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
Sometimes I feel this way, I admit it; but it wouldn't be fair to editors who prefer to look for sites in the unreviewed queues. Since no one is forcing us to search for sites to list in the queue, it isn't actually hurting anything (other than frustrating submitters, and turning off submissions entirely would cause even more frustrated submitters, as was clear during our technical difficulties a while back). Some editors like processing submitted sites, so taking that option away from them wouldn't be right, even if the end result was more sites added to the ODP per day.
I would like to contradict this conclusion. For example, assuming my website is linked to from a PR6 blog, two questions arise. 1) How did the blog become so popular - assuming that PR correlates to popularity? 2) Why does the blog link to my site?
The blog is popular because people like to READ it, such that some even LINK to it. The blog links to my site because obviously my site is of interest to the authors of the blog or simply because my content is related to theirs.
Now, would I have reason to complain if the blog authors decided remove the link to my site? No, I wouldn't!
The DMOZ on the other hand is not popular because of its content. It doesn't have any; any original content, that is. If it was like any other link collection, of which so many existed in the early days of the web, it wouldn't be very popular either. The DMOZ is popular because of it's intent: to be the MOST comprehensive directory of the web.
The problem here could be that the DMOZ sub-categories gain most of their PR from other pages inside the DMOZ. For example: googling "link:http://dmoz.org/World/Deutsch/Wissen/Bildung/" (PR6) gives 201 links from inside DMOZ and one from outside DMOZ. Hence a category's PR is not so much a consequence of that category's editor but that of the whole ODP.
Now to my final conclusion: Since it's not the editor who earns a category's popularity, how can the editor be considered equally independent - regarding site inclusion -to a blog author or more generaly speaking to any other webmaster/author whose PR is self-earned?
How do editors cope with that? How do the editong quidelines reflect that?
I agree. Coming from me - the angry webmaster - you might wonder why. I agree partly because without submissions the ODP's importance would decrease to a normal level. Partly because, I would be more assured that editors consciously PICK sites instead of rejecting/accepting them from the queue in an inconsistent manner.
The ODP should then also remove any purely business-related category. It's easy to remember listing Burger King when listing McDonalds. But as categories get narrower and/or businesses get smaller it's very likely that editors overlook competitors.
Directories of indexed and described links have original content by almost any sensible definition. There may be those who think indexing and describing existing materials isn't adding value to them; but those people have never worked in a library, I can assure you. (-: The ODP itself has dozens of "Directories" categories in which to list such websites. They're very valuable for users.
When we say "unoriginal content," it's actually a slightly nicer way of saying it's either a clone of another website, an affiliate of another website, or its content is plagiarized. We list high-quality topical directories all the time.
Sometimes I wish webmasters might view an ODP listing as more of a "web award" for having a high-quality site (according to our criteria, which are open to interpretation but nonetheless a matter of public record) rather than a God-given right to Google rankings or something. If you're awarded a listing, you can have a link from our moderately well-viewed/moderate-PR website. If not, well, that's hardly going to make or break your business, now, is it?
I understand that it can be frustrating when a competitor gets more attention than you do from the ODP, the press, or anyone else for that matter; but it's really something you need to be able to cope with. The reward for getting an ODP listing is small, especially for competitive shopping sites where not much traffic comes from our pages comparatively speaking and the importance of a 4PR link is practically nothing. If you're not meeting our guidelines, look somewhere else for a comparable link! Don't waste your time and energy fretting about how unfair our affiliate policy is, or whatever. Every website has standards for what it will and will not link to. A directory that didn't wouldn't be of much value to anyone.
Nobody "in charge" asks for the unreviewed listings to be kept down, but there's a sort of urban myth out there that we should be doing that. Hmm, I wonder if it comes from threads like this or forums like webmasterworld?
ODP averages about 1000 new listings, net, per day. At this point about 40,000 domains have 5 or more listngs (including deeplinks, of course). I have no idea how many domains have less than 5, but I'd expect it to be several multiples of 40K.
The directory grows, it has lots of breadth, and is apparently good enough for Google to use. I'm sorry you don't like it. Please, give up on DMOZ. We won't miss the constant whining, and your sites may get listed all the same.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if an editor were to apply for additional categories and that editor had a big unreviewed list..
.. then my impression is that as a meta you would not look kindly on that request, and would probably suggest to that editor that they cleared their unreviewed first (or at least made a dent in it) before asking for more categories!
if an editor were to apply for additional categories and that editor had a big unreviewed list...
[dmoz.org...] doesn't address this at all. I don't think it should.
[dmoz.org...] has one phrase which could be clarified a bit: "Your editing stats should reflect the ability to ... keep up with new submissions." I don't know what is meant by "keep up," but, from where I sit, people who have only had small categories to edit should be able to properly "dispense with" sites submitted to their area as well as find sites on their own. Once someone has taken on an area known to be swamped with submissions (good and/or bad) it is fully understood that nobody will ever be able to catch up without superhuman effort.
In other words, people with tiny categories can, most likely, deal with whatever comes their way. Bigger categories have different assumptions built into their care.
As for your assertion that a directory can't have content, try stealing Yahoo's directory and see what the lawyers say to you. You may be blind in that part of the spectrum -- I've run across marketroids who used the word "content" to refer exclusively to ad-hype promotional verbiage. But both a directory's taxonomy and its site descriptions count as "original content" for purposes of the copyright act, as well as providing a unique service for [some] users. If you don't find it useful, this is not Microsoft: nobody will force you to use it.
If you're looking for website promotion services, we don't do them and won't ever do them. It is not your fault (altogether) that you are disappointed: there are lots of website promotion services (Overture, Looksmart, etc., etc., that masquerade as directories. If you live in the SERP jungle, you get used to that; and every directory-shaped bush you see, you have come to expect to tear off the leaves and find a disguised website promotion service. And so you're disappointed because you tear up the ODP and -- the website promoter isn't there!
The ODP really is different. It really is a real directory, from leaves all the way to the rootstock. No matter how much you rip it apart, you won't find what you want. So don't try. To find your heart's desire, go rip apart a different bush.
And try for a moment to be slightly reasonable. When almost every "directory" in the world is really only offering the services you want, and only one major directory is offering services to someone other than you and your ilk ... do you really have justification to be so bitter simply because one site cares only about surfers -- and serves them only?
And is it really any surprise that other sites (even ones that offer you the usual promotional services) take advantage of the ODP content to attract the surfers?
- bitter,
- disappointed,
- seeing the ODP as a website promoter slash SERP,
- wanting a service from ODP nor
- unreasonable.
Can you do me a favor? Could you stop projecting our "angry webmaster/jungle species" image onto me? It seems that you are not really interested in an exchange of thoughts here.
[dmoz.org...]
All communications related to the ODP -- with other editors, submitters, or ODP staff -- should be civil and polite.
Hutcheson has a really hyperbolic style of rhetoric, but I believe he's generally correctly interpreted your previous posts, hanu.
If he's way way off, please clarify your statements and "where you're coming from."
TOS for WebmasterWorld and the charter for this directories forum could well be used to kill this thread
And that purpose is, most definitely, to continually add relevent and informative sites as quickly as possible.
As a webmaster who thinks his site is relevent and appropriate, what choices do you have therefore?
1. Submit the site, hope for the best.
2. Submit the site, contact the editor about it (which is against the vague contact guidelines), go to RZ and find out what's happening (which will not expediate the process).
3. Become an editor.
If your goal is to succeed at what you do, then you have to be very pro-active. This means, take the matter into your own hands and become an editor. This is no different than marketing your site, if it is what you must do to promote it.
So, I pose my question to editors in this thread then:
1. If I were to apply to become an editor of a category and openly admitted that I have sites that I own that I would like to contribute to them, and don't necessarily have interest in contributing others to it but might go through the submissions to pass/reject some, would that reflect negatively on my appplication? If so, why? According to many of you "any work is an advantage" so theoretically even if I submit three sites and edit ten I am contributing and completing my responsibilities as a volunteer, am I not?
2. How negatively do you view people who have commercial interests in the category they are applying for? This is not defined in the Guidelines because it simply states that you have to be honest about it, and that you won't necessarily be rejected because of it. This is also vague and does not provide me with enough incentive not to lie when I apply.
3. Based on my experience as an editor, higher end editors are VERY pro-active at checking if someone is promoting their own sites. In fact, unreasonably so. I have had numerous experiences where sites I have been affiliated with have been incorrectly renamed and tagged to be much less viable commercially for no reason whatsoever. What sort of internal affairs appeal process is there? What do you do, as an editor, if you are being unfairly punished for "contributing relevent and appropriate sites", but ones that coincidentally belong to you?
This all boils down to one question: As a webmaster, if you want to input your own site into DMOZ, and you will in fact be contributing to their database, which does fulfill your responsibility as a volunteer, why doesn't everyone apply and become editors to not only promote their sites but add to the ODP?
There is so much vigilance in the area of self-promotion that it doesn't seem logical to constantly look for editors and reject ones that may be great, but with commercial interests.
And I'm speaking of real situations from peers. Apply with honesty, rejected. Apply with honesty again, no response. 1.5 years have passed. Apply with lies, acceptance.
I wasn't aware that there was much dissatisfaction of ODP editors with the infrastructure.
I interpret "civil and polite" to mean things like not calling others that disagree child molesters who kill kittens and sacrifice them to Satan. Just because someone disagrees with a point doesn't mean they aren't civil and polite.
However, there's definitely no problem with editors having a commercial interest as long as they aren't editing to their sites' advantage, constantly thinking about the directory's effect on the commercial viability of their own sites as they go, arguing with other editors about the best descriptions for their own sites, etcetera. Anyone with a commercial interest who is able to work without bias can make a great editor, and I have met many who are. (-:
I wasn't aware that there was much dissatisfaction of ODP editors with the infrastructure.
Are you kidding me?
This is really all just common sense here, and can apply to *any* organization, not just DMOZ: if you want an organization to make changes, you need to understand what their existing goals are and what the needs of their management, staff, and customers are; then think of an idea that will address those issues--or at least sell your idea to them as addressing those issues--rather than stamping your feet and insisting it would be better for you and your friends if they made changes.
If you suggested to McDonald's that they should give you free hamburgers for the rest of your life, for example, they'd ignore you. If you explained that you never ate there but thought they should paint the roofs on all their restaurants green from now on because you like the color green, they'd ignore you. When their customers asked them to carry salads, though, they started doing that. If you had a suggestion that would cut their operating costs I'm sure they'd listen to it even if you weren't a customer.
Similarly, from what I've seen so far the ODP is very interested in ideas that will benefit its editors, its downstream users, and searchers using its directory. Ideas that are expensive, difficult to implement, or inconvenient for editors are obviously less likely to be listened to. Ideas for the benefit of non-customers who don't use their directory are going to take the lowest priority.
So if you're a non-user of DMOZ who really really wants them to change their infrastructure to benefit you, I strongly suggest you 1) listen to the ODP editors explaining the project's goals and priorities, 2) think of a solution to your problem that would further ODP goals without inconveniencing editors or costing more time, money or other resources than the solution would be worth to them, and 3) present it in that light.
This is first-year business school stuff here.
Just because someone disagrees with a point doesn't mean they aren't civil and polite.No but attributing emotions to your opposite and asking them to be "at least slightly reasonable" does.
kctipton:
If he's way way off, please clarify your statements and "where you're coming from."
During the two weeks I have been in this forum, I have seen the same two statements recur.
1) Webmasters shouldn't complain about their site not being listed because you can't complain about a something you get (or don't) for free.
2) Editors shouldn't be encouraged/guide-lined to prompt reviewing because you cannot force someone to do something they would be doing for free.
My point was that both statements are two sides of the same incorrect coin. I do understand that in certain categories, it is not desirable to list sites with duplicate content. In other categories where fairness is an issue (most of the Business categories belong to that type) listing as many applicable sites as possible is crucial. The ODP guidelines do not reflect this distinction.
I suggest that
- the submission process is made more transparent and that
- editors of 'fairness categories' commit to prompt reviewing.
I admit that I didn't see things that clearly in the beginning when I started
posting here. It needed the dialogue in this forum for me to get there.
Consequently, my earlier posts are not necessarily coherent.
Webmasters want complete transparency, which we can't necessarily give due to spam prevention necessities. Still, the rules editors edit by are public.
While I sympathise with you on the time it takes, how would this occur? If an editor can't "promptly review" sites, then what? Then we might have one less editor, and unfortunately, review times would get even slower.
*goes back to lurking* :D
I know this may be hard to come to grips with, but you need to understand what the organization ITSELF is trying to do, and why, before you can hope to influence it. Simply repeating "But you must do XYZ because that is most fair to me" will not take you anywhere. The ODP--or any company or organization you will ever encounter anywhere--does not need to cater to you, only to their own customers.
I realize that it's also difficult to understand why the management and volunteers at the ODP don't consider you their customer--after all, you built the website, right? However, the ODP is not in the business of promoting your website. The *customers* of the ODP are the people who *use* the ODP. The people who use the data for their own purposes, and the people who look things up in the directory. It amazes me how many people are constantly going around stating "I never use this directory myself, but I think the place's entire infrastructure ought to change so as to benefit me more." Have you ever had success with this tactic in the real business world? Why do you think it would be successful over the Internet?
If there's something you wish would change about the ODP... or about Google... or about Microsoft... the burden is on >you< to think of a way to convince the organization in question that the change will benefit them, their employees, and their customers, and that it will not cause problems for those important groups. Explaining how much the change would benefit you will get you ignored pretty much every time.
There are definitely things that could be improved about the ODP (and Google, and Microsoft,) but it's ridiculous to fault a business for not making the sort of changes that would inconvenience its own people and customers purely to please people who never patronize the business.
There are many editors (metas, editalls) that can edit in every category, and within the category tree any one category will have multiple editors that can edit there. And there is nothing in the guidelines prohibiting multiple editors in any one category. Which means no editor can "bottle up" any submission by just editing very slowly.
Also, why would people who run info sites submitted to non-commercial categories think business sites deserve more "fairness" getting their sites reviewed quickly?
>For years, Google's spidering, ranking, and relevancy algorithms have all treated the ODP just like any other link collection --
I don't see it that way because nobody can get into Google's directory, and therefore receive a PR rating, without being in ODP first. Right?
And now it's become common knowledge that if one is to link to another site it should have a Google PR of at least 4 in order to boost it's own ranking and so other sites are reluctant to link to a site not in Google's directory. And thus we turn back to ODP like a cat chasing it's tail.
I have about 6 client websites that I submitted to OPD since last March and none of them have been accepted yet and none of them are mirror or spam or flash sites, or any other non-guideline excuse either--they are all original, quality content sites. My already listed sites in ODP rank high in Google so it's not because of my design. It's because OPD is constipated.
I checked out all my sites in the ODP forum re their submission status a few months ago (all in different categories) and I was told about where they were in the queue and wether the editor of that category was fast or slow. The next time I checked my sites about 6 weeks later, I got a canned answer something like "still awaiting submission." At least knowing that they were slowy climbing to the top would be an encouragement but not with this answer.
The subject of this thread was "is it time to give up on DMOZ?". Well, the answer appears to be that we can't. Therefore until another alternative appears to get into Google's directory we are being held hostage by a slug crossing the salt flats.
No, not at all! All sites that Google spiders receive PR, regardless of whether they are in its directory or not. That's just the easiest place to *check* your PR, but you have it whether you're in there or not. You can download the Google Toolbar to see your site's PR regardless of whether it's in the Google directory or not. The ODP has absolutely nothing to do with whether a site is assigned PR by Google or not, and no control over how they do it.
we are being held hostage by a slug crossing the salt flats.
More accurately: you are getting a slower response than you would like from a free service.
The slow response is because there are too few ODP editors to respond at the speed you would like.
Problem One: your expectations from a free service
That's your responsibility; you could change your expectation if it helps you feel better.
Problem Two: too few editors to provide the service you expect.
That problem is created by everyone who is not an editor. If you are part of that problem, I'd suggest taking the appropriate steps immediately.
As far as I know Google's only relationship to the ODP is as a customer: they use our data for their directory, as many other customers do. As far as I know the ODP's only relationship to Google is as a crawlee: Google follows links from our pages, exactly the same way it does for links from any other page, and factors those into its mysterious algorithms, exactly the same way it does for links from any other page.
I'm sure a DMOZ link could help your Google positioning, but no more than a link from any other webpage would. For commercial websites in competitive areas, where the top sites already have hundreds of backlinks apiece, the effect of a DMOZ link must be near-irrelevant. I can't imagine that either microsoft.com nor viagra-affiliate-number-4539.com is going to budge even one place in their Google rankings depending on whether it's listed at ODP or not.
And since Google and the ODP aren't actually associated with each other (except, as mentioned above, in two ways that they are also each associated with tons of other websites in exactly the same way), neither officially cares about the other's ranking system, nor tries to influence it in any way. Complaining about your Google ranking to the ODP is like complaining about the mayor of Chicago to McDonald's. McDonald's doesn't pick the mayor of Chicago, would probably think you were a little weird or maybe even accusing them of something illegal for suggesting they do, and sure as heck isn't going to shoot itself in the foot by closing its Chicago restaurant because of incorrect theories you have about how the mayor's lunch influences his political decisions.
The ODP guidelines don't reflect this distinction (between business sites which demand special levels of fairness and non-business sites which don't) because the ODP as an organization doesn't agree with your distinction. As far as the directory is concerned, ALL sites deserve the SAME degree of fairness (i.e. being judged according to consistent rules), and NONE may be listed despite a lack of non-unique content.
As far as the rest of your post is concerned it is merely a repetition of what you and others said earlier. You are discussing my arguments on a personal level – quite uninteresting to me. I am not speaking about my personal problems with DMOZ or my listings. Moreover, it’s rather silly to assume that I would be as illusory as to assume that posting here would really change anything.
Because of this I find ODP’s approach of treating every single category the same rather short-sighted.
Every category is treated in accordance to the guidelines. There are variations in the guidelines according to the type of category. Compare, for example, these category descriptions:
[dmoz.org...]
[dmoz.org...]
which have evolved according to the various misunderstandings and mis-submissions to the category.
In two other ways, categories are not treated equally.
Modern law also provides protection from harrassment and other forms of abuse. If the law allowed for jailing ODP spammers, then we'd see a much better state of affairs.
Well, what ARE you posting here for then? Pointless whining isn't welcomed by the WebmasterWorld terms of service. If you don't have any interest in making an effective suggestion that might actually have a useful result, why are you wasting everyone's time?
The ODP doesn't care if it's "fair" to your site in the way you are defining it. As an organization the ODP is entirely uininterested in giving special treatment to commercial sites because you consider them more important; the intention of the project is to index websites WITHOUT prejudice towards the topic, the financial interests of the people involved with the site, the manipulation of search engine results, and so on. That's how the ODP defines "fair." That's what it's trying to accomplish.
You can think critically about the many useful posts that have been made here and the ODP guidelines and social contract that have been linked to; try to understand what the organization is trying to accomplish and why it is set up the way it is; and then discuss thoughtfully how changes might be made to it that could serve your purposes while still furthering the goals of the ODP itself. Or you can just sit there complaining that the ODP doesn't give preference to commercial sites, doesn't publish affiliate sites, doesn't do website promotion, doesn't troubleshoot Windows NT, and won't send a volunteer editor over to wash your dishes. It's up to you, but complaining that an organization doesn't do something other than the purpose it was expressly created for is a thoroughly pointless exercise.
neither officially cares about the other's ranking system
No, but if you have a site listed in a PR7 part of the ODP, then Google will treat that as a significant "vote" in the PR calculation. ODP editors are aware of this, and I have seen editing behaviour change as a result.
For example.. it used to be common practice in some parts of the directory to leave hard-to-categorise sites in higher level categories than easy-to-categorise sites. There used to be a lot of sites hanging around on second level categories (e.g. Reference/Widgets) as a result. Now virtually all listings are pushed down further into the directory, and those in higher-level categorise are ALREADY major sites with high PR.
However, flicker's point is true. The ODP is *not* Google. Google is *not* the ODP.
