasons for the site not being reviewed, and one in particular, wrote something along the lines of 1500(!) words worth of responses telling me why it was reasonable to wait this amount of time - yet the site is unreviewed - and they chose to delete *all* my posts.
I wish I had saved the entire thread before the deletion - because it really shows the attitude of the "cabal" - and what is wrong with the DMOZ. The thing is that I was never "combative" - I actually apologized for questioning lengthy review time of the submission every post... but since several of the editors actually contradicted themselves - and contradicted ODP policies (IMHO) - they had to delete the "bad egg" - ie me.
It's their forum, and their directory - and that is where the problem lies - they are so busy defending their actions in their directory that they have lost sight that their primary mission is to add quality, reviewed content to the directory.
PatrickDeese
I comment in the general, rather than in the particular case of your site.
quality tends to be in the eye of the beholder. I too do not like censorship of well mannered posts. You do not get such posts deleted at WebmasterWorld, which is presumably why you and I post here ;)
But to be fair to DMOZ editors, whenever I have taken the trouble to look at sites that people are complaining about not getting into DMOZ (ie not getting in, rather than just waiting for a review) in the vast majority of cases the sites being beefed about are never going to get into DMOZ in that they fail, in spite of the owners protestations, to deliver good content.
I did have one post deleted last month, but that was about Santa Claus ;)
And, one comment about R-Z. That happens to be run by *some* ODP editors, and those people are an insignificant percentage of the total editors. I doubt more than a very small percent of ODP editors have ever been to R-Z. Thus, it isn't reasonable to characterize ODP editors by what goes on at R-Z.
I have IE set up to never store pages (which I need since as I designer, I need to view the "real version" of pages, not the cached version) - and it appears I never viewed this forum with my mozilla browser, which I frequently use for compatibility reasons.
cornwall vis a vis content - let me just comment that the particular page in question was added by Yahoo by the editors without a submit - they found it, thought it met their guidelines and listed it for free. I *know* that Yahoo is not DMOZ - but that should give you some idea of the "value" of the content of the page in question.
I also acknowledge that r-z is not dmoz - and one editor in dmoz is not all editors - however there does seem to be a particular mindset for a few powerful members of the DMOZ who (IMHO) *seem* to find it more satisfying to recriminate ppl who question the DMOZ than to facilitate a solution.
The favorite cry at R-Z? "Well, why don't *you* edit then?" -well some us of have tried and failed that route, and you can sticky me if you want the details.
--
<irony>I know - I'll start my *own* directory - that'll show 'em... why am i not surprised that "dmozsucks.com" is registered?</irony>
~me sighs.
... it seems odd that a meta or editall would even bother posting at length about why it is OK to have unreviewed sites for 12+ months - yet not be motivated to review a) the site in question, nor the other sites in that same cat. that are languishing unreviewed.
Patrick,
I'll expand on steveb's and rfg's comments. Just so you know, I am an ODP editor, and I have posted occasionally at R-Z.
The quoted text sounds logical at its surface. Think a bit deeper. Resource Zone is a facility provided by a volunteer subset of ODP volunteers. It exists because they thought some means of public, interactive communication was valuable between editors, submitters, and potential editors. It is necessary policy to emphatically declare that a query concerning a site's submission status will not speed its review. Otherwise, there would be a lot more query's and a lot fewer answers.
Even I think some of the editor responses at R-Z could sometimes be a bit more temperate. Just remember that editors are human (it's in our contract). Somewhere between the 50th and 500th time one answers essentially the same question, it is easy to imagine that callouses will tend to appear. Unfortunately, new posters at R-Z sometimes experience the callouses in a very direct way. Of course, there are some frequent posters who likely get treated more politely than I could manage.
Reviewing one submission can sometimes take 15 minutes. Insuring the title and description are useful and meet guidelines are probably the two quickest parts of editing.
* Is the content unique?
Easily a few minutes on Google or AllTheWeb. Part of the check is for multiple almost-identical sites from the same company. The other part is to see if the site's FAQ, glossary, articles, or other informational content exists on dozen's of other sites.
* Should I list the submitted deeplink or the whole site?
Extra minutes evaluating the site.
* It doesn't fit in this category; within what category does it fit best?
More minutes. Many editors used to auto-delete mis-submitted sites, but nowadays we are expected to move submissions to appropriate categories. I agree with the policy, but it does have a tendency to penalyze those who submitted to the proper category. Their average wait is longer.
* Wow, this is cool!
Sometimes one finds a site worth savoring.
-- Rich, who apologizes both for myself and the other mystery editor at R-Z for squandering valuable editing time in trying to answer your questions and concerns. ;)
I, did indeed read the forum guidelines - for that forum on R-Z in particular - and I have to admit that I did not make the title of the post an URL link - but only bcz the URL passed the allowable characters limit - the first sentence of my original post was something very close to "Sorry, the URL was too long for the subject line".
Now - I will say that this was not a submission to commercial cat - nor was it a "THE BESTEST SITE IN THE PLANET ALL AOBUT XYX!@##@$@$" type submission. God knows I had to fix plenty of those in the 4 years I volunteered there.
I also realize that R-Z does not promise to, nor imply that, by posting in the "site submission status" forum that your site will be reviewed. My personal opinion is (and I did not express this in R-Z) - that maybe they should.
The site is a biography of an author - a fairly infamous one, and frankly a mediocre writer. My site has had the number one slot for this author's name for *6 years* in AV, ATW,. I am not saying "hey editors - list my site so that it gets to #1 in Google"... Let me just say "I'm so there, dude".
But I think that the site deserves consideration for a listing in DMOZ.
And to reply to steveb - I wasn't complaining precisely - but when a meta suggested that he didn't have time to review the site because he was too busy reviewing sites for John Milton - well that truly was a bit over the top.
So I replied with what was definitely OT post on the 7 year history of this biography, how I learned about this author and how I contacted his publisher to learn more about him, and used the material they sent me to write my biographical summary - in my post I even linked to the original site via archive.org, and to the author's publisher, who linked to *my biography* of him in their catalog in an attempt to "prove" that this was not a "fly by night" google famous name grab - which is what one of the posters in the thread suggested.
The next day the meta apologized, sort of, and today my posts and logins were deleted.
It's okay, because it's their forum, and their directory.
... and today my posts and logins were deleted.
It's likely you lost your RZ login because of a technical problem with the database, not because someone deleted it. You can have a look at the Announcements forum in RZ for more information if you want to.
I've posted elsewhere that we really don't need submissions to build a good directory, so be glad we allow you submit sites for our (re)viewing pleasure. We can find your site - like Yahoo did - and add it all by ourselves, if we think it merits inclusion. No site is guaranteed a listing (or a superfast review for that matter), and no listed site is guaranteed permanent placement. You are privileged/lucky to get to submit your site to try to get it noticed ahead of the billions of other pages on the internet. What else can you ask for?
Thank you, KC, for so eloquently proving my point.
I assume that there will always be new sites, new categories that the current group of editors will have no knowledge of - neither the subject matter - nor the websites that fall into that cat.
The site I gave as an example that has been unreviewed for 12+ months in a section that has added several (5 or 6?) sites that are newer - that leads me to believe that there is no one in the ODP with the inclination to add it - but it was (I assume) kept as "unreviewed" it must be that the editors felt that the site has some merit - but they felt uncomfortable with the subject matter, or something along those lines. Which exactly proves my point. How would, ODP editos be able to add sites all by themselves, if they can't even add sites that are delivered to them on a silver platter.
I don't think asking about the status of a site that was submitted (most recently) twelve months ago is exactly someone who is complaining about not getting a "super fast review".
Let me say that I feel very privileged and lucky to be able to say, in this forum, at least - the attitude you espouse stinks.
With all due respect, KC, if you and the other R-Z frequenters that have editall/meta privileges would obliged to edit 10 sites as requirement for every post you made in R-Z - there would be a hell of a lot less 12+ month plus sites pending review.
The fact that the meta that posted in my thread actually looked at the site and made an evaluation of it proves that he had already spent the time & energy necessary to either add the site, or delete it from the cue. He only didn't add it, "just because"... that would be opening the floodgate to everyone else saying - hey X site was added, why wasn't mine?
It sucks to be in your position KC - believe me. I don't envy you, or the other editors that take the brunt of the frustration of people who want to get into the ODP - but please understand - I am not "upset" for not getting this biography listed in the ODP.
I know that you, nor any other one editor can fix DMOZ - but for god's sake - please try to keep your frustration in check.
What is so threatening about refuting someone who says "you must have submitted a site that didn't have content" - response - "no actually here is why.....", and a lengthy, thought out response to the implication that I have only created a page in order to generate amazon affiliate sales.
Please my bandwidth charges for this site are about $30 per month - I "make" about $25 - $30 per month from this site after expenses thanks to amazon. But I have spent possibly upwards of 300 - 500 hours on this site - not including research in the libraries, reading biographies, taking notes, etc. This site is an ongoing hobby, a gift to the internet, if you will, that I have been working on for about 8 years.
I am not asking why my MLM scheme is not posted as a link on the index page at dmoz.org, I only asked why a site that (apparently to others) has some valuable content was not reviewed when a large number (6?) sites were added in this same category. IMHO that is a reasonable request to make in the R-Z "site submission status" forum.
- edit
I see now the post that senox refers to - all I can say is that I may have been wrong about my login being deleted on purpose - but my post is timestamped 2:30 PM CST - and the announcement at R-Z is 7:30 PM CST - so the news wasn't out yet.
Just because you're upset that your site hasn't been reviewed yet, don't start in on the editors who try to help out by posting at Resource Zone (not that the doings and goings on at Resource Zone are really a subject for this forum). Recalling what I can of that particular thread, I don't remember it going nearly as badly as you seem to.
Yes, puzzled me when I read that remark in an earlier thread. While kctipton may feel that he in particular(or DMOZ in general) does not need submissions to build a good directory...
.... DMOZ in general certainly (if not kctipton in particular) does need editors.
DMOZ does not have, and on the basis of its history to date, cannot get, enough editors to build a directory without submissions.
And the way to get editors who are not solely driven by the need to place their own site, is to present a vision of a place where it is a pleasure to edit, where the bosses are great guys, where the roses grow up the cottage walls,,,,,
>>I know that you, nor any other one editor can fix DMOZ - but for god's sake - please try to keep your frustration in check. <<
Patrick, you assume someone looked at your site. Nobody's required to look at _any_ submission, period. This is even more likely in a category with tons of submissions.
>>edit 10 sites as requirement for every post you made<<
Trust me, I meet this criteria, even throwing in all posts made at all forums.
Cornwall, I have not said that ODP doesn't need or want editors. I've said that submissions are superfluous to ODP's mission. I've added a few hundred sites to the Lubbock category which were never submitted. I previously did the same for Houston (my former residence) and other localities. Submissions _can_ be helpful, sure, but it's not the only or even the primary way editors are expected to build up their categories. It _is_ the primary way that (too many) submitters think they'll go from rags to riches, and therein lies the problem/conflict we chronically experience here at WebmasterWorld and at other forums.
I don't know how the DMOZ editalls and metas manage their duties - but I will make a suggestion.
Wouldn't it be great if there was an internal tool that searched for the oldest submissions in the cue and listed them in chronological order - oldest to newest.
Maybe that is an unrealistic expectation - look - I *know* you guys have plenty to do - and I *do* appreciate not only the time & effort you put into the ODP, but also the time & effort you put into R-Z.
I have seen some of the posts that could have been answered had the poster even bothered to read the forum category headers. I know that it is frustrating to bear the brunt of the frustrations of the "world".
As I have repeatedly stated both here and in R-Z - I don't "need" you to list my site to be "#1 in Google" - I only asked why it hadn't been reviewed after one year.
The problem with forums as a means of communication is that they leech a very important element of the human communications process (body language, etc) from the speech.
I guarantee that if I had been at a party with KC, Motsa et al, and brought the subject up I certainly wouldn't have been told "You should feel lucky to be able to submit a site at all - because we don't need submissions."
KC you should feel privileged to be in a postion of editing a directory that has such a weighty influence in the internet that people flock to submit their sites to it.
I am sure that goguides.org and joeant, and the 100's of other minor directories wish they had 1/2 of your problems.
>>I am sure that goguides.org and joeant, and the 100's of other minor directories wish they had 1/2 of your problems. <<
Maybe we could forward them our problems ;) A special button to click: "This is spam, send to joeant for review." Hehee
If I rightly recall, RZ was not accessable at all after about 2003-06-09 18:00 UTC, came back online a few hours later with lots of database errors, and was stable-ish by 2003-06-10 03:00 UTC, but with some stuff still needing to be copied across from the backups. The informational post about user names wasn't posted until about 2003-06-11 01:00 UTC, some (almost) 24 hours later.
>> Wouldn't it be great if there was an internal tool that searched for the oldest submissions in the cue and listed them in chronological order - oldest to newest. <<
There are hundreds of previous posts on various fora explaining how the submissions can be sorted, but by date and alphabetical order are two obvious ones that come to mind right now. Even so, an editor might start off in a category by deleting obvious spam, or by moving obvious mis-submissions to a more suitable category, both of which being measures to improve the directory but which have no immediate way of being seen by the public. Of course the editor might target submissions that have seemingly well written suggested Title and Descriptions, or might go through the list in forwards or reverse order using some sort of ordering, from the many choices that are available. Some might simply go through and decide to review every submission from a particular contry, or just review sites with a J in the title. You can never tell.
>> I have seen some of the posts that could have been answered had the poster even bothered to read the forum category headers. I know that it is frustrating to bear the brunt of the frustrations of the "world". <<
You have seen the way that submitters behave in public with their enquiries at RZ. You have to see it to believe it, what they do in the privacy of a submission to the ODP.
There are hundreds of previous posts on various fora explaining how the submissions can be sorted, but by date and alphabetical order are two obvious ones that come to mind right now. Even so, an editor might start off in a category by deleting obvious spam, or by moving obvious mis-submissions to a more suitable category, both of which being measures to improve the directory but which have no immediate way of being seen by the public. Of course the editor might target submissions that have seemingly well written suggested Title and Descriptions, or might go through the list in forwards or reverse order using some sort of ordering, from the many choices that are available. Some might simply go through and decide to review every submission from a particular contry, or just review sites with a J in the title. You can never tell.
I was trying to suggest a dmoz-wide search. It might really help to flag neglected categories - if there were 85 unreviewed in /regional/countries/uzbekistan/ that hadn't been reviewed in 36 month, because there are no Uzbek(?) editors, well, time to become an expert on Uzbekistan. From my experience there are a lot of categories that don't require an expert on the subject - just an expert editor. By definition, that is what meta/editalls are. Obviously there are people more qualified to edit an astrophysics category than others. (I wouldn't touch astrophysics with a 10 foot pole.) I imagine that there are thousands other cats that other people feel the same way about. But in certain categories - a site is a site is a site.
I am not trying to be overly simplistic - I know that the greenbusters program has achieved milestones in processing the submissions and filing down the cues for hundreds of categories. But I wonder if every editall/meta could see a list of the 100 oldest pending submissions, and did even 5 per day how much more efficient the directory would get at processing "stale" submissions.
You have seen the way that submitters behave in public with their enquiries at RZ. You have to see it to believe it, what they do in the privacy of a submission to the ODP.
Trust me. I know *all* too well about this.
In three months, we may have a glimpse at the new set of priorities. Some good tools for unreviewed search would be high on MY list. I probably wouldn't look for the very old submittals -- I'd do spam-whacking instead. But I bet I could name some editors who WOULD use it for reviewing antiques.
Another important consideration, from a systems point of view: Processing the oldest submittals first won't improve the "average" delay from submittal to review at all. The only way to to that is to (1) take less time handling submittals [the technical end of which is being worked; and the social end means, in practice, get editors to edit what they know best] and (2) get more editors involved. And if the average site got reviewed in three days, those fossil submittals would come out quickly enough in the rinse cycle.
