Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
I think there is some problem in dmoz. I have seen a number of sites belongs to the same company listed in number of cat in Dmoz. And Also dmoz editors are just submitting their own sites in categories and new submission of the same cat or same industry use to avoid. Even personally i had submitted sites to dmoz those are really having good content & PR and all and did not receive any response since 3 years or so.
I believe existing editors are not following the rules and submiting their own sites and rejecting the others.
Any idea on this.
With automated scraper sites and duplicate datafeed sites and other meaningless garbage out there, technically it is probably true what he said about the vast majority of unlisted sites being spam.
But I would also wager that there are at least half as many as are currently in DMOZ that are just as listable. Otherwise why do they need so many hard-working volunteers to add many many sites every day?
damn lies and statistics...
It's just a website, man. It's not a support group. The directory wasn't started to use human editors to be kinder, gentler, and friendlier than an automated search engine can. It was started to use human editors to ensure listing only sites with unique quality content in a way that automated search engines can't.
We've tried to explain to you why sending "Sorry, but your site was declined because of XYZ" emails isn't feasible for us. (To recap: because it gives spammers too much immediate feedback to help them refine their spam techniques, because it causes submitters to get angrier and more abusive than silence does, because it would be a drain on editors' time, and because there's no valuable information the message could possibly contain, since "XYZ" is always "lack of original content.")
I understand that you don't think it matters, because you think it's more important for us to make webmasters feel good about themselves than to build our directory. But that's not our goal in life. Our goal is to ADD HIGH-QUALITY LINKS TO OUR OWN WEBSITE. That's really all. We're just like anyone else with a website, trying to add to it and improve it and provide a product we feel is top-notch. Anything you superimpose over that about how the ODP was supposed to be the knight in shining armor that reaches across the web to embrace all with its humane lovingkindness... dude, that's just creepy talk. It's not Jesus Christ, it's JUST. A. WEBSITE.
joined:Mar 17, 2005
I see little qualitative difference between these statements:
1. "Because the simple fact is, vast majority (not all, just the vast majority) of the sites that aren't already listed in the ODP are spam pure and simple" -- hutcheson
2. The DMOZ definition of spam is "a site not listed in DMOZ" -- Atticus
Is there really such a world of difference here that it makes you pee your pants?
What in the whole is meant by "not all, just the vast majority?" It would seem to be nothing more than a rhetorical device used to completely vilify anyone who tries to submit to DMOZ and at the same time leave the narrowest margin of wiggle room to claim that DMOZ editors are open minded.
I would also like to point out that if the "vast majority" of sites not listed in DMOZ are spam of the scraper variety and that therefore DMOZ has already listed ALMOST EVERY DECENT WEBSITE EVER PUBLISHED (!) then isn't time to turn off the lights and go home?
Mission accomplished, as they say...
[edited by: Atticus at 10:13 pm (utc) on June 19, 2005]
joined:Mar 17, 2005
How are you going to continue to "build (your) directory," when big-chief hutcheson says that most sites which haven't already been added to DMOZ are "spam pure and simple."
Your "goal is to ADD HIGH-QUALITY LINKS TO OUR OWN WEBSITE," and you bemoan the fact that you have no time for 'customer service' because adding those quality links is so time consuming. And yet your fellow editors say that there is very little worth adding at this point!
Just how do you continue to build when there are no more useable bricks in the pile? And why can't you use your time more effectively in dealing with webmaster issues rather than pretending to be busy "building" something out of nothing?
No, it's the largest human edited directory on the web. MY site is just a website, man, and before you joined DMOZ,(and probably listed yours), yours was too. Short memories huh?
It was started to use human editors to ensure listing only sites with unique quality content in a way that automated search engines can't.
No, it was started by a select bunch of people primarily concerned with SEO. They got very pissed off because Yahoo was taking too long to list their sites (sound familiar?), and they felt Yahoo was too financially orientated. They also wanted to give everyone, well, Webmasters like themselves that is, a decent chance of a listing on a comrehensive, equal and fair footing.
SEO and perhaps a nice little earner was the motivation behind DMOZ. How much was it sold to Netscape for BTW?. A few million? On November 17, 1998, word went out the Netscape had acquired NewHoo for their Netcenter Web Site I'm guesing the volunteer editors didn't see a cent of THAT little aquisition!
More fool you.
'Word went out' = 'Sold out' for commercial/financial reasons. Off the back of your volunteer efforts.
Our goal is to ADD HIGH-QUALITY LINKS TO OUR OWN WEBSITE. That's really all. We're just like anyone else with a website, trying to add to it and improve it and provide a product we feel is top-notch.
Yes, and your missing quite a few of them because you can't keep up with the workload? Ergo, your humble website is far from top notch. And never will be unless you keep up with the scale of growth on the web today. How long before the average review takes 5 years for a site? Because you didn't used to take so long in the early days. The 'workload' gets bigger and bigger and you lot take longer and longer.
And in the very beginning, those of you who are and have been there for years and boast about it... There was no screening process. All an editor need to do was pick a category and begin editing.
how the ODP was supposed to be the knight in shining armor that reaches across the web to embrace all with its humane lovingkindness... dude, that's just creepy talk. It's not Jesus Christ,
Yes, my point exactly. Yet YOU get to be Pontius Pilate quite a lot. (well if you want to go down that, distasteful, road, you said it first 'dude'). You do condemn a lot of websites to ever lasting limbo with little or no chance/opportunity for a fair hearing. You do this with the best of intentions I'm sure, but it doesn't make it right.
The ODP was started by SEO meisters, and THEY cashed in. You volunteers just bought into the etho's and have never let go of the propaganda you were fed back then, and wont listen or entertain change. You've been exploited somewhat.
And as for my 'DMOZ is causing a LOT of bad feeling' against it by its standards and practices?
Governments are toppled on the basis of 'bad feeling' towards them. Thats how the world works. Ignore it at your convienience.
DMOZ was driven at it's very inception and core by SEO, and it continues to be. Thats why generally only Webmasters know about it, and thats why Webmasters want their site included. Because of Google and the benefits it brings, ie clickers, or bums on seats as we say in the UK. Informational, profit, fun, charity, you name it.
A website is nothing without clickers. Google brings clickers, DMOZ (unfortunatley), figures in those click ratings. SEO pure and simple.
You're kidding yourselves on if you think otherwise.
You guys 'care nothing' about me.
You are 'not accountable' to me.
You 'do not exsist for me.
You 'are not there to make me happy'
I fully understand. However, this means :
You guys care about DMOZ
You are accountable to DMOZ
You exsist for DMOZ
and you try all you can to make DMOZ happy.
Thats a kind of one-sided view of things don't you think? Dare I say, even, obsessional?
Or to coin a phrase 'dude, that's just creepy talk'.
... There was no screening process. All an editor need to do was pick a category and begin editing.
So those who have been there from the early days, to clarify, had no-one judging if they were actually any good at the job or not. They didn't even fill in an 'Apply to be an Editor' form.
Now that is reassuring.(?) Those long serving people probably make up the majority of 'higher-ups' today. Yet all they had to do was pick whatever category they fancied, and well, start editing.
If I had to guess, my guess would also be very close to this -- that is, that there are on the close order of two or three million listable sites not yet found.
One way to check this is by comparing two different wanna-be-comprehensive sources (Google/Yahoo/ODP); the percentage of sites listed in source Y not in source X is a pretty decent approximation of the percentage of all interesting sites not in source X. This is something we do as a matter of course when fleshing out an ODP category (and this is where my estimate comes from, of course), but there is nothing at all to keep anyone else from doing the same thing as an experiment.
>Otherwise why do they need so many hard-working volunteers to add many many sites every day?
It is likely that we'd have to look through 50 to 100 million sites just to find half of those. Some of them (maybe a quarter to half million) we could find by digging through a million or two submittals. Others we find through ordinary search engines or link pages. Still others we find through the deep knowledge that comes from any large community that shares knowledge. And still others, from wide-ranging editor observations online and off. Some, we just won't find.
Also, don't forget the "churn" of possibly several hundred thousand sites that disappear annually.
It's always a delight to see someone grasping the basic arithmetic involved in this. I think that's the only route to understanding many aspects of reality, including the stochastic aspects of the ODP. And it's really not either difficult or onerous: two or three distinct samples totalling only a few hundred sites will give enormous insight that cannot be readily gained any other way.
Does the post above make no sense, or have I been drinking too much? Since when does the ODP make any money for the business that technically owns it? The ODP is just consumes AOL resources and money. They ain't getting rich from it. It looks to me like the AOL empire just keeps the ODP afloat for PR reasons. It seems like a noble idea. And if they tossed the ODP in the garbage, thousands of pissed off editors would badmouth them. All the ODP costs them is a few servers, and a tech to make sure they keep running. Given that AOL is an ISP, and they are in the business of running computers connected to the Internet, this can't cost them all that much. ;)
The way I see it, the ODP is like Wikipedia. It makes no business sense. Yet, at times it can be useful. The Internet is odd in some ways. Should you consider the ODP useless, feel free never to use it. Really, nobody will object. However, as an Internet user I consider the ODP a valuable tool. Odds are the truly worthwhile sites are listed. And if they aren't, one of the listed sites will link to a site with superior information. The ODP is just one tool for the searcher. I don't rely on the ODP. Heck, most of my searches start with Google. However, when it makes sense I use the ODP in my searches.
joined:Mar 17, 2005
That is what a DMOZ editor is required to say when confronted with timeliness issues and complaints regarding lack of feedback.
But when a DMOZ editor wants to play public relations, and talk about all the value they add to the web, (and justify the relationship with the big G, of course) they say that there are "millions" of sites worthy of a listing.
Oh, and rest assured that they are working on them dillegently. Which of course prevents editors and staff from having the time to provide feedback to submitters or to those obviously qualified people who want to become editors themselves.
I suppose those of us who fail to understand that 2 plus 2 equals 4, except when it equals 6, 11 or 13 will need to spend alot more time trying to "grasping the basic arithmetic involved in this."
joined:Mar 17, 2005
DMOZ editors have the abilty to add websites of their choice to the DMOZ (and Google) directories. This gives these websites additional venues from which to draw traffic.
There's your profit, my friend. Welcome to the world of professional website design and SEO.
If someone is motivated to think of another way of organizing information on the internet, then ... all I can say is "more power to you!" The ODP can't be the only way; ODP editors would gratefully benefit by more and better ways of organizing information. If you come up with a way that is good enough, you might attract all the volunteers away from the ODP. In the process, you might find the ODP ideal has dimensions you didn't suspect -- but learning is always a good thing.
Obsessions: there are some that are socially more valuable than others. The "fans" of sports teams and entertainment starlets are wastes of air space -- but it is their breath, and who may tell them nay?
I know why a librarian or an information junkie or a compulsive organizer would get obsessed with something like the ODP -- that is, on the helping side. It's the same way someone gets obsessed with the Red Cross or the Synagogue or the Boy Scouts or the Army Reserve or anything else that they think is doing a good work. It's not what someone makes you do; it is not what someone pays you to do; it is what you choose to do.
What I don't understand is why a "midwife" would get so insanely rabid about some industry that has nothing whatsoever to do with medical care -- who would be so enraged that some people don't mind other people benefiting from their hobbies. (The ODP can do nothing to harm you -- it does not have the power to keep any local business website from being found by any reasonable search on any search engine. And whatever Google does on its main search engine, neither Google nor Yahoo use the ODP at all on local searches.)
Somewhere, today, some boy scout is helping his community out -- planting trees, helping someone learn to read. If a midwife descended on him, frothing at the mouth, shouting that global warming was all his fault because he was planting trees in a different hemisphere -- who would not suspect severe psychological problems?
Andy, you contributed nothing to the ODP. That is your choice, that is your right: and I would not for a moment criticize anyone for making that choice. There are many other good things that need doing in the world; the world would benefit more by lots of different efforts to do good, than if everybody tried to do the same thing. And you are obviously not equipped to participate in voluntary peer-reviewed information projects, but there surely are things you are able to do well. (I believe this to be true of almost everyone. I admit, that faith has been challeneged occasionally, but I still hang on to it.)
But -- give up this hatred, this resentment of anyone who's doing something different than you are (or is it anyone who you can't control?). Don't let what someone else is doing all irrespective of you, control your life. It doesn't harm them, but it will harm you. Find something good YOU can do, obsess on doing it well; find something totally different (but still good) to use as a break. Don't fret about what someone else is getting, or what someone else is doing. You'll live longer, you'll do more, you'll feel better about yourself, you'll feel better about other people, sane people will respect you more ... it's a win-win situation all around.
Just choose what good you will do, and do it well, and don't worry about the malicious spiteful people think about you -- they are only destroying themselves also.
joined:Mar 17, 2005
Now THAT'S versatility!
Riddle of the Day: If a tree planting Boy Scout submitted his "Scouts Who Plant Trees" website to DMOZ, how tall would the trees grow before he was condemned as a spammer in an internet forum?
[edited by: Atticus at 1:45 am (utc) on June 20, 2005]
I'd have guessed more, but I defer to your expertise. :) The odd thing I have found is most of the best sites are never even submitted. They just exist, waiting for an editor to add them. There is no requirement at the ODP to add sites that have been submitted. Other editors with the time can review them.
Of course not! Do you seriously not understand the meaning of the word "volunteer"? It means I help out with the maintenance of a website I like (and ONLY a website I like; I have no obligation to do it for anyone else) with a task I enjoy doing (and ONLY a task I enjoy doing; I have no obligation to answer submitters' email for them or make their coffee) on my own schedule (and ONLY on my own schedule; I have no obligation to work hours I don't want to) and they are STILL grateful of my help, even though they don't get to order me around, because I do it ALL FOR FREE. Just because I want to. Just because I like their site. I don't expect a thing in return.
Is it *really* that hard to understand?
And Hutcheson isn't my boss, either. Though I'm sure the concept is as amusing to him as it is to me. (-:
It really is just another website at the end of the day, guys. If you like what it does, then it's a really cool website. If you don't, then it's not. But it's not even Google or Yahoo. It won't save anybody's business, it won't doom anyone's business, and the only websites it might POSSIBLY consign to oblivion by failing to link to them are those with absolutely no other respectable links already coming into them. That's not a site that's working very hard to avoid oblivion, if the only thing its webmaster can think of to get it publicity is to submit it to a volunteer directory!
Though as an editor it would be nice to have every single site with any unique content on it indexed in the ODP, as a searcher, that is not what I hope for from it. As a searcher, my goal is to have a directory I can visit that contains no spam, duplicate and garbage results--or as close to no spam duplicate and garbage results as is sanely possible. Search engines do a very good job, for the most part, of indexing every single thing out there. I retreat to directories when I'm being battered by spam and I just want a list of ten or twenty widget sellers who really are actually selling unique products and not just advertising for somebody else whose site I've already looked at. I don't really care if the list is ten or twenty, as long as no more than one of them is going to be a complete and utter waste of my time.
It would be nuts of any directory website to decide to ignore what people who actually use them are looking for in favor of what the people they're linking to want.
joined:Mar 17, 2005
Some folks might have a problem with the fact that Google relies on the Katzenjammer kids for what could otherwise be a well funded and useful directory of websites.
But hey, a playground full of merry-go-rounds and sand castles where nobody ever has to work and the sun shines all day sounds like fun!
Maybe Google's new payment processing service can use out-of-work paper boys, or better yet, organ grinders' monkeys to help keep performance up to Google/DMOZ standards.
joined:Mar 17, 2005
The usual causal sequence is the other way round: boy Scouts aid the ODP by offering their scouting knowledge, for the benefit of other people who would LIKE to know more about scouting. But certainly, we hear about ODP editors discovering other opportunities for public service through their ODP work.
But if you came up with a non-volunteer model that could create a larger or equally-large directory, I'm sure it would get as much or even more attention than the ODP. There's ALWAYS room for another really good directory. I wish anybody who cares enough to build one all the success in the world, and wouldn't begrudge it in the slightest if Google paid more attention to it than to the ODP.
As for trees and libraries, they are both good things (and the world would be a horrible place without both of them) BUT THEY AREN'T THE SAME GOOD THING!
The world needs libraries. The world needs trees. The world needs some people to plant trees, and some people to organize libraries. And society needs the people who plant trees not to be despising those who organize libraries -- especially since some of them are the same people. Society needs the people who are planting trees not to break the library windows because the librarians are busy with something else and won't stop to mix potting soil.
This also isn't a difficult concept.
Insufficient information. How many thousand pages on the history of arbiculture (or scouting) does he prepare for publication each month? Does he also help other people who have scouting or forestry websites, say by editing an ODP category? Does he spend his time in the park planting and tending trees, or attacking librarians who pass by? If not enough librarians pass by to vent his spleen on, does he demand their home address so he can go break their windows and continue the conversation? Is he planting trees because he likes trees, or because he was assigned to community service for assault and battery in the park? Is the website a genuine contribution to human culture or just a way of wasting time on the "community service" clock without going outside in the heat?
No, all that is interesting and important, no doubt, but the only relevant questions are: would he have built his website even if the ODP had never existed, and can he keep on working on it (without personally attacking everyone who doesn't promote it) as if the ODP had never existed?
If the answer is "no", then it doesn't matter who calls him a spammer: he IS spam personified. (This is not "probably spammer", this is DEFINITIVE of spammer.)
Does the post above make no sense, or have I been drinking too much?
You've been drinking too much. I just asked who benefited financially from this aquisition, and pointed out that I know you as a volunteer didn't. You missed my point completely.
And, sorry, but the ODP is not a government. Nobody elected it, nobody forces it on you, it has no territory to conquer or armed bases to attack..
Why must you insist on taking everything I say literally? It is an analogy. Like 'trees falling in the forest' and a 'grain of sand in a sandstorm'. You use them liberally yourself to illustrate your points.
What I don't understand is why a "midwife" would get so insanely rabid
who would be so enraged
frothing at the mouth
who would not suspect severe psychological problems
you are obviously not equipped to participate in voluntary peer-reviewed information projects
But -- give up this hatred, this resentment
(or is it anyone who you can't control?).
Those are exteremely strong words and getting very personal in nature. I'm sorry you feel the need to attempt to assassinate my character like that. Perhaps you have nothing further of value to add to this debate. You should concentrate on the issue at hand. Personal attacks on anyone's character lower the tone somewhat.
There is no 'hate and resentment' from me. I'm simply, taking part in a debate in a very well respected forum. I have no idea what you think we're doing here?
Fact is, when I posted my first post in this thread I only had a vague notion of what the ODP was all about. I just saw there were a lot of complaints about it and decided to add my 2 pence worth. Thanks to the way I was spoken too, I did some deeper and most enlightening research on the subject.
I also don't like being spoken to like I'm an idiot, or insinuations I'm a spammer, or I'm someone who is obviously up to no good, or having any differing viewpoints I have on DMOZ, treated with contempt.
But, back on topic, to answer your question ( passing over the 'insane' and 'rabid' part), would get so insanely rabid about some industry that has nothing whatsoever to do with medical care.
If I had a medical problem and wanted local or informational/community support, what good to me as a searcher is a quality website crammed full of useful information, sitting in an unreviewed pool?
Andy, you contributed nothing to the ODP Yes, I did, I contributed a quality informational website crammed full of useful information. (Just the once, as advised). Which is still unreviewed.
And you editors have very neatly sidestepped an important point I brought up. I'd like an answer please.
Why is this person
laisha, in charge of so many categories and has quite a bit of power within DMOZ, when she has never filled in an 'Apply to be an Editor' form? Or had her abilities as an Editor assessed by anyone?
I assume she is not the only one?
Are there a lot of Editalls and the like who make decsions on who would or would not make a good editor, or what makes a something a good addition or not within DMOZ. Who have never 'qualified' by your own standards to do so?
There was no screening process. All an editor need to do was pick a category and begin editing.
This is not a slight on the person above, I'm sure she does great work and dedicates and has contributed a lot to DMOZ.
But by your own rules and guidelines, is not 'qualified'. Comments? I am interested.
For many folks, money really isn't the prime focus in life. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my income, very much so. However, my income is derived from my profession, which is not even remotely connected to the web.
What I do at ODP, along with various volunteer service elsewhere, has nothing to do with income generation and everything to do with giving service to others.
If that generates a warm fuzzy or a thank you from time to time, that's nice; if not, well, I wasn't doing it to hunt for fuzzies and thankies to begin with, so that ain't nuthin' but a thang, and a tiny lil' thang at that.
IF HE IS NOT A WEBMASTER AND WANTS TO PUT HIS PAGE IN A CATEGORY.
today June 2005 ,who is going to apply as a DMOZ editor:?
IF HE IS NOT A WEBMASTER AND WANTS TO PUT HIS PAGE IN A CATEGORY.
It should take you no more than a couple of hours to provide evidence for that, or otherwise.
All editors' profiles are public, eg:
From that you can get the cats they edit.
From your last couple of RDF downloads you can work out what sites have been added to those cats and/or edited/deleted.
So please answers the question yourself with names, dates, and facts. Rather than expecting volunteers to do it for you.