Forum Moderators: open
note: no bashing or flaming of the ODP or Google.
Just your view of how the world of Google and SERPs in your sector of the industry would change?
In mine's it would be massive, especially for companies who have enjoyed an extended relationship within the ODP only. There is thousands of them.
?
This is maybe because they are on the front lines and just volunteers with no real dedication or motivation to improve.
I'm afraid it's not quite fair to put out a blanket statement with a value judgment like that about volunteers. Not in my eyes anyway, keeping in mind that I've put in a bare minimum of 20-25-30 hours a week of work at what in some communities is a job for going on 3 years, right here at WebmasterWorld. As a volunteer.
I hardly think being volunteer status indicates lack of motivation or dedication.
A previous poster mentionned that most disgruntled people trying to get into DMOZ are those who are "spammers" anyways and that's why they're not in DMOZ. That's quite the steriotypical generalization, wouldn't you say?
AND, there's a difference between whining and bringing up the flaws in a certain process. Just because you don't like/agree with what we have to say does not make it whining or untrue by default.
I must admit. If I were an editor who was threatened by some lunatic threatening to blow up my house because I didn't add his/her affiliate "kingdom" then I might see things differently too :)
Dave.
Possibly DMOZ should remove all these links and just have a picture of the lizard.Alanp73, this is my picture of a lizard [thfreshketch.com] and even I think with your last comment your barking up the wrong treemoz.;)
Quite often volunteers are the most motivated and willing to do the hardest work
Me thinks not! Following that logic all companies would advertize for volunteers and not paid employees.
While volunteers are often dedicated to the cause 'the cause' needs to be rewarding and able to give back. This is why care for the ederly, invalids, Red Cross etc work well.
It going take someone from DMOZ with BIG bls to finally admit that a totally unpaid human edited directory only worked for the first couple of years.
Dave
Actually, editors are signed up to service submitters. Editors are not exactly servants which akin to slaves but they are enrolled to service and aid submitters. Thus when the submit forms don't work, it is a big deal. I am amazed that editors have these lofty views but don't see the real issue. We the submitters are telling you it is broke and someone should listen. We are not all spammers and often we are trying to help.
Of course, to handle the probably thousands of submissions they receive daily, you'd need a "bushel" full of new volunteers to deal with that kind of volume!
I have lost count how many times I applied to be an editor over the years. All sorts of different categories and they were well written applications.
Maybe if they actually approved applications once in a while there wouldn't be such a backlog.
Actually, editors are signed up to service submitters. Editors are not exactly servants which akin to slaves but they are enrolled to service and aid submitters. Thus when the submit forms don't work, it is a big deal. I am amazed that editors have these lofty views but don't see the real issue. We the submitters are telling you it is broke and someone should listen. We are not all spammers and often we are trying to help.
Give it up already. They don't care.
Someone is. The techs are working on it. Some of the problems have already been solved, others are still being addressed. The public DMOZ pages are hanging less frequently (I navigated around them yesterday without problems) and some submissions are getting through now (I've received and processed some). It's clearly still not up to acceptable standards yet, though, since some (probably most) submissions are still not getting through. Attention is being paid. We the editors don't have any control over the technical difficulties, so the best we can do is assure you that we've been continuing to add sites during the outage and point out the silver lining: we've been clearing out those old unreviewed stacks everyone complains about. I only have unreviewed sites left in one of my dozen or so categories at this point. (-:
>Actually, editors are signed up to service submitters.
A common misperception. We're not. We're signed up to add sites. If an editor was hired and NEVER EVER touched the unreviewed queue once, as long as he continued to add sites using his own search skills, the ODP would be happy as a clam with him. He wouldn't be fired; he wouldn't even be disadvantaged for a promotion or an award.
We keep trying to explain this, not purely out of defensiveness, but also because if webmasters could understand this we could all work together in much more harmony. We have common ground. Webmasters want their sites to be accessible to surfers who want to see them, and we do too. When we link to a valuable and content-rich site, it makes the webmaster happy, and it makes us happy too. When we take measures to prevent spam, it gives ordinary webmasters a better chance at earning a link from our site, so this, too, benefits us both.
Unfortunately, as long as webmasters continue to think of us as PEOPLE BEING EMPLOYED TO SERVE THEIR NEEDS, rather than PEOPLE WHO MIGHT LINK TO THEIR SITE BECAUSE IT'S MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL, there will continue to be friction. No one likes to be treated as a servant; it is particularly irritating to be treated as a servant by people to whom you have no obligation whatsoever. Would you like it if you got imperious email in your box from other webmasters demanding to know why you haven't linked from your site to theirs yet since they already sent you email telling you to do it TWO WHOLE WEEKS AGO? You don't HAVE to link to them at ALL, right? What are they being so pushy and high-handed about? Do they think they're the boss of you?
Well... we don't like it either. We're here to add good new sites, not serve submitters as quickly and devotedly as they wish. We do our best at the first purpose, which often results in our pleasing webmasters, and about that, we are happy. We aren't interested in the second purpose, which occasionally results in our making webmasters very angry, particularly those with affiliate sites they really want to spam us with, and you're right, about that, we really DON'T care.
This is actually useful, important information about how we think. You can use it to your advantage. Or you can whine about how uppity we're being and demand that we not only do what you tell us to THIS VERY MINUTE but come over and do all your laundry too. It's your call. I wouldn't sell the washing machine though. (-:
1) The hardware began being updated earlier this year and everything went on hold for a while. After that was fixed, there were problems with the public side so you could not see your site included even if it had been. However, the data sent to sites using the data -- like Google -- was updated regularly so you may have been in ODP and not known it. Though there are still glitches, it is better now.
2) There is no editor for the category you submitted to, and so it takes a long time for volunteers to get to that category. Why not apply to edit the cat, put your site in and then edit all the backlog? That way you are in and the ODP resource is improved. It's how I got to be an editor. (Note: I am a VERY small fish at ODP who edits some buried categories few folks care about except me and some other folks in the same line of thought.)
3) You submitted your site to the wrong category. Editors try to find the right category for sites, but it does not always work. Sometimes the editor doesn't know enough about your subject to find the right category, or is too busy to do a huge search.
4) A site has problems, and the ODP editor is not going to include it until it gets fixed. Some red flags that could keep you from getting included are duplicate content, useless content, inaccessable content, non-existent content, 404 errors, under construction pages, incomplete sites, multiple pop-ups keeping anyone from being able to see your content, etc.
The first problem is pretty much gone, and you should be able to see your site included if it is much faster now. There are still problems with some stuff, but it is much better.
The second problem is the reality in any volunteer organization whether it is a local little league team or a huge effort to categorize the Internet. If no one volunteers, the project doesn't get done regardless of its value. So start volunteering -- both in your home town and at DMOZ.
The third problem is a big one. Webmasters are always submitting to the wrong category and it bogs down the process. Editors are stuck looking at inapproriate -- though quality -- sites and looking for a good place to put them. If a webmasters would submit their site to the right category, it would speed up the process for everyone and make the volunteers' job a lot easier.
The fourth problem may not apply to people who come here, since if you take the time to come here you probable built a half-decent site. However, there are a lot of god-awful sites out there with no content that think because they exist they deserve to be added to the directory.
Why not apply to edit the cat, put your site in and then edit all the backlog? That way you are in and the ODP resource is improved.
Sorry, but when I volunteer my time it's usually to a cause more deserving than the ODP. I honestly would rather pay a directory so I can have my sites listed by a professional who treats my listings as a job - to be processed in a timely manner - instead of a hobby to be done in their free time.
Like communism, the concept of the ODP is much more appealing than the reality. When it's all said and done, profit motive is a good thing.
The profit motive can lead to quality many times, but it can also lead to Enron, WorldCom, Lucent, TyCo, etc. When profit motive fails to provide quality it is usually highly problematic.
Additionally, Yahoo! is based on profit motive and it's directory stinks. The election sections for the states are still showing last year's candidates, and we are only a month away from this year's election! Even DMOZ is more up to date than that.
Volunteerism is often not the most efficient way to do things, but it is a good way to get things done.
Most youth sports programs are run by volunteers without a profit motive, and produce great quality programs. The United Way is not motivated by profit. Churches are generally managed and organized by volunteers, as are the services they provide to their communities. Most rescue squads and fire departments in the United States are either wholly or partly volunteer forces.
If the United States does not have volunteers, there is no United States. Belittling the urge to give of yourself for a higher purpose -- whether it is two to four hours a month for DMOZ or 20 to 30 hours a week for your community -- is to belittle the American Dream.
I know that sounds a little over the top, but it is also true.
The funny thing is, everyone benefits from the volunteers' good will whether they give of themselves or not. And the volunteers who are out there doing it for free don't care that you are being selfish and living off their work -- they do it anyway.
Do you have a job? Why don't you do it for free?
BTW, most of the examples you list take contributions and have people who are paid (also known as professionals) to administer the charitable work they do. I would gladly "donate" $10 to have my site listed in the ODP? If the editors got $5 of that, do you think there would be such a backlog of unreviewed sites?
If Kenneth Lay had been a Boy Scout Leader, he'd have been rading the till and raping the boys -- he's the same amoral greedy liar all 24 hours of the day. And charities, churches, directories all can have "volunteers" who are there only to line their own pockets. Some of them are run by that kind of volunteer. And people that are dedicated to doing well whatever their hand finds to do, can do well whether they are being paid or not.
The ODP isn't here to put professionally-edited directories out of business (although it has contributed to the demise of some of the professionally-poorly-edited ones). We're not even here to put down other directories. (We catch mistakes Yahoo makes, but mostly they do a pretty decent job of what they do. Some ODP editors also volunteer at Zeal. Some work at Google.)
I can correct one serious misunderstanding above. ODP editors are NOT accepted to handle submittals, or to service submitters in any way, form, or fashion! We accept them to build the directory. Anyone can see that, just by looking at the editor application form. What kind of "skill sample" does it ask for?
1) Ability to write letters to submitters
2) Ability to review submitted sites
3) Willingness to be limited to submitted sites?
No, None of the above. We're looking for people who are able and willing to FIND good websites on a subject -- without any help at all from submitters -- and describe them accurately. That's why we ask people to find several good websites on a subject and describe them accurately. That's all. That's really really all. Submittals are there to help the editor, not the other way 'round. Whenever submittals stop helping the editor, we cut them off without compunction, regret, or warning.
This is not to say we'll go out of our way to avoid helping someone. Like many volunteers, we don't know all the people we help. And that's fine. If listing the Podunk Symphony Orchestra helps some violinist get a better job, that's OK, but no way are we going to go out saying, "let's list websites of people that need jobs!" If listing Joe's Plumbing Contractors, Inc., helps Home Depot increase their sales because Joe always buys the wrong part the first two trips to the store, that's all right, too: but we aren't going around saying "let's find incompetant contractors to list!" We know that some webmasters think their ODP listings help their business. But it would be dishonest and abusive of us to edit any site for that reason.
- Impact on Search Quality:
Imho, google's very own search quality could take damage. For the broader search phrases i like it to find sites with dmoz "votes" first. These are in many cases good resources. Giving a bonus to dmoz'd sites and taking this bonus into account when ranking results gives google also a more "human touch". No automatic algo can analyze and score what humans analyze and score. Also, through the pretty strict rules of the dmoz editors, there are NOT MUCH junk sites listed at the dmoz -> and therefor not much junk on top of the serps for broader searches at google.
- Impact on PageRank landscape:
Imho, the overall pr landscape could drastically change. With so much sites listed at dmoz, there are zillions of linking connections, tons of transfered pr, lots and lots of "votes". If this would be all gone, i'm sure, we'd make a new search experience.
i·m·h·o
Impact on Search Quality:
Imho, google's very own search quality could take damage. For the broader search phrases i like it to find sites with dmoz "votes" first. These are in many cases good resources. Giving a bonus to dmoz'd sites and taking this bonus into account when ranking results gives google also a more "human touch". No automatic algo can analyze and score what humans analyze and score.
That only works of there is a human to analyze the sites. If I'm searching for sites dealing with PHP, I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to be editors and the listings are up-to-date. But my area of interest (health care/medicine/education) is woefully undermanned on the ODP. A great number of the categories in this area have no editors and are in terrible disrepair. Which is so different from Google. You can search for the most obscure topic and come up with a good selection of sites. Not so with the ODP. So the impact on search quality would depend on what you are searching for. I would rather Google showed nothing than out-of-date, incomplete directory listings.
Impact on PageRank landscape:
Imho, the overall pr landscape could drastically change. With so much sites listed at dmoz, there are zillions of linking connections, tons of transfered pr, lots and lots of "votes". If this would be all gone, i'm sure, we'd make a new search experience.
Why wouldn't Google still crawl the directory?
If a webmasters would submit their site to the right category, it would speed up the process for everyone and make the volunteers' job a lot easier.This is echoed a lot so here's a view from the other side.
Powdork, if a webmaster is not able to find the right category for his website he/she shouldn't be called webmaster at all. How should a editor find the right place for his/her site then if not even the webmaster him/herself knows what his/her site is about?
could we please turn the discussion a bit more back on topic!? ;)
Ginger_Tom, welcome to WebmasterWorld [webmasterworld.com].
Please read the large, bold, red text at the top of this page - msg #:106. Thanks.
I can appreciate that, actually, and I do sympathize with people who get caught up in an unreviewed snarl just because they submitted to the wrong category by accident.
However, the "solution" you suggest would slow EVERYBODY'S submissions down, not just the submissions of confused folks and especially poor ontologists. As it is now, those people's sites will eventually be considered, but it will take longer than it will for the sites of people who submit them to the right category in the first place. Slowing down the review of the better submitters' sites hardly seems fair... especially since it would waste more editors' time in the process.
Powdork, if a webmaster is not able to find the right category for his website he/she shouldn't be called webmaster at all.That's rather sweeping statement. Many sites could easily fall into different categories. My site was recently moved to a supposedly more correct category before being removed completely. My competition (the exact same type of business for the exact same geographic area) is listed in yet another category.
especially since it would waste more editors' time in the process.I wouldn't consider having more consistent taxonomy a waste of time. Another benefit would be that sites would be added more evenly across categories since everyone under a certain add url level would have the same access to editors, rather than access dependent on if there's an editor for a category. I would also imagine that many times sites are submitted to an improper category because that category has an editor. If you say it would take longer you're probably right. It was just an off the cuff suggestion.
As far as the topic I'll restate my opinion that.
1. Faults and all the odp is the best directory.
2. It is free.
3. It should be spidered (if possible;)).
4. It should be Google's directory.
5. Spidering Google's directory and including it along with ODP' content is presenting duplicate content and should be prevented.
Neither would I! It would, however, be a waste of time to ask the submitters who *do* know where their site should go, to submit it to a central dump and let editors figure out the placement. If a submitter knows what he's doing, let him save us some work. The submitters who don't know where to put their site (or who think they'll get a nonexistant advantage by putting it in a category with a named editor or a high pagerank) will have to be manually sorted out by editors anyway; but I'd much rather not dissuade savvy submitters from saving us some work and simultaneously speeding up their own submission. (-:
My niche directories are listed within the topic of the category within a sub category directories. ;) If there were no subcategories, it should either go to the general topic category or to a category listing niche directories. At least that's how i would do it. I'm not a odp editor though. But i edit my niche directories.
but I'd much rather not dissuade savvy submitters from saving us some work and simultaneously speeding up their own submission.That's also a good point. One of the biggest problems I see would be that it still wouldn't guarantee sites are submitted to the right category(s), regardless of how wide or how focused you make the area in which you were allowed to add urls for a subject.
I don't know the exact percentage, but this is nowhere close to true in some areas of the directory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While trying to retrieve the URL: [editors.dmoz.org:8081...]
The following error was encountered:
Access Denied.
Access control configuration prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your service provider if you feel this is incorrect.
Your cache administrator is webmaster@dmoz.org.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generated Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:41:44 GMT by dmoz.org (squid/2.5.STABLE3)
I once took the time to go through a couple of categories and point out a long list of broken links, duplicates etc. While these categories HAVE been updated they still contain these links. Never again shall I bother!
I had to wait years to get my site moved to a different category. In the mean time my site was also listed in another category. An editor that did not like my frankness on Resourse Zone removed this before it was even made public.
There are without doubt some editors that care and do a good job, unfortunately they are only a very small % and simply cannot carry the rest.
Google should drop the OPD in favour of something inline with it's qaulity results. The ODP directory IS, without doubt, dragging Google down.
Dave
