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
And that's the basic problem. Google has a much broader (but not infinitely broad) but completely different point of view. As an illustration, For years, Google's spidering, ranking, and relevancy algorithms have all treated the ODP just like any other link collection -- at least if you believe the uniform testimony of Google representatives. It would puzzle them sorely to figure out just what you were proposing that they change.
ODP editors (as a collective) also have yet another, much broader, point of view. We're happy doing what we can to improve what is already by far the most comprehensive web directory. And if we didn't know it could be more comprehensive -- we wouldn't be doing that, would we? So we are also sorely puzzled.
But your point of view? We give you free air, and you're complaining about the breeze.
sometimes a single individual can have a point. Sometimes a group of individuals can be mistaken. I'm interested in finding out where exactly my narrow point of view leads to invalid conclusions. I'm not so interested in hearing who might be puzzled by what I say.
message 8, this thread:
[webmasterworld.com...]
In addition, Google chooses to use dmoz as its Google Directory, therefore giving sites a double whammy, but for most sites that's still two fairly low PR links from pages with a fairly high number of links on the page. Anyway, that's a problem you have with Google, not dmoz.
Regardless of whether we agree on fundamentals, it's a very useful lesson to think of ways to develop and market your website to a point where it is not significantly affected by dmoz links to itself or competitors. If this is currently an issue then by definition you must be in a fairly uncompetitive keyword environment. The kind of sites that list well for competitive terms like "news", "paris hotels" etc. have so much content and so many links that dmoz has no impact either way. If you're in an uncompetitive keyword environment, this usually means that you can make significant gains over your competition by fairly straight-forward modification of your on-site code (e.g. putting keywords in the <title> ) and acquiring say ten incoming links from other sites with some decent PR and on a similar topic to your own.
Doing those kinds of things are likely to be far more productive than bashing your head against a brick wall trying to change Google policy because you don't think it's fair to your site.
Hope that helps. :)
On the other hand, M$N does a thorough job on focusing on their customers (the paying advertisers) with no apparent interest in their VICTIMS (who are those shopping-and/or-nonshopping-surfers.)
Google adwords customer representatives have a tougher tightrope to walk. _Their_ goal is to be an effective marketmaker, which means doing the best possible job of matching needs of advertiser-webmasters and shopping-surfers. And they have to balance that against the goal of not driving away non-shopping-surfers.
As a customer, you have a right to pick who provides you service. But you don't have a right to demand service from people who don't want to provide it -- slavery is illegal! Now, Google search engine and the ODP don't offer the service you want: OK, give up on them and go looking for someone who does. That doesn't mean they aren't the best as what they do offer.
Why didn’t you answer the real important questions that I had in your follow up post? I’ll repost them here again so that there is no doubt what I think you missed addressing.
[repost]
>>But if you list any in New York, New York, that were NOT unique, then I feel it is only fair to also list the ones in Podunk, New Jersey. Otherwise it is inconsistent. In my case, I don’t even get the courtesy of an email explaining why it was not listed. Don’t you think this is a RED FLAG or at least inconsistent?<<[/repost]
And personally I still believe that if each editors are doing their own things, so to speak, then the things that they are doing should be spelled out in writing like the charter here. I know that when I started the Motorola IBM PC Club, it was attached to their recreational committee, and it was a requirement either by them and/or the laws of the State Of Florida, that this non-profit club had by-laws and a charter. Are you against ODP having by-laws and charters? If you are, why? Without such a mechanism in place, how you could possibly argue, with any creditability, that the organization is NOT open to possible corruption?
>>But are you seriously proposing as a shortcoming of the ODP that it doesn't waste time on abuses that AREN'T happening?<<
Well I have proof of otherwise, but that is not my point. Have you ever heard of insurance? Have you ever heard of airbags? Have you ever heard of redundant systems? Have you ever heard of law suite? What more reason should one need? And just how long could it take to write? I know for I have written them before. These are all reasons why ODP should make the editors write in a charter, what the are expecting and what they don’t want to see, at least in broad terms to be narrowed later as issues warrant.
It’s seems extraordinary to me that the same editors keep defending what ODP is doing, yet, there are still newer members of WW that show up from time to time with a problem. And even though WW is pretty popular, every webmaster does not post at WW. So you are seeing only a fraction of the people that are disenchanted with ODP. If the system is so perfect as you claim, then why are these kinds of topics started? I don't see any topics about pot holes in roads.
(I just know as soon as I post the pot hole thingy, there will be somewhere in the annals on WW, a pot hole post, I just know it)
I'm confused. What exactly are you asking for? It sounds like you're asking for an outline of what sites are acceptable and what aren't. The publicly available guidelines and most of the category descriptions pretty much cover that very thing so what are you missing?
>>It’s seems extraordinary to me that the same editors keep defending what ODP is doing...
The same editors tend to post in public forums because most editors don't want to put themselves in the line of fire or just can't be bothered (can't say as I blame them).
From the ODP editor perspective, the "customers" that they want to keep satisfied is people looking for relevant quality sites on a topic. Not webmasters.
The same editors tend to post in public forums because most editors don't want to put themselves in the line of fire or just can't be bothered (can't say as I blame them).
It's attitudes like these that seem to centralize around the outspoken DMOZ editors that frequent WW. No one has attacked an editor in this thread, so I have no idea why there is this victimized mentality.
"We're doing it for free. You don't like it? Find an alternative. You have no right to make demands if it's free. In fact, why am I even listening to you? I don't need to, because you want something from me and I have the power to ignore you."
As for what jim_w is saying, I understand it as this:
Create a charter that all Dmoz editors must abide by. This does not dictate speed of submissions (because you cannot demand such a thing of volunteers) but provide very specific reasons why a site should not be allowed in the Dmoz database.
Then, when a site is approved or rejected the submitter should definitely receive notification of such action and also a reason (sourced from the charter) as to why the site was rejected. Then at least he/she has the ability to fix what they missed and/or appeal the decision.
Sure, there will be an in-flux of appeals but that's a whole lot better than people cursing Dmoz for absolutely no regard for submitters whatsoever (which is basically the status of it right now)
And since editor notes go into each action made regarding a site within Dmoz, why can't the submitter be made aware of these notes?
I'm going to use Zeal as an example again because from my experience with them they have much more concrete rulesets that they follow. They seem to respect the effort submitters put in much more than Dmoz does. It's more a question of "why wasn't that site approved?".
With what jim_w is saying, it may improve Dmoz to an extent because it places policing corruption moreso on the submitter than on higher level editors, and may pursuade editors to be more thorough with their actions. (because the submitter may be eager to find out what is happening)
One problem with this idea is that it would give spammers a heads up their spamming was detected, and to try again with a different technique.
Where in my post did I say editors were attacked in this thread? I didn't.
>>Sure, there will be an in-flux of appeals but that's a whole lot better than people cursing Dmoz for absolutely no regard for submitters whatsoever (which is basically the status of it right now)
That's only better if you think we worry about people cursing the ODP. And this influx of appeals would slow down review times even more as editors had to deal with the extra work.
>>since editor notes go into each action made regarding a site within Dmoz, why can't the submitter be made aware of these notes?
Because they are confidential. Yes, I know that is one of your (that's a general "your" BTW) pet bugaboos but it's a fact. Editor notes are confidential and are not going to be made available to submitters or anyone outside of the ODP.
We also have a public forum where webmasters can inquire as to why their site was rejected. Only once or twice have I seen the answer actually help a submitter, though. Most angry submitters are angry because their site has not been listed YET (i.e. it takes a long time to get listed), or because they disagree with our charter (i.e. they think mirrors or affiliate sites or subsites ought to warrant unique listings, when our charter specifically states that such sites will be rejected). Every once in a while someone's site is rejected because the site had technical problems that made it appear to have no content, and then our public feedback can help the webmaster fix it. That's why we have the forum. But honestly, this is like 2% of all the complaints I ever see. People aren't angry because their sites get REJECTED for no reason, which never happens; they're angry because they disagree with the reasons we use, or, most commonly, because they want to be listed RIGHT NOW, which we obviously can't always accomodate.
>>I'm confused. What exactly are you asking for? It sounds like you're asking for an outline of what sites are acceptable and what aren't. The publicly available guidelines and most of the category descriptions pretty much cover that very thing so what are you missing?<<
If you read all the posts, you will see that hutcheson admits that editors have different ways of editing the cats. The discrepancies between the guidelines and what is actually being done is what I feel should be published.
>>The same editors tend to post in public forums because most editors don't want to put themselves in the line of fire or just can't be bothered (can't say as I blame them). <<
My point was not that the editors are posting, my point was that new people keep showing up with complaints. Mr. Red Flag.
rfgdxm1
>>From the ODP editor perspective, the "customers" that they want to keep satisfied is people looking for relevant quality sites on a topic. Not webmasters.<<
Well how many times have we seen this statement. Fact is, if webmasters do not submit sites, ODP would not have any because few if any “customers” submit sites. As a matter of fact, if webmasters never submitted a site, ODP would only have the sites that the editors put in, etc. Your smart, I’m sure you see my point. Which came first, chicken or egg?, etc.
Decius
Exactly
samiamiam
If you read all the posts,… See what I said to motsa above.
rfgdxm1
>>One problem with this idea is that it would give spammers a heads up their spamming was detected, and to try again with a different technique.<<
And laws give criminals the ‘heads up’ on what not to do. What is you point?
motsa
>>That's only better if you think we worry about people cursing the ODP.<<
It’s called PR, Public Relations, and if you don’t think PR is important, let me know and I can show you 1000’s of examples of why it is.
>>Editor notes are confidential and are not going to be made available to submitters or anyone outside of the ODP.<<
For the same reasons why Enron’s CEO tried to hide the misconduct that was going on there?
flicker
>>I'm not sure why so many webmasters think it's possible for an editor to reject a site for no reason.<<
That is not the point, the point is to put everything ‘above board’ and of public record to insure that the reasons are sound and with merit and unbiased, based on current guidelines and international acceptable standards.
>>But honestly, this is like 2% of all the complaints I ever see.<<
Now do you have statistical data to back this statement up, or is this just a number pulled from the air?
>>People aren't angry because their sites get REJECTED for no reason, which never happens;<<
Wrong, that is exactly what I am annoyed about.
In terms of PR transfer, Google does treat dmoz exactly the same as any other link collection.
message 8, this thread:
[webmasterworld.com...]
As far as I know, there is PR and there is the listing order (let's call it LO) in search results. PR is one of the factors that determines LO, but obviously not the only one. GoogleGuy's answer only said the ODP's PR is natural. What if DMOZ-listed sites get an LO-boost?
In addition, Google chooses to use dmoz as its Google Directory, therefore giving sites a double whammy, but for most sites that's still two fairly low PR links from pages with a fairly high number of links on the page. Anyway, that's a problem you have with Google, not dmoz.
True. Due to replies as condescening as hutcheson's I'll probably stop posting here real soon, anyway.
If this is currently an issue then by definition you must be in a fairly uncompetitive keyword environment. The kind of sites that list well for competitive terms like "news", "paris hotels" etc. have so much content and so many links that dmoz has no impact either way.
If you're in an uncompetitive keyword environment, this usually means that you can make significant gains over your competition by fairly straight-forward modification of your on-site code (e.g. putting keywords in the <title> ) and acquiring say ten incoming links from other sites with some decent PR and on a similar topic to your own.Doing those kinds of things are likely to be far more productive than bashing your head against a brick wall trying to change Google policy because you don't think it's fair to your site.
Yes. I actually decided to advertise an internship with exactly that in the blurp. Link acquisition that is, not head bashing. I would certainly get applications on the latter, too.
Hope that helps. :)
It does. Thanks.
No, really. This never happens. Ever. It would be impossible for an ODP editor to reject a site for no reason. I have to fill a form out every time I reject a site. There is no way around this.
If submitters want to know why their sites were rejected, they can come to our public forum and ask. However, most submitters are not distressed about *rejection*; they are distressed about their sites waiting in the queue so long without being published. Every actual rejection has a darn good reason attached to it. A site that has simply not been published yet doesn't necessarily have a reason for the delay: an editor may simply not have gotten to it yet, and may not for months yet. That's the highly frustrating part for webmasters (and one I'm sympathetic to). If you take a look at our public forum, you can judge for yourself. The waiting time is the #1 source of submitter aggravation, and disagreement with our posted rules ("But WHY won't you publish my affiliate site? It's legal!") is #2. Having been caught spamming is #3. Every once in a while there will be a submitter whose site was actually rejected from the ODP mistakenly or for a reason the webmaster could change, such as "your links are all broken and I couldn't find any content." In those cases, asking about it will rectify the problem. 2% is a generous estimate, though. Have a look for yourself.
There are plenty of things which can still improve about the ODP, but sites being rejected for no reason is a real non-issue. It's impossible for a site to be rejected for no reason; it's rare for a site to be rejected for a reason that doesn't match our posted guidelines; and it's trivial for a webmaster to learn the reason and get it rectified if there was an actual error.
line of fire
Unless you meant cooking gone awry, I'm assuming you meant "attack". Editors are not being attacked but a lot of editors seem to think they are.
Admittedly, perhaps allowing for complaints will slow down the submission process, but at least no one has the right to get angry then.
If there is no resentment towards Dmoz for disrespecting some of its customers (webmasters) I think a lot of people would be much more easy going about the possibly long process time it takes to deal with a submission.
This relates to becoming an editor too. From my experience you don't get any feedback as to why you were rejected, so you have no idea what you should do to be more acceptable.
This entire "closed door" policy whereby you never find out whether you were accepted, rejected, why you were rejected, or even a small estimate of when your site may be approved causes (as jim_w stated) bad PR.
The only reason I see that this is a bad thing is competition. If an alternative comes out, or if Google adopts a new or different Directory, people will not use Dmoz. It is only out of necessity right now.
Personally speaking, if I got the impression that Dmoz wasn't an elitist organization I would be more interested in not only supporting it but perhaps even becoming a more involved editor.
This elitism routes itself in the lack of communication and the seemingly apathetic views of the outspoken editors that frequent WW and also RZ.
Wrong. Editors are quite capable of finding them on their own. because people who AREN'T capable of finding them, aren't accepted as editors.
>As a matter of fact, if webmasters never submitted a site, ODP would only have the sites that the editors put in, etc. Your smart, I’m sure you see my point. Which came first, chicken or egg?, etc.
I see your point. You're just dead wrong. The ODP grew to almost 1 million listings -- that is, larger than the Lycos and AOL directories (remember them?) with hardly any submitted sites! We're still fully capable of building the directory that way, and most highly active editors still spend a fair amount of their time doing that.
My current editing project involves reviewing slightly more than a thousand sites, most of which certainly were never submitted, and most of the rest of which probably weren't (but I haven't checked, because I don't care whether they had ever been submitted or not. They're good sites, I found them, and I'm going to make sure they're listed correctly.
The ODP came first. The submittals came later. Much later.
>>One problem with this idea is that it would give spammers a heads up their spamming was detected, and to try again with a different technique.<<
>And laws give criminals the ‘heads up’ on what not to do. What is you point?
Don't confuse "laws" (like editorial guidelines and submittal guidelines, which tell submitters what not to do), which are open to all, with FBI files (editorial logs) which are confidential, and which will indicate more than we're willing to tell about our investigative methods and the knowledge gained from them.
>>That's only better if you think we worry about people cursing the ODP.<<
>It’s called PR, Public Relations, and if you don’t think PR is important, let me know and I can show you 1000’s of examples of why it is.
There are some people we WANT cursing the ODP. We want them wailing, gnashing their teeth, and dropping dead in frustration. "I submitted five dozen sites and they were all rejected!" "I had ten editor names and they were all removed on the same day." "I had thirty sites removed from the ODP, and they hadn't changed at all." And we know there are thousands of such people.
There are also people we don't want cursing the ODP. We want them cursing -- but they should be cursing the right target -- the spammers who have made site reviews in some areas so painful and so unproductive that few editors volunteer to do them.
I don't want to eliminate cursing. I just want it aimed correctly.
>>Editor notes are confidential and are not going to be made available to submitters or anyone outside of the ODP.<<
>For the same reasons why Enron’s CEO tried to hide the misconduct that was going on there?
Actually, for the same reason the FBI doesn't publish its investigative files on Enron executives.
Like the FBI, we have our "internal investigations" group; anyone can file a complaint with them. Unlike Enron, our auditors aren't being paid according to the number of spammers they let in. Like the FBI, we are regularly lied to (hence it is [partly a matter of protection to webmasters that we don't publish comments about their site); unlike Enron, I have yet to see an editor lie about a site status to anyone who asks. Like the FBI, our editors have faced stalking, harassment and threats of physical violence; unlike Enron, they don't get paid. Unlike Enron, we offer products and services, but do not charge a fee; like the FBI, we have to be willing to investigate ourselves to guarantee a good product.
Spammers are the Enron of the internet: false and misleading information on affiliate websites, threats and intimidation of editors, forged and fraudulent testimonials, multiple aliases, hidden transactions with shrouded affiliates -- many of whom shared the same toothbrush. Understaffed, unpaid, threatened and harassed, we track them down -- eventually.
>"The point is to put everything ‘above board’ and of public record to insure that the reasons are sound and with merit and unbiased, based on current guidelines and international acceptable standards."
The results are public record. If they're good, or if they're not good, that is all that matters. How they got there is implementation detail.
You have shown total ignorance of the entire history of the project, lack of sympathy for its goals, contempt of its achievements, and distrust of its community -- and you expect to be invited to WRITE OUR CORPORATE MISSION STATEMENT? Ratbert, we don't need one. We have people who care about our mission.
Yep. In fact, on my list of things to do as an ODP editor is add some rather notable world governmental, and educational institutions, sites on the topics of addiction and substance abuse. The reality is the people who run such sites likely will never bother to submit to the ODP. The ODP guidelines quite clearly permit editors to add such sites that they find on their own.
>>Wrong. Editors are quite capable of finding them on their own. because people who AREN'T capable of finding them, aren't accepted as editors.<<
I never questioned the capability of the editors. Why are you trying to make this discussion into something it is not? However, given the fact that they cannot keep up with the submissions, I have to ask, rhetorical of course, just how many sites would be list if only the editors added.suggested, etc. sites?
>>My current editing project involves reviewing slightly more than a thousand sites, most of which certainly were never submitted, and most of the rest of which probably weren't>>
Probably? Let me know when you know. I don’t have time for stuff you pull from the air.
>>Don't confuse "laws" (like editorial guidelines and submittal guidelines, which tell submitters what not to do), which are open to all, with FBI files (editorial logs) which are confidential, and which will indicate more than we're willing to tell about our investigative methods and the knowledge gained from them<<
I’m not. The entire purpose, unless of course I missed something, is the editors are suppose to find the SPAM and not list it. I wasn’t asking for ODP’s internal information either. I’m just saying that the information that deviates from the published guidelines should also be published. See they are the same issue. Both guidelines, one published and one not. Once again, why are you putting words into my mouth that I didn’t say by taking what I say out of context? I never said anything about ODP internal documants.
>>There are some people we WANT cursing the ODP.<<
>>I don't want to eliminate cursing. I just want it aimed correctly.<<
And this is the kind of organization G wants to base their directory on? Well that’s asinine.
>>Actually, for the same reason the FBI doesn't publish its investigative files on Enron executives.<<
The reason why the FBI doesn’t publish investigations is because they don’t want to corrupt a case before it goes to court due to published laws.
>>Like the FBI, we have our "internal investigations" group; anyone can file a complaint with them.<<
Yea, I did that and it, and I should have spent my time doing something productive.
>>Like the FBI, we have our "internal investigations" group; anyone can file a complaint with them. Unlike Enron, our auditors aren't being paid according to the number of spammers they let in. Like the FBI, we<<
I understand that you want ODP to be viewed more like the FBI and not Enron, but anyone with ½ a brain will see that this is off topic and not related to anything except what you have brought up. Now that might work with some that have not seen this type of personality, but it won’t work with me.
>>many of whom shared the same toothbrush.<<
OK, now that’s just gross! ;-))
>>Understaffed, unpaid, threatened and harassed, we track them down -- eventually.<<
And to everytime that’s happen, I want to give them a ‘dat-a-boy’ and ‘dat-a-girl’, but once again, it is off topic. And you are never going to convince me that the extra unpublished guidelines should not be published. And I doubt that you will convince anyone reading this.
>>The results are public record. If they're good, or if they're not good, that is all that matters.<<
We were talking about the editors not the listings. You want to turn this into a discussion about the listings, because there are a lot more listings and a higher probability of one or two being wrong, but compared to editors, because there are a lot fewer editors than listings, the actual opportunity for having a bad editor that is not found is high.
>>You have shown total ignorance of the entire history of the project,<<
Point to what I said that comes to that conclusion.
>>lack of sympathy for its goals,<<
And what the heck are you basing this on?
>>contempt of its achievements,<<
I never said one thing bad about what has been achieved. I just ask that the additional guidelines being used by editors that are not already published, be published, and the advantages that could come about by doing so.
>distrust of its community<<
Well I have a problem with any organization or community that does anything secretively and refuses to publish ALL their guidelines. Perhaps that isn’t so far fetched.
>>and you expect to be invited to WRITE OUR CORPORATE MISSION STATEMENT?<<
NO. Once again, you are trying to make an issue out of something that was never said. I never said I wanted to wirte anything for ODP. As a matter of fact what I said was 1) I didn’t have time to edit any cats, and 2) the editors should be publishing their own charters. You are not a very good politician.
rfgdxm1
>>…some rather notable world governmental, and educational institutions, sites on the topics of addiction and substance abuse. The reality is the people who run such sites likely will never bother to submit to the ODP. The ODP guidelines quite clearly permit editors to add such sites that they find on their own<<
The reality is, such places don’t give a rats behind about ODP and there may be a reason for that.
Which is one of the things that makes the ODP valuable. Likely governmental substance abuse agencies don't think much about SEO either. Which means they'll be buried in the SERPs and hard to find. Where directories are useful is to find content that isn't so easy to locate with search engines.
Um, well, actually, there were a couple of weeks not long ago when the ODP submission form was broken, and *more* sites were added to the directory per day than when the submission form is working. :-0 I think a lot of people seriously underestimate the amount of time we have to waste dealing with cr*p submissions... we're actually faster at finding things ourselves than we are wading through mountains of submissions the majority of which are inappropriate. Some editors, like myself, even wondered whether it might not be a nice idea for the submission form to 'break' more often. However, since no one's forcing us to slog through submissions (we're perfectly free to ignore the unreviewed queues and add sites on our own), it would be unfair to remove that option.
Folks really need to use a little more common sense approaching these issues... if your intent is just to vent that's one thing, but if there's something about an organization you actually think could/should be improved, you HAVE to approach it from the mindset of that organization's goals if you expect to make any headway. Yelling into the wind about how slow reviews are causing resentment among... a group of people who never uses our website anyway (come on, really; DO you?)... is not going to make us leap to do your bidding, nor should you expect it to. Reviewing submitted sites may be something *you* view as our job, but from the perspective of the *organization* it is a free courtesy we provide to the public. And no, you can't sue us for not providing free courtesies in timely enough fashion. Good grief. It's your prerogative to rail about anything you please, of course; but your sites would be better served if you spent the time working on them rather than railing pointlessly at other people for not promoting it for you for free.
I'm starting to think Google has the right attitude on all these things... I mean, GoogleGuy comes here all the time, seems to read most everything on the Google forum, yet he completely ignores all the ridiculous "My children are going hungry because MY SITE IS NO LONGER IN THE TOP 20 RESULTS FOR MY @$%!#! KEYWORD!" and "Google is going down the toilet because USERS CAN'T FIND MY SITE ANYMORE!" and "Let's sue Google for unfair business practices because WEBMASTERS ARE THEIR $@%#$#! CUSTOMERS TOO!" messages. Just completely ignores them; doesn't even dignify them with answers. He answers polite requests for practical, non-sensitive information only. This is less enlightening than the straight answers would be, to be sure, but it still helps almost everyone who actually needs it as opposed to just blowing off steam or spamming. And it keeps him from pointlessly agitating the ones who aren't going to be able to think rationally about the true answers anyway. *ponders*
That is a very good point. From the perspective of ODP editors, getting an editor feedback from a user complaining of a lot of sites in a cat the are dead with can't find DNS errors or 404s would be seen as something more of a concern than a webmaster complaining that his site is still in unreviewed and this is hurting his Google rankings.
ALL the official editorial guidelines are published.
From the ODP Social Contract: [dmoz.org]
3. We Don't Hide Our Official Editorial PoliciesWe will keep all official ODP editorial guidelines and policies open for public view at all times.
[dmoz.org...]
Contrary to myths and rumors, the ODP editors don't use some SooperSekrit guidelines that are hidden. And as a practical matter, with over 10,000 current active editors, how if there were secret guidelines how could they be kept from leaking out?
That doesn't mean that editors are permitted to use different criteria to make decisions about whether to reject sites or not. We are not. We must use the criteria published in our guidelines; every time.
Editors ARE permitted to edit where and when they feel like it. One editor may edit for 10 minutes every day, another may edit once a week for a few hours. One editor may spend all day clearing spam from the directory, another may add sites from an unreviewed queue, and a third may search out and add sites on his own initiative. It's all good. If I add 100 good, guidelines-compliant sites to the directory, no one at ODP cares if I got them from submissions, search engines, or my psychic powers. (-:
I go out to find sites nobody cares to submit. Yahoo (and other commercial directories) generally won't list them because these sites are critical of the companies it lists for review fee of $299 per annum. Conflict of interests, perhaps?
There are things at DMOZ I wish were different. However, all are volunteers and who am I to be critical of them. I am aware that it is a huge project and things can't be perfect. Currently, all I want to do is to maintain my category well, working within my constraints. I too was complaining about DMOZ a few months ago but after realizing Gandhi's saying, "we must become the change we want to see in the world," I decided to volunteer.
That is an interesting statistic. So...
...why not return to that Shangri-La. The chronology seems to have been
1. ODP grew to 1 million without much use of submitted sites
2. Now ODP receives large numbers of spam sites
3. Perhaps the majority of editors time is sent clearing the submitted sites - most of which will never be included in the Directory.
4. Editors spend time in this way because "management" (ie those above them in seniority) want to keep down the number of unreviewed sites. Hence they apply pressure on editors to spend time clearing unreviewed
The logical conclusion would be to abandon the use of the submission facility, and force editors to "find" their own sites - less time spent on clearing spam, more time spent on editing.
The "fault" would seem therefore to lie within ODP's internal heirarchy for putting such a high priority on clearing unreviewed. It looks as if you shoiuld have removed to submission facility years ago :)
Editors spend time in this way because "management" (ie those above them in seniority) want to keep down the number of unreviewed sites. Hence they apply pressure on editors to spend time clearing unreviewed
Not my experience.
Never been pressured in that way (or any other) by any editor.
If you are an editor at the OPD, Cornwall, and you have experienced such pressure, raise the issue in the internal forums.
It looks as if you shoiuld have removed to submission facility years ago
Or go half the way. Remove "suggestion" facility for spam-affected categories, which are possibly far related with, let's say travel, real estate, finance, etc. Would be quite a nonsense being unable to submit to a "personal site" category? Set up a spam limit, and remove the "suggestion" button only for these categories where the limit is reached.
Who is going to clean up the mess that is bound to arise in just a few years from now? It could be a niightmare. In Yahoo, by contrast, since there is an anuual renewal fee to continue, this problem is less likely to arise.
