Forum Moderators: open
The good: none of my competitors have been added in 4 months.
The bad: No sites have been added in my category in about 4 months.
I follow up with RZ, every month, on the dot, to check status, and all I get from the editors over there is sarcasm and insults.
Why does anyone even bother with DMOZ anymore? Thanks to DMOZ, I wish the machines took over the world in Matrix Revolutions.
jd
I haven't taken on the responsibility to add your site, and neither has any other editor. You haven't taken on the responsibilty to add my site.
If you are an editor, it is your responsibility to create "the most comprehensive and definitive directory of the Web" as per the Open Directory Editorial Guidelines.
This removes much of your personal choice from the matter. It is your mistake to assume your personal opinion about sites should affect whether it gets included or not. This is where the "free" aspect of editorial work gets tainted... there is nothing to prevent an editor from including his/her personal opinion in the matter.
If the goal is indeed to create the most comprehensive web directory possible, then information is the only thing that should be judged.
Which is impossible as it currently exists.
I also don't understand about all this talk about becoming an editor. I know of people who have had to wait over a year to become an editor of a category that had no editor. Becoming an editor isn't any easier (as per my experience) than submitting a site.
I know of people who have had to wait over a year to become an editor of a category that had no editor.
This makes no sense.
There are many categories in DMOZ that do not have editors. You would assume those that validate new appplications would expediate the process for categories that require an editor compared to applications directed at categories that are already taken care of.
That statement was made to express the fact that editor applications seem to be lagged behind just as much as site submissions are.
In a perfect world, everyone would volunteer, and ODP would be a perfect, up to date directory! I do not live in a perfect world.
Who'd even need the web in a perfect world? The ODP is about the world we live in. Work to make it better, or not. Your choice. But don't diss those who are because you choose not to.
I too have submitted to ODP long ago, to both Regional (in my town there are no other submissions waiting), and Business Categories, and both are still waiting in Queue to be reviewed. Unfortunately I have given up, and wonder if my site will even make it in ODP, before it’s demise.
If your site is expected to last longer than 2 years before its demise, and it meets the ODP guidelines, then it has a very good chance. If it doesn't meet the guidelines, it has no chance.
The more editors there are, the better a chance it has (assuming it meets the guidelines of course). Anything you do to discourage people from applying to be OPD editors is harming your chance.
decius
If you are an editor, it is your responsibility to create "the most comprehensive and definitive directory of the Web" as per the Open Directory Editorial Guidelines
It's my pleasure to work " as part of a team to list URLs in the directory, organize sites into a logical category structure, and ensure that listings conform to a set of community editing guidelines."
Part of that is adding URLs. None of it is necessarily adding yours. If your site meets the guidelines, it will get added, but it is not my responsibility to do that. You are working with an inappropriate mental model of the process.
Becoming an editor isn't any easier (as per my experience) than submitting a site.
I'd hope that is the case. Submitting a site is pretty simple: find the right category (and for many submitters, not even that); click the suggest URL button; type some text.
If becoming an editor was that easy, we'd all be one.
But it is pretty straight-forward. Sounds like Thumpcyc's home town needs an editor. Why not try for that category?
If your site meets the guidelines, it will get added, but it is not my responsibility to do that.
Well, you did just contradict yourself. Stating that it "will get added" means a responsible editor will then add me, given the guidelines. It is then his/her responsibility.
You have the wrong state of mind. You seem to think you are doing anyone a favour by becoming an editor, which you are not. You do what brings you joy, and if editing sites fulfills a need, then so be it. If your joy hinders another's business model or legitimate inclusion in the all important DMOZ then you are doing a dis-service to not only the submitter, but visitors who would seek "comprehensive and definitive" links to whatever they look for.
Also
the most comprehensive and definitive directory of the Webis an excerp directly from the DMOZ Editorial Guidelines document, so for you to state...
victor:
No it isn't (my responsibility).
indicates that you do not have adequate knowledge of their guidelines, thereby making you an innapropriate person to be editing sites, and deciding what sites should exist in their database.
Which further proves that editors without pay are not equipped or encouraged enough to educate themselves to the DMOZ guidelines. They should definitely, therefore, not be deciding what is included in the Google Directory, which is why Google should find a hearty alternative solution.
For example, I can edit anywhere in the directory that I want to -- while I have a responsibility to edit well in the areas that I choose to edit, I've never had and never will have a responsibility to personally make sure that your site is among the sites I review (or even that "your" category is among the categories that I edit). The same thing applies to any other editor.
Neither the ODP, nor Google, nor anyone else for that matter, has the "responsibility" to link to you. It's awfully presumptuous of you to be snarling that directories and search engines are failing in their stated purpose because they aren't giving free listings to you. I don't believe you're mentioned in any of their guidelines or mission statements.
I also do not expect that my site be added to the directory. I am speaking in a theoretical sense that would indicate that any site that contributes to the subject at hand and passes specified guidelines be added to a directory expecting to be "difinitive".
With editors that do not fully comprehend DMOZ guidelines that also respond to submission queries with vague and snotty remarks, and submissions that take anywhere up to "2 years" to get included, it would be ridiculous for anyone professional to ever expect their site to get listed fairly in DMOZ.
Which is why I regress to my first post indicating that the problem isn't with DMOZ... it's with Google using DMOZ, and the reasons why a professional and courteous company such as Google should not force its customers and visitors to have to cater to the rules and regulations of a freely run, unprofessional, unpredictable and unreliable organization such as DMOZ. And you are being forced if you wish to be added to the Google directory.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that any ODP editor who doesn't agree with your take on things doesn't understand the ODP's guidelines. I don't expect you to necessarily understand where editors are coming from (after all, you're speaking from what is essentially a submitter's point of view) but accusing editors of not understanding the guidelines when you obviously don't understand them enough yourself to be able to tell the difference is a bit silly.
Nobody forces you to wish to be added to the Google directory.
>Stating that it "will get added" means a responsible
>editor will then add me, given the guidelines. It is then
>his/her responsibility.
Using the first person is a pretty good way to make everybody think you're talking about yourself, generally speaking.
Either way, I stand by my statement: NO directory, search engine, or privately owned links page for that matter is under any obligation to include a link to any particular website. Unless the webmaster pays them to and they don't have a disclaimer about it like Yahoo's, I guess. *shrug*
Just my 2ect - at least this is what I would think if I had been accepted as an editor years ago.
you should feel morally obligated to add this site
Oh, I do. And I will, or someone else will.
But I am not morally obligated to add it now:
But I am not morally obligated to add it now.
Never said this, but I think you are getting my point. If you add the found site half a year later, it's like not adding it. Especially the "tidy up existing descriptions" argument is irrelevant if your category is relatively small. Cleaning up your spam queues may help you and the editor community, but not Joe user - your target audience.
The rule is simple, and direct from staff: an editor should never feel compelled to add a site he doesn't feel like adding. Period.
Someone IS an editor because he claims to be compelled to add some kind of sites. But that doesn't translate into any kind of requirement to add any other kind of sites, or to feel at all guilty about not adding other kinds of sites.
Naturally, editors gravitate towards adding sites that have some significant unique value. The 50,000th "web design shop" doesn't have much value -- that dude may be a great graphic artist and a wizard with the XML, but face it: if he died suddenly, people would still be able to find web designers at the ODP. So you should expect that kind of site to wait a long time -- years and years, even. Likewise online gift shops...in fact, any commercial category with an alpha bar. Sites still get listed in such categories, but neither I nor any other editor feels any special compulsion to work there.
Some editors like to work in badly backlogged or relatively neglected categories. Some editors even like to collect teams to do that. That's fine. Some editors prefer to build previously nonexistant categories for which no web content is yet available. That's fine also. We want editors doing what they enjoy, and what they DON'T feel guilty about, because we get more work out of them that way. And in the long run, that's all that matters: less work getting done means longer queues for everyone.
As all my sites are listed, I am free of any personal interest in the ODP.
And, there likely are editors who would not feel ethically comfortable about editing in certain categories. For example, one area I edit in at the ODP is Recreation/Drugs. There may be metas and editalls who would not feel comfortable about reviewing and adding sites about how to get high on drugs because they oppose such use of drugs. If so, that they let editors with other values review such sites is not only OK, but can be seen as desirable.
So saying "An editor who deletes perfectly good sites or submissions from the ODP would be bad" is absolutely true.
Saying "An editor who fails to list perfectly good sites or submissions in the ODP would be bad" is patently false. Any addition or contribution would be a good one. Haven't you ever volunteered for anything? I work for a nonprofit organization in real life and though there's always so much work that I could never get it all done even if I worked there 24/7, they're still extremely grateful for everything I *do* accomplish, not sniping at me for failing to do more!
In the end this boils down to 'volunteers' deciding on the search engine rank of sites. What are the rules for them? Can I be sure they're not biased? Where can I complain about an editor being slow, biased or simply making inconsistent decisions?
If I had a choice I wouldn't fuss. If I could register my site with another important directory, I wouldn't be writing this. Unfortunately there is only one Google and I am dependent on it.
Google's monopoly isn't a good match for DMOZ's anarchy.
It DOES affect it (no proof, but I am a firm believer through experience) and so, as Hanu eloquently put it:
Google's monopoly isn't a good match for DMOZ's anarchy.
Dmoz's anarchy is a plague upon any webmaster or end-user utilizing Google's services. Anyone stating that I am not being forced to add my sites to the Google directory is then also stating that I should give competitors an unfair advantage, which is completely ridiculous.
It is necessary to supercede your competitors in any field (profit or non-profit) and if Dmoz prevents certain people from succeeding for any reason other than logical incompatibility with their guidelines, it is irrational and unprofessional.
Furthermore, to state that Joe Shmo with his 800th widget site should not be added to the directory because it will add nothing is completely ludicrous. Who are you to decide that Joe Shmo provides the same service? I highly doubt editors research enough to determine whether or not apparently similar content is truly similar, so justifying rejecting a site based on this criteria is ridiculous. That's bringing in a "first come first serve" mentality which has nothing to do with creating a "difinitive" directory.
Have you ever checked the PR of a typical ODP cat, and how many outgoing links are on that page? In almost all cases, getting added to the ODP doesn't help much with the PageRank of a site. You could do literally do better finding teenagers with home pages that have decent Google PR (surprisingly easy to find), and beg a link from them. And, you likely can get the exact keyword laden anchor text you want from these teenagers, which is very important with Google.
>In the end this boils down to 'volunteers' deciding on the search engine rank of sites. What are the rules for them? Can I be sure they're not biased? Where can I complain about an editor being slow, biased or simply making inconsistent decisions?
The editing guidelines are on the dmoz.org site. Send complaints to staff@dmoz.org. As for complaining about a volunteer being slow, I doubt you'll get very far. And besides, at the ODP no editor "owns" a cat. Any editall or meta can edit in any cat. Thus, effectively you'd also be complaining about every editall or meta being too slow in reviewing your site.
Let's face it: real people don't use directories.
You could do literally do better finding teenagers with home pages that have decent Google PR
I agree, there are lots of ways to be better off than ODP. But how to find those teenie-sites? :)
I agree, there are lots of ways to be better off than ODP. But how to find those teenie-sites? :)
In the "Personal Homepages" categories of the ODP :D
In the "Personal Homepages" categories of the ODP :D
Is this correct? - is their any other major sites like DMOZ that we could try to do equally the same thing?
regards
Andrew
Other directories:
[dmoz.org...]
You get your site listed in your profile page at WebmasterWorld, but I think you need to make 100 posts first.
(I'm surprised no one is suggesting a commercial service to help us make that all-important 100 posts to get the listing -- for, say, USD200 you'd be supplied with clever answers and intriguing questions to bump your post count).
(only joking, Brett).
Only half-joking :)
Exactly. ;) And, just by randomly surfing around the Net using the Google toolbar. There are quite a few personal homepages, and minor amateur sites, that have solid Google PR (PR5+). The reason why is that these sort of personal sites often tend to be very inclined to link to other sites. Even those that aren't topically related. Commercial sites don't like to link to competitors. And, they don't tend to link just because they think someone "has a really cool looking home page." Google PR favors sites like teenager home pages because of their propensity to freely link.
