Complaints & Debates about ODP/DMOZ

[Steven Glover]

I recently was looking into the submission status for our website at DMOZ so naturally I came across www.resource-zone.com which seems to be the forum for the (volunteer) editors of DMOZ. Nice little forum and seems to work well. However once I posted my question about the status of my submission I decided I would look around. I came across this post. I am removing the responses not directly on topic.



DonaldB(DMOZ Editor): It looks like your application was reviewed and denied. I think it may be time to find a different hobby.

Cooleditor2(Applicant): Could you give the reason(s) i failed? it will help me for my next application.

I read the submission guidelines.
The category i chose had 2 links only.
Experience: editor for zeal.com, musicmoz.org, and editor for dmoz.org about 2 years ago.
Titles and descriptions were fine to me.

Motsa(editor): I would take donaldb's suggestion that "it may be time to find a different hobby" literally and not apply again.

Cooleditor2(Applicant): You are right Mosta but
1 It was a suggestion
2 This is the OPEN directory, open to volunteers from all around the world

DonaldB(DMOZ Editor): Two thumbs up for the effort, but I think it is time for you to forget about the ODP


Again, some of the posts were left out to read in full look here (http://www.resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=49319&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

Now this seems to be the type of attitude you find riddled thruout DMOZ. The "Because I said so." It is almost impossible to get a straight response. The concept of ODB seems pretty straightforward and a good one. However I am wondering if better checks and balances should be in place for submissions for not only websites but editors as well. I think if your application for either one of those items is turned down an email should be sent explaining why. I would even write the script(for free!) that would make this as easy as cake.

I guarantee that there would be a lot less frustration about the ODP and you would have a LOT less resubmissions thus cutting down previously rejected websites that these volunteers have to go thru. It may even decrease unethical SEO practices.

For example I submit site A. Site A has some masked text. An editor reviews the site sees the Maked text. The editor uses the a generic form letter that has a box checked explaining the rejection (possibly even a small text area for custom text). The owner of site A gets his letter decides to either fix the issue or not. Then resubmits if the issue gets fixed.

In many instances if the problem cannot be fixed or the owner will not fix the problem the site will never be resubmitted relieving the pressure on the volunteer editors. The system works MUCH better.

What do you guys think? Sorry bout the long windedness!

[cbp]

I am not sure, but I understand that editors are encouraged not to communicate directly with webmasters about rejections etc becasue of abuse, threats etc.

CBP

[Steven Glover]

I would think that would be important but it does not seem to be the case.

[minstrel]

I am not sure, but I understand that editors are encouraged not to communicate directly with webmasters about rejections etc because of abuse, threats, etc.

But surely it would be easy enough to provide feedback using a nickname or pseudonym that would shield the editor from any real threat?

The alternative, i.e., little or no feedback, suggests the "because I said so" sort of authoritarian attitude that Steven Glover was talking about. Why would DMOZ/ODP want to encourage that impression?

<soapbox>
I suspect the real reason is that the ODP editors really don't have the time or energy to fulfill the basic aims of the project, let alone to explain their decisions to anyone else, webmasters or colleagues (yeah... I know you've heard all this before, but isn't it true?)
</soapbox>

[simonm]

I am an editor for DMOZ and though I agree that it would be nice to provide feed back, the time this would take makes it unrealistic. In the category I edit - it is irrelevant which one - I deal with about 50 sites per month.

Not many you might think but each requires a considered adjustment to the title and description - few submitters read the guidelines. Each post also involves looking at that site to see that it is live, is not an additional url pointing to a site already posted, is a web site, not just a holding page or under construction and relates to the submitted title and description. Also that it is in the correct category, which often means actually looking for the right category! Sometime it involves looking for the url, its surprising the number of people who cannot even get their url's right when submitting!
I have been doing this most weeks but every month at least for over 2 years.

Why? its part a contribution to the web which is a large part of my work, partly a hobby, partly to better understand the way the web works, but 100% voluntary. I do get a great deal out of it, I get to see every new web site in the categories I edit, also the rate that new websites come out and are ceased. I know that I and the other editors that I occaisionally email take dmoz very seriously.
Of course I am also a user of dmoz and I get equally frustrated when sites that I submit don't get posted.

A forum submission sometime ago was on the subject of the time it takes to get a submission posted. My suggestion was to see if there was a named editor, if not to apply. see: http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?p=10814&highlight=#10814

Back to the original point of this posting, though dmoz provides an editor alias, that alias is not appended to any outgoing emails. I appreciate that this could be overcome but I still wouldn't want to get into a conversation about the why's and wherefores of refusals etc. Equally, as a volunteer, I cannot act as a spokesman for dmoz which having a name@ dmoz.org would imply.
I should also say that my views here are strictly personal and not necessarily those of dmoz.

[Steven Glover]

Ok it seems Minstrel is validating my point to a degree which leads me to believe I maybe on to something. :) (As you guys know Minstrel contributes a lot to this forum and I tend to agree with 99% of what he says. The other 1% I just don't undertsand ;P)

A quick question for any DMOZ editors out there,


If I undertsand the process (and I do not make light of it. I realize everyone is a volunteer) you look at the website that has been submitted make sure it indeed falls under the criteria of ODP if it does it is accepted if not it is turned down. Correct?

When you reject or add a site I am sure there must be some form filled out if for no other reason than to remove the site from the "pending" list in the db.

I have no idea what this form looks like but I bet if there is not there could be a quick list of items that editors find wrong over and over again as sites are reviewed. Also a small text box for comments if there is not one already. My proposal is when you hit your "submit" button to update the ODP directory it would send a generic email that pulls from those fields. The "FROM" field can even be left generic so as to not display who actually did the review of the site.

Everyone is safe and there becomes a whole lot less frustration.

[Steven Glover]

Also one more item.


Like any community, you get what you give. The Open Directory provides the opportunity for everyone to contribute.

This stuff is taken directly from DMOZ


Link rot is setting in and they can't keep pace with the growth of the Internet.

The truth is DMOZ can help the internet in more ways than just providing a relevent Open Source Directory.

By doing as I have suggest you can help educate webmasters, SEO, and non professional webmasters who maybe doing somethings wrong they just weren't aware of. A prime example could be a site that has hidden or cloaked text is rejected. That webmaster may not have ever known that this is something that is "frowned upon" or flat out unethical. Giving the benefit of the doubt you follow my guidleines the generic email goes out reading something like:



At this time DMOZ is unable to approve your listing in our directory for the following reason:

Cloaked or hidden text. (you might even provide a url explaining this)

If you would like to review our guidlines they can be found at URL>. Feel free to resubmit your site once these corrections are made.

Sincerely,

The Editors at DMOZ



Lets say 1 out of 10 people correct this. Haven't you not only made the internet a better place but also helped improve other SE directory results? The ultimate goal of the ODP.

[simonm]

Hi Stephen

Again, emphasising that I am writing in a strictly personal manner and not representing dmoz.

Perhaps I am largely repeating what is publicly available about dmoz, but sites that I don't post come under the following main categories: they are already on dmoz in some way; there is an error 404 or similar, ie no site; It is the wrong category, in that case the submission is forwarded to the correct category for that editor to make a considered decision; The content bears no relation to the submission, (this could include the server holding page); the submission is of a subsidiary web page.

All of those the user can work out for themselves. It would also be not unrealistic to deny sites where the submission description broke the guidelines, eg a list of keywords, promotional rather than factual description, all capitals etc. again these are defined by the submission guidelines, so the submitter can work out why their site isn't posted.

What of course isn't covered is where the site is submitted and nothing appears to happen for ages, has the site been denied or is there no active editor?

That might suggest there should be a simple message to the submitter saying - site denied! However I can well imagine that with all the automated submission tools etc, that would just result in the addition of a rule on these tools saying 'if submission refused, re-submit' which would ruin the editing experience.

I'm not sure that I have completely answered your question, however I am trying my best to be informative without taking on any form of spokesperson role. Why not apply to be an editor - there are an awful lot of categories which have the statement 'This category needs an editor'

[Steven Glover]

That might suggest there should be a simple message to the submitter saying - site denied! However I can well imagine that with all the automated submission tools etc, that would just result in the addition of a rule on these tools saying 'if submission refused, re-submit' which would ruin the editing experience.


I don't want to sound argumentative however anyone that would use such software I am certain are already resubmitting that way anyway.

We can counteract such submission software easily. I'll write the script! (for free)

You would also lose a lot of resubmissions from people who see there site won't be accepted in its current condition.

The benefits are great!

[minstrel]

I'm not sure that I have completely answered your question, however I am trying my best to be informative without taking on any form of spokesperson role. Why not apply to be an editor - there are an awful lot of categories which have the statement 'This category needs an editor'

Well, it's no secret that I have been critical of DMOZ/ODP (not by the way of the editors themselves, who I believe are well-intentioned and work hard at what they do as volunteers). But I think simonm's comments here reiterate what I've said before: the editors can't keep up with the workload.

So, "why not apply to be an editor"?

Because no matter how many editors you add, in my opinion, the task DMOZ/ODP has set for you is an impossible one - there just is no way for a human review system to keep up with the rate of expansion.

Again, I truly admire what simonm and the other editors are trying to do. I just don't see how they can possibly succeed.

Getting back to the options that Steven is suggesting, whether or not you have an aliased email address at dmoz.org, surely it would be a simple thing to set up an aliased address on a HotMail account or Yahoo account to be used for that purpose, "Editor_DMOZ-ODP@ hotmail.com" with a form letter such as Steven describes.

[minstrel]

I tend to agree with 99% of what (minstrel) says. The other 1% I just don't understand.

You're doing well... I don't understand about 5% of what I say, maybe more on a bad day :-)

[Steven Glover]

Minstrel - At least its not just me.

[HillsCap]

All I can say is that our site has been sitting 'in the queue' for 9 months, waiting to be included in DMOZ.

According to the moderators on the DMOZ forum, when I asked about the submission status, they said we meet the guidelines, but that there are 20 sites in the queue, so to be patient.

It takes 9 months to do 20 sites?! Well, if the editor of that particular sub-directory of DMOZ is a COMPETITOR of ours, yes, I guess it very well does.

[Steven Glover]

It really comes down to "who polices the police" and the fact is its really easy to arbitrarily dismiss a site when no explanation or even an email is needed. I think criteria standards will be better upheld if even an anonymous email is required.

[kjohnson5576]

After submitting and resubmitting my site over and over to DMOZ and never getting in the directory (11 months now), I would have to say that DMOZ is becoming more irrelevent by the day.

As many of us know, there is just no way to get in. Simonm, you sound as if you are one of the editors that actually looks at sites. I can't imagine someone submitting a site that is still under construction, but yes I believe it does happen. To tell you the truth, I don't think my site has ever been looked at by one of the four editors in the catagory. I don't understand how I can have such great search engine rankings and decent traffic and still be a poor candidate for inclusion into DMOZ.

Something is not right at DMOZ. Are there managers? Does anyone actually oversee what is going on? It use to be a valuable resource and still is for my competitors who got in early on, but I've been listed in many directories with no hassle, both free and paid. If Google didn't use it as their directory and also rank groups within the directory highly, I think it would have shrunk on the vine long ago.

My two cents plus a nickel

[cbp]

After submitting and resubmitting my site over and over to DMOZ and never getting in the directory (11 months now),

Maybe thats the problem - everytime you resubmit, it overwrites the previous submission. If the editor looks at sites based on date of submission, you are putting yourself at a disadvantage by going to the back of the queue each time you submit.

CBP

[kjohnson5576]

Doesn't it say that if you are not listed in 3 weeks to resubmit? I believe that is in the directions.

[cbp]

Doesn't it say that if you are not listed in 3 weeks to resubmit? I believe that is in the directions.

I not sure if it is, but resubmitting does overwrite the previous one - this gets made clear to lots of enquires over at Resource Zone.

CBP

[Steven Glover]

Yet one more point of value. It does tell you to resubmit after three weeks. And yet on the Resource forum they tell you doing so will hurt you.


I'm telling you guys a better system is in order. In the spirit of making a better internet I am sure a lot of programmers would be willing to help with this. I know I would.

[minstrel]

It really comes down to "who polices the police" and the fact is its really easy to arbitrarily dismiss a site when no explanation or even an email is needed. I think criteria standards will be better upheld if even an anonymous email is required.

That's an excellent point, Steven (or is it another excellent point by now?).

Before I say anything else, let me state clearly that I haven't any reason from personal experience to assume bias or non-objective decision-making on the part of DMOZ/ODP - and I have never suggested that the editors in this organization aren't completely dedicated and ethical in the pursuit of their goals. That's not even been a concern for me until now -

But maybe it should be, given that listing in the directory still carries a not insignificant weight in listings in various search engines. I wonder what safeguards there really are in place to prevent this, especially without some degree of public accountability.

I know that the DMOZ/ODP regulations specify that editors can be disqualified or banned for inequitable behavior but who would even know? Certainly, the other editors don't have time to police one another in the sense of reviewing each other's work. If no reasons are given to a disqualified site, how does the site appeal? And how would an inequitable decision even come to the attention of the other editors or the board of directors or whoever in the hieraachy of the organization is theoretically responsible for policing the system?

An "anonymous" email to the submitting webmaster would at least allow the webmaster to appeal on some specific grounds... the claim that webmasters should easily be able to tell what they did to disqualify their sites seems a bit dubious to me, other than the obvious ones like trying to submit a porn site to a family category.

[janeth]

I got lucky and did not have any trouble with DMOZ but also went into a section with very few sites.
But I was wondering why does Google put so much wait on someone that all I ever here about are problems with? Is there not a better one Google could use?

[cbp]

Is there not a better one Google could use?

No.

CBP

[minstrel]

Is there not a better one Google could use?

No.

Or maybe "not yet" would be a better answer. I sincerely admire you guys but I really don't know how you're gonna keep up with the demands on your energies.

[cbp]

I recall in the last few weeks seeing someone work out how many sites there are in DMOZ and multiple that by 3min of editors time @ $x - then assuming that an equal number of sites are rejected ... it equalled x million dollars ... whatever it was, it was a lot. That is why I doubt there is ever to be a viable alternative to DMOZ.

CBP

[Steven Glover]

Before I say anything else, let me state clearly that I haven't any reason from personal experience to assume bias or non-objective decision-making on the part of DMOZ/ODP - and I have never suggested that the editors in this organization aren't completely dedicated and ethical in the pursuit of their goals.


I have to concur with Minstrel. This topic was never meant to cast a negative light on such a noble idea as ODP. I personally have clients that have been listed. I even have a site of my own listed. I also have some submissions that just disappeared.

The reason for the post was in hopes of improving a project that was groundbreaking from conception. I would like to see the project continue without losing (any further?) ground or credibility.

[minstrel]

I recall in the last few weeks seeing someone work out how many sites there are in DMOZ and multiple that by 3 min of editors time @ $x - then assuming that an equal number of sites are rejected ... it equalled x million dollars ... whatever it was, it was a lot. That is why I doubt there is ever to be a viable alternative to DMOZ.

Interesting... that, plus the number of sites NOT in DMOZ, is why I think DMOZ cannot ultimately be an viable solution to the problem of indexing the internet.

[Duncan Pollock]

I do fully agree with simonm that there's far more to the ODP workload than realized.
(I spent three years as one of their editors until a year ago and was then involved with categories containing more than 10,000 sites and something like 200 new submissions a week.)
It's also a fair comment that the growth of the web is too rapid for ODP's present structure to cope.
But I'm willing to bet that the problem Steven Glover has had (and is still having) is with his Survivor site. Interesting though it may be to some folk, it's more of a personal interest one than his other two, which I'm sure exist in appropriate categories of ODP.
I can't remember what we called this kind of site -- perhaps simonm can refresh my memory? -- but there certainly was some lack of editing interest in submissions of this sort. Kinda like Home Movies as opposed to ones from the Video Store.
In any case, if my assumptions are correct, perhaps what's really gone wrong is that no one in ODP has had the nerve to contact Steve and "tell him like it is." The nearest I'm guessing is the suggestion to get another hobby -- which does lend support to my argument, yes?
Otherwise, though, I cannot for the life of me see any reason whatsoever for his other two sites (re websites and hotel bookings) being turned down.

[janeth]

I read some where that it was hard to become an editor. It seems like with all that work it would not be that hard to help out if you wanted to.

[minstrel]

I spent three years as one of their editors until a year ago and was then involved with categories containing more than 10,000 sites and something like 200 new submissions a week.


Yikes! As a psychologist. this strikes me as a sure recipe for burnout.



It's also a fair comment that the growth of the web is too rapid for ODP's present structure to cope.


And it's not like we can predict that growth is going to decrease in the future...



In any case, if my assumptions are correct, perhaps what's really gone wrong is that no one in ODP has had the nerve to contact Steve and "tell him like it is." The nearest I'm guessing is the suggestion to get another hobby -- which does lend support to my argument, yes? Otherwise, though, I cannot for the life of me see any reason whatsoever for his other two sites (re websites and hotel bookings) being turned down.

And that is exactly Steven's point (my apologies for intercepting you, Steven, but I wasn't able to restrain myself)... "that no one in ODP has had the nerve to contact Steve and tell him like it is".

Why not? this baffles me... if, as I assume, the editors are well-intentioned and making objective decisions, why on earth would they object to telling him whay they have declined to list his site? and why on earth would they risk the reputation of integrity that they have worked to associate with DMOZ/ODP by appearing to anyone to be arbitrary and biased in their decisions?

[cbp]

I read some where that it was hard to become an editor. It seems like with all that work it would not be that hard to help out if you wanted to.

I would not say it is hard to become an editor ... it is those who do not get accepted make a lot of noise. Those who get rejected might get rejected for a number of reasons as there has to be a certain level of quality control:
eg
* They applied to a very large category - much better to apply to edit a small category --> earn your stripes by showin you can do a good job, then apply for larger categories
* They gave very poor descriptions in the sample sites that they are asked to provide
* The motivation for applying was to get your own site listed (site affiliations have to be declared in the application) - there is nothing wrong with listing your own site

CBP

[Steven Glover]

Whoa hold the phone... :)

I wasnt refering to having a problem with any of my sites in particular. I was actually just refering to dmoz in general.


Just for the record I am not the one they told to get a new hobby. That just struck me as rude on their parts.

My survivor site actually is listed in dmoz

http://dmoz.org/Arts/Television/Programs/Reality-Based/Survivor/Survivor_7_-_Pearl_Islands/

I also have had success with other sites being listed. I didnt start this topic because I am the scorned lover so to speak ;) If I thought a ite of mine didn't make it in unfairly I would be in here posting the url asking if anyone can find anything wrong with it. (I am sure I would get plenty of good responses, lol)

BTW: Thanks for the interception. No harm no foul. We are all here in this forum either looking for help or wanting to give it. I think most of us want both.

[minstrel]

Whoa hold the phone... :)

I wasn't refering to having a problem with any of my sites in particular. I was actually just refering to dmoz in general.


Just for the record I am not the one they told to get a new hobby. That just struck me as rude on their part.

My survivor site actually is listed in dmoz

http://dmoz.org/Arts/Television/Programs/Reality-Based/Survivor/Survivor_7_-_Pearl_Islands/

I also have had success with other sites being listed. I didn't start this topic because I am the scorned lover so to speak ;)

BTW: Thanks for the interception. No harm no foul.

DMOZ/ODP? Your comments?

Steven 30... DMOZ/ODP love... :-)

[Steven Glover]

[
DMOZ/ODP? Your comments?

Steven 30... DMOZ/ODP love... :-)


Woo Hoo I have never played tennis before.

I am serious about being willing to do some programming free of charge for ODP if the programming accomodates changes that will make the directory better.

Check out this jewel off of the DMOZ editor forum:


The rest is meaningless, step what of what, there are no steps. There are x number sites waiting to be looked at in a category, each editor handles them in a different way. I even handle the heap of submissions differently based on different categories. So if I tell you there are 567 sites waiting in your chosen category, it does not help you, maybe you will end up the first to be edited, maybe the last. As indicated many hundreds of times in the forum, the "position" in the "queue" is not a meaningful number.


Now does this strike anyone else as slightly odd? I'm sorry were we talking about DMOZ or Studio 54?

[minstrel]

Check out this jewel off of the DMOZ editor forum:


The rest is meaningless, step what of what, there are no steps. There are x number sites waiting to be looked at in a category, each editor handles them in a different way. I even handle the heap of submissions differently based on different categories. So if I tell you there are 567 sites waiting in your chosen category, it does not help you, maybe you will end up the first to be edited, maybe the last. As indicated many hundreds of times in the forum, the "position" in the "queue" is not a meaningful number.


Now does this strike anyone else as slightly odd?

Whoa! Doesn't this sound a little like, "Ve vill ask de qvestions here, sweinhundt!"

So, let me understand this... "there are no rules... and even if there were rules, we would not tell you what they are, in case we want to change them"... am I close?

[cbp]

Its not quite like that. I see my responsibility as an editor (I am only relatively new and have a small category) being to build the category - sources of sites for that come from me searching at Google; personal knowledge and from the submitted sites - the submitted sites are only suggestions and there is a disclaimer on the DMOZ site syaing that no listing is guaranteed.

When logging on, there are all the submitted or suggested sites. As an editor I can go through them however I like (usually only have time to do a few each day) - I can sort them by submitted date (resubmissions overwrite and go to the bottom). I often scan them and look for those that are obvious spam (they are easy to delete) - I also might look at a site that has a really good description and list that if aceptable (regardless of were it is on the list). The sites that I avoid for a while are those who's descriptions are stuffed with keywords ... they usually take some work to check if they are affiliate sites or redirects or ... if they are not all these, the description and title has to be rewritten ... its too much work after a hard day at my real job.

The good news is, I have cleared all the backlog in my category and there are none waiting. I check twice a day and new suggestions are added or deleted immediately.

(As an aside, my most amusing deletion was a one page site that contained a .jpg picture - it was a scan of their yellow pages advert!!!)

I take the point above about notifying sites - I just have not done it.

On the page for the editors site details at DMOZ is a space to list reasons for deleting - in my case I just usually say 'insufficient unique content'; 'adds no value to the category'; 'already listed in other category'; 'deep link to site already listed'; 'affiliate'; 'content same as xyz site'.

I am not DMOZ - I am a very junior newish edior, so nothing I say is DMOZ policy

CBP

[janeth]

I could see how trying to notify sites wiuld get old and I could also see how if you have a list of 100 sites how the interesting ones could get pulled at first.
I read some where the average Spam that is sent to the DMOZ but can remember what it was. Does anyone know the % of spam DMOZ gets in a day.
those are the people that are causing the problem for everyone else.

[Steven Glover]

Again notifying rejctees wouldn't be any extra work at all. You just add a littlke code here and when a site id rejected a generic form letter goes out.

Easy as pie. I will write the code for free!

Second if the issue is one where DMOX is afraid of people spamming thanks to those notifications I will also write code making that impossible.

All businesses must change and adapt.

[paco]

These editors are supposed to be doing this because they like doing it, they are not even being paid for this. If this guy doesn't like editing for dmoz he should quit right now. I wrote the editor an email, I'll just wait and see what his reply will be. I'll keep you posted.

paco

[paco]

Ok guys, seems like this guy had been an editor a while back and was kicked out. Here's the email reply from the editor :

On 31/10/03 10:48, "don braithwaite" <donaldb@dmozed.org> wrote:

> Out of line about what? Telling someone that they should think about a
> different hobby? I don't think that's out of line. It wasn't until
> half-way through that thread until that person admitted to being an editor
> before. There is a question on the application that asks if the person was
> an editor before - he obviously answered No. Why would we encourage someone
> to become an editor if they are not being honest on the application. It
> turned out that he had been an editor who had been removed.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: webmaster : pacomachine.com [mailto:webmaster@pacomachine.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 9:45 AM
>> To: d.braithwaite@sympatico.ca
>> Subject: What the ?
>>
>>
>> I just saw what you posted on the ODP Public Forum on this thread :
>> http://www.resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=49319&page=0
>> &view=coll
>> apsed&sb=5&o=
>>
>> I just wanted to get your version of the story before writing
>> about it on my
>> website. I do not want to judge you before hearing your side of the story
>> but I do believe that you were out of line. So please explain.
>>
>> paco

[janeth]

He did answer he gets points for that but is it just me or does he still sound rude?

[paco]

VERY rude !!!! That's why I couldn't help but email him. I know that the ODP is about 500 000 late in their editing so having guys like that wasting time on the ODP forum bitching other people made me mad :)

Did you have a look at his website : http://www3.sympatico.ca/d.braithwaite/

He also builds websites, isn't that against the principle that all ODP editors must be neutral. The sites he builds are probably already in ODP while others have been waiting for months.

Eughhh! Makes me sick.

paco

[Steven Glover]

He is probably none to happy about being called out.

His defense that telling the applicant to get a new hobby was unjustified do to the fact that the applicant had been an editor once before and hadn't mentioned that fact is irrelevent at best.

The statement get a new hobby was made prior to him telling them he had been an editor before.

I am not really sure that he was trying to hide or lie about that actually. I believe it was more of an oversight than a misrepresentation.

[Gary Golden]

I have been submitting my site for 3 years and have yet to be accepted, so about once or twice a year I submit my site, do I care if they accept me? Not really, work on your links and don't worry about DMOZ.

[Steven Glover]

Unfortanatly when a project such as this carries much weight with one of the most used SE out there you need to care. Certain checks and balances need to be in place. Otherwise those so called relevent results we hear about all the time become less relevent.

If in fact DMOZ was just DMOZ and it was feeding itself and not giving away its engine to other SE to use a part of their backbone I would care not one bit what the standards are. However they offer up their ODP as the Holy Grail of SE results, and many SE are based on these results. I wasn't coming down on DMOZ/ODP on the cotrary I was trying to help improve it. It is to bad no one is interested in a system that will be just as easy to use, help deter needless resubmission, deter autosubmission software, and give the submitters a sense of completion.

[Conficio]

Fresh from the "resource-zone" (ODP Forums)

No, we should not and cannot concentrate on the "editor approval process." That is handled by professional staff at AOL.

This year has been frustrating for everyone, first the mammoth server overloads that made it impossible to edit (by the way, a VERY GOOD reason NOT to concentrate on the editor approval practice, don't you think?) and then the various "rolling brownouts" of dmoz.org functionality that affected all of the functionality at one time or another -- usually at multiple times. Throughout this period staff made the conscious decision (which is indisputably correct) to focus on keeping the basic editing functionality up, and succeeded remarkably well in that (considering the complexity of changes that were constantly going on). In order to achieve that, non-editors were sometimes locked out, given older data, metered/rationed, etc. We regret that, but would not have traded a millisecond of EDITING response time -- that's what dmoz.org is for.

The "editor application" process is one of the most complex parts of the system, since it involves both the editing databases and the public pages. Obviously, it couldn't BEGIN to work until both the editing server and the public server were both up and running in their new configuration. So it had to come last--not as a design choice, not even just because it would have been insane to concentrate on accepting editors into a database that couldn't be edited, but because it was a logical necessity.

Currently, editor applications are believed to be working. If you have specific problems, please report them (with details of error messages, etc.) in the "Bugs and Features" forum here. If you have questions about the status of an application, you should ask them in the "Becoming an Editor" forum.

I spare the comments, but the friends at ODP seem to be in quite some trouble, technically and organizationally. Unfortuantely they do keep it all hushed up.

Lets wish them well!

K<o>

[cbp]

ODP seem to be in quite some trouble, technically and organizationally. Unfortuantely they do keep it all hushed up

Not true. The unfortunate technical problems related to growing pains that have been going on (they are over now) have been alluded to by a lot of ODP editors in a lot of different forums. Its no secret.

CBP

[Conficio]

...
I think ODP might have the most of the hurdels behind it, but:
- The resource-zone is still full of comments on current issues with the new system(s)
- The editors obviously have to cope with a lot of past grieve and the learning curve of the new systems
- On top of that they have to work through the back log

I can easily see how one doesn't even want to start.

I sure hope it gets back to normal soon. But current status is: people are waiting > 9 month for inclusion and > 4 month for a response on their editor application. The WWW is moving too fast for this long a delay.

"The ones that come too late in life will suffer the concequences" M. Gorbatshov

We don't want that to happen to ODP ;-)
K<o>

[cbp]

The resource-zone is still full of comments on current issues with the new system(s)
- The editors obviously have to cope with a lot of past grieve and the learning curve of the new systems

What new systems?

CBP

[Steven Glover]

...that is handled by the staff at aol.

Oh nevermind if AOL i involved the directory is saved! ;p

AOL is in trouble as well at the rate of cancellation vs new subscriptions they will lose their last member by 2013.

I just want to see some minor changes that will make major improvements!

[minstrel]

I spare the comments, but the friends at ODP seem to be in quite some trouble, technically and organizationally. Unfortunately they do keep it all hushed up. Lets wish them well!


By all means, wish them well. But, as laudable as the aims of DMOZ/ODP were, allow me to quote myself: It is a well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed concept that ultimately (and probably sooner rather than later) is doomed to collapse under its own weight.

Your post seems to me to illustrate that that collapse is more advanced than I thought...

[minstrel]

On top of that they have to work through the back log - current status is: people are waiting > 9 month for inclusion and > 4 month for a response on their editor application. The WWW is moving too fast for this long a delay.

Do you really think that the exponentially increasing number of websites is going to ever allow DMOZ/ODP to catch up, especially given that they are that far behind at this point?

[minstrel]

Unfortunately when a project such as this carries much weight with one of the most used SE out there you need to care. Certain checks and balances need to be in place. Otherwise those so called relevant results we hear about all the time become less relavent.

Yes... the hub of the problem, indeed.


I wasn't coming down on DMOZ/ODP - on the contrary, I was trying to help improve it. It is too bad no one is interested in a system that will be just as easy to use, help deter needless resubmission, deter autosubmission software, and give the submitters a sense of completion.

I think it's important to understand that the editors are, in effect, under siege. Anyone in that position doesn't have the psychological energy to think about innovation or change - it's simply another stressor - so instead the reaction you get when you suggest change is a sort of defensive position which translates to a statement about the reasons either why it is unnecessary or why it can't be done... Just human nature. And again, this isn't an attack on the editors but rather an acknowledgement of the enormous obstacles and stresses they face.

[janeth]

This may sound stupid but from what I hear there so far behind it takes months to get in and there getting new ones everyday.

They had some problems that are now suppose to be fixed. What would happen if you dumped all the ones that are on hold and started over.
I know it sounds mean but then all you have to do is keep up.
If I was waiting I would rather them do that and be able to give me an answer the next day then not to know anything.

[Steven Glover]

Janeth-

I am not sure. In theory that sounds like good idea. I am not sure how that would work.

Minstrel -

That certainly is true. I can even remember at least one instance where I was given a way to improve a system I was working on at HotelKingdom.com. At the time I was thinking to myself "Great. More work I am going to have to add to my already behind list of things to do". However now that the system is in place and I have completed it I don't know how I could live without it. I believe I am further ahead today becuase of the time this new system has saved me.

Growth can always appear scary at the time. However much of the advancements we have today are thanks to people who were not afraid to tackle those tasks that seemed impossible at the time.

[Steven Glover]

Janeth -

I am also uncertain as to whether duming all the people in line would help. An earlier post quoting ODP editor forum stated that a number of editors don't even use that but rather surf the net and add listings as they find them.

[janeth]

Hi Steven,
It sounds like there out of control. They need a set of rules everyone goes by.

I would think the people that submitt there site should come before people that have done nothing in the way of getting there site listed

I want to become an editor it sounds pretty much like I can do anything I want once I become an editor

[Steven Glover]

Thats basically what I am trying to say. They need some structure. The biggest part of their problems is a omplete lack of structure.

[simonm]

Not for the areas that I edit? And the same applies to the majority of DMOZ. I only see - or look at the areas that are relevant to my categories - but overall an organised and structured system with rules, audit and responsibility. What is amazing is that it is done with 10's of thousands of people, all volunteers, largely based on trust and personal responsibility. There is no owner or spokesperson as such, a real effective working democracy of the finest kind.
As to its relevance or importance, clearly some people find it so else they wouldn't have maintained a three page thread which is about to go to a fourth page.

Just an additional comment on categories with 1,000s of entries and 200 new ones each week. perhaps that is a function of the web. I wonder how relevant those categories are - yes each web site is important - but I wonder if listing say blogs, personal web sites, yet another flower shop, horoscopes etc etc on dmoz or expecting them to be kept up to date should be regarded as a general reflection of the health of the ODP.

[minstrel]

As to its relevance or importance, clearly some people find it so else they wouldn't have maintained a three page thread which is about to go to a fourth page.

I'm not sure that's a logical conclusion, since much of it has been criticism - also, if you browse through the forums a bit you'll find some quite extensive threads on "I hate spam" and "Living with Jello"... :-)

Oh... and "The Thread That Can't Be Killed" on "How to stop people copying things from my web pages"...

[Conficio]

Just an additional comment on categories with 1,000s of entries and 200 new ones each week. perhaps that is a function of the web. I wonder how relevant those categories are - yes each web site is important - but I wonder if listing say blogs, personal web sites, yet another flower shop, horoscopes etc etc on dmoz or expecting them to be kept up to date should be regarded as a general reflection of the health of the ODP.

Well simonm,
it might seem quite tedious and not that important, but I think it actually is quite important. If valuable search resources on the Internet are closed off to new comers (or small businesses or even individual expressions) it does create an unfair advantage, of the powerful over the everage joe. And the web has this unique potential to reach a lot of people with a little of money.
Therefore I'd embrace the popularity of such categories. I'd rather find a way to search in contexts (such as geograhical - for the flower shop, time - changed in the last three month, people and entities - the famous Michael Jackson or the Miller Brewery, etc.) so users can find relevant information and do not drown in thousands of irrelevant results.
By the way I'm very grateful to the volunteers that make things like the DMOZ happen. I think it could be a perfect blend of serious interest in some subject and a community (actually a world) service.

K<o>

[donaldb]

Wow! Seems I'm the bad guy around here :)

It was only after cooleditor2 submitted his second application (that he mentioned in public under that particular name) that it came to my attention that there were extenuating circumstances. We don't discuss editor removals or the reason for denying applications in public, but I will say that cooleditor2 knew what we were talking about and knew that he was not going to get back in as an editor. My reply was directed at cooleditor2 and not the world in general. Due to the circumstances I couldn't say too much, and whatever I said was going to be taken out of context by everyone not involved in the situation.

I didn't realize that paco was doing an on-the-record interview when he e-mailed me. (What are the rules about libel and slander around here?) I'm not sure I appreciate his accusations about there being some conflict of interest. My record is above reproach and can be verified at any time. All of my affiliations are public record in my ODP profile.

And people wonder why ODP editors get their backs up sometimes. It's not nice to discover that you're the topic of conversation and haven't even been invited to the party :)

[cbp]

donaldB - thanks for clearing this up. BUT ... I had forgotten what this thread was about and had to go all the way back to the first message to clear it up :-)

This sort of thing happens a lot when talking about DMOZ in forums. Are you following the 'phone sex coalition' debate?

For those that do know what this is about, read this:
http://www.phonesexcoalition.org/news-bulletin-oct.htm - (warning, some adultish content)

Then read this for some facts:
http://www.resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=50604&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

CBP

[Steven Glover]

Wow! Seems I'm the bad guy around here :)

Not at all the goal of this thread was to make suggestions that would help dmoz. I even offered to do the coding for free.


It was only after cooleditor2 submitted his second application (that he mentioned in public under that particular name) that it came to my attention that there were extenuating circumstances. We don't discuss editor removals or the reason for denying applications in public, but I will say that cooleditor2 knew what we were talking about and knew that he was not going to get back in as an editor. My reply was directed at cooleditor2 and not the world in general. Due to the circumstances I couldn't say too much, and whatever I said was going to be taken out of context by everyone not involved in the situation.

That certainly sounds good. However if you reread your thread on the DMOZ editor site you will see the comment "Get a new hobby" came way before it came out that he had previously been an editor.


I didn't realize that paco was doing an on-the-record interview when he e-mailed me. (What are the rules about libel and slander around here?)

I think he posted that email earlier in the thread and I may not be 100% on the wrding but didn't he state something to the effect of "I wanted to get it from the horses mouth before I posted it on my website" Was that not included in the original email you received from him?


I do not believe that there is a rule set in dmoz that keeps someone for editing a category they might be personally vested in. I never took issue with that.

And again I love dmoz and all the hard work that is done by the volunteer editors. I am also very much aware that this task set forth is not easy. I would reccomend that you folks ake ome constructive suggestions as well as the offer of help.

[donaldb]

That certainly sounds good. However if you reread your thread on the DMOZ editor site you will see the comment "Get a new hobby" came way before it came out that he had previously been an editor.
Look at what I said above. It came to my attention, but it wasn't from him mentioning it. We have our ways of identifying people who are trying to bypass the rules :)


I think he posted that email earlier in the thread and I may not be 100% on the wrding but didn't he state something to the effect of "I wanted to get it from the horses mouth before I posted it on my website" Was that not included in the original email you received from him?

Ah yes, but there was nothing there saying that I was going to be quoted in public. If I had known that I may not have replied.


I do not believe that there is a rule set in dmoz that keeps someone for editing a category they might be personally vested in. I never took issue with that.

You're right that there isn't a rule, but there are Conflict of Interest (http://editors.dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html) guidelines.


I would reccomend that you folks ake ome constructive suggestions as well as the offer of help.
We're actually quite open to constructive criticism. It doesn't mean that suggestions are going to be implemented, but contrary to popular belief we do listen and discuss them :) And the only offer of help we can use is for more editors. We don't take on volunteer help for coders - that's part of the staff's job and they are doing a great job of it at the moment.

[donaldb]

I just wanted to mention that I only came here to comment on the accusation that I was being rude. I don't usually like to get into debates about the ODP - those debates go on forever and don't solve anything :) My post on Resource Zone might have come across as being rude, but there were extenuating circumstance that you will never know about unless you become a meta editor on ODP. Don't judge ODP editors by one post. I've made over 700 posts on that forum helping people find out about their site status and editor applications. Thanks for listening.

[Steven Glover]

It isn't your post specifically it was a umber of posts. Even more importantly is the fact that ODP seems to go unchecked. There are guidlines but nothing has been implemented to assure those guidelines are followed. I am just not sure why ODP wouldn't be interested in making some minor changes that wouldn't effect the work load of the editors of ODP but more than likely decrease it significantly.

I am willing to sit down with any representative of ODP discuss these changes and then do the coding for those changes for free. I will write all the scripting.

And to maintain ODP's integrity I will even ask to have all of my listings from ODP removed.

[totalXSive]

Allow me to chip in. I'm one of the editalls at the ODP, and although I'm not a meta like Don is you could say I was 'pretty high up'. I hope this post will answer your questions.

Editor abuse
Many of you are (rightly) worried about editors abusing their positions, and you probably know we don't tolerate this. I can reassure you that dodgy editing is often quite easy to spot and is usually reported pretty quickly. The meta editors, of which there are around 150 of them, are the ones who accept new editors in the directory and they will usually keep an eye on new recruits, either to help them get back in the right direction if they lose the plot a little but also to make sure they don't abuse their permissions. If you want to know more about this there's a article about editor removal (http://dmoz.org/newsletter/2000Sep/removal.html) from a past newsletter. Once an editor has been removed, they will only be readmitted if Netscape staff say so, and it's very, very rare - I've been an editor for 4 years and I can only recall it happening once. Hence the reason why cooleditor2 was not accepted.

While we try hard to uncover abuse ourselves, if you believe abuse is going on go to http://inelegant.org/report-abuse/ and fill out the form - although it isn't (yet) hosted on dmoz.org it will go to the meta editors and will be looked at. If you believe an editor is a competitor and is giving your sites an unfair disadvantage, and negotiation via feedback has failed, this is your next step.

The backlog
To deny its existence would be foolish but it does vary between categories. As another editor who posted here pointed out, in some categories sites are added within 24 hours of submitted. That's sadly not the case everywhere, and usually its the commercial areas that are worst off because the sites are less interesting ("oh, another computer consultant, great..") and the level of spam and deceptive submission tactics is greater. I can tell you, however that approximately 3 sites are added for every URL suggestion received, and we're due to hit 4 million sites very soon. There are considerably less suggestions waiting for review than sites listed.

We're not proud of the fact that it can take months for a site to get reviewed and, certainly at this level, we do try our best to make sure that's not the case as far as possible. But it happens.

Link Rot
One of the features that may well be implemented sometime soon is a 'report broken link' feature so that the public can notify us of sites that have gone. That said, we have a crawler that runs every couple of months and flags up any sites that aren't working for whatever reason, and these show up as red in the editing interface so that the editors know to look at them, and to either fix the URL or delete it. We also have ways of detecting sites that have changed in content. Quality control is big business here.

Applying to be an editor
I don't know where the 4 month timescale came from, but from what I gather probably 95% of applications are reviewed within 2 weeks. I don't review applications so I can't confirm that but these are figures I've heard mentioned. The other 5% is usually for non-English categories which require a meta editor able to read that language to review them.

By the way, if you apply for a category with an editor already in it, or above it in the tree, unless that editor is a meta editor then he/she won't be reviewing your application. This is a misconception that has put off a number of people.

As for levels of spam - there's no figures but I'm currently cleaning up Web Designers and I've already removed 10% of the total URL suggestions for being spam or duplicates (many of which were probably accidental or someone not reading the submission guidelines, rather than deliberately manipulative). I probably still have another 5% of the original total to deal with. That said, that is quite a spam-prone area of the directory.

Finally, on the subject of emailing submitters - as has been said in the past we don't do it because editors have been badly bitten or harrassed about sites that have been rejected, or listed with a title and description that isn't full of hype or repitition like the webmaster wanted. The last thing we want is editors quitting because they cannot take the harrasment.

I hope this clears up any issues you may have.

[janeth]

I would like to say I think it is great and says a lot that DMOZ Editors where willing to come to the form to give there side of what was going on.

It puts DMOZ in a whole new light for me.

Thanks

[Steven Glover]

Finally, on the subject of emailing submitters - as has been said in the past we don't do it because editors have been badly bitten or harrassed about sites that have been rejected, or listed with a title and description that isn't full of hype or repitition like the webmaster wanted. The last thing we want is editors quitting because they cannot take the harrasment.

I completely understand this. However previously in this thread we discussed ways to maintain a response to submissions using a generic email such as "submissionbot@dmoz.org"

That I think was generally accepted other than the argument of people using this to implement autoresubmission. at which point I made the suggestion of creating a small script for preventing such software.

I am MORE than willing to help with this.

I would be willing to bet that doing these few little items will not only decrease the number of resubmissions (thus decreasing the list needing to be filtered thru) this will also give people a sense of completion. IT really can be a winn win situation. DMOZ is such a noble idea why not continue what was started with the greatest of intentions and grow on that?

[totalXSive]

It's not a bad idea (using a generic email address) but it doesn't completely solve the problem - if that category that an URL was submitted to has an editor then the submitter can assume that it was them. It also means that if it wasn't then that editor may be victimised for another editors' actions.

We prefer to use an open forum like Resource-zone.com for communicating with the public, mainly because we can respond more quickly. Obviously not everyone knows about it and perhaps that's something we need to improve upon.

[Steven Glover]

Now this is perfect. An actual logical discussion on what everyone admits is a problem. I agree we don't want anything that causes the abuse of an editor. Anonymity is important. I wonder at this time don't a lot of editors use a handle on DMOZ? Abuse is what we are trying to avoid wouldn't it in general be a better practice not to include any kind of email address or real name of any sort for any of the editors.

Just an editor handle listed? You could also leave out any details in reference to what an editor does for a living thus negating any disputes that may arise from perceived bias. Just an idea.


Again I love the idea of DMOZ I would just love a little minor tweaking. If those with noble ideas had stopped at the commodore 64 level we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right now ;)

[Steven Glover]

Also one more quick thing. I personally am not concerned about editor abuse. Abuse of power is something that can happen with anything. It usually gets delt with in time on its own.

[donaldb]

Again I love the idea of DMOZ I would just love a little minor tweaking.
What makes you think that minor tweaking doesn't happen? The ODP is in a constant state of flux. There is stuff being upgraded all the time. We have ongoing discussions internally about how we are going to improve things.

[donaldb]

Abuse of power is something that can happen with anything. It usually gets delt with in time on its own.
It gets dealt with all of the time. Bad editors don't get away with it for long before someone figures it out :)

[minstrel]

I'll echo the comments by Janeth and Steven, totalXSive: Thanks for dropping in both to explain your position and to listen to what others have been saying in this forum. It is always frustrating to say to anyone, "would you be willing to consider this modification/improvement/addition" and to get as a reply what amounts to a defense of the status quo. Responding as you have at least reassures us that someone at DMOZ/ODP is willing to think about Steven's suggestion and consider whether there is a way to implement it, rather than apparently searching for acceptable reasons to reject the idea.

As someone (Steven?) said earlier, it wouldn't be as huge an issue if the directory weren't (at least so far) as influential as it is. Most of us don't really know how DMOZ/ODP goes about its business but we do know the implications of the possibility that it is not being done fairly are significant.

[Steven Glover]

I don't doubt that some minor tweaking goes on all the time. I don't doubt major tweaking goes on as well. Wasn't there a recent server change? I'm sure that was an intensive move.

These suggestions are more for you guys to chew on.

Who knows if you guys don't take them some other ODP mighgt want them :)

[kctipton]

I am just not sure why ODP wouldn't be interested in making some minor changes that wouldn't effect the work load of the editors of ODP but more than likely decrease it significantly.

I think that all minor changes which can be done have been done. Are you really concerned about decreasing editor workload? Very noble of you.

[minstrel]

I am just not sure why ODP wouldn't be interested in making some minor changes that wouldn't effect the work load of the editors of ODP but more than likely decrease it significantly.

I think that all minor changes which can be done have been done.

I think that's the kind of statement that has people worried - it suggests that you are not open to hearing about any suggestions for improvement, and the obvious question about that is, "why not? why wouldn't DMOZ/ODP be interested in something that might improve the project?"


Are you really concerned about decreasing editor workload? Very noble of you.

I think if you read all of the posts in this thread, you'll find that the answer to your question is "yes" - it's not mere altruism - anything that decreases DMOZ/ODP editor workload or improves editor efficiency helps all of us.

[Steven Glover]

Thanks Minstrel! :)

There isnt\'t anything I can even add to Minstrel's statement he pretty much summed it up.

[minstrel]

It seems that the rumours about DMOZ being fixed may have been premature. See post by webmaster36: Using directories (http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?p=41533#41533) in the "Because DMOZ/ODP is not the only directory..." thread.

[kayla22]

The problem with dmoz is it's total lack of control.

In my experience, because dmoz requires editors to be experienced in the field they are editing, many editors must approve their competitors sites. Thus bringing self-interest into the equation.

I have had two experiences which illustrate this point perfectly.

The first one involved an editor which denied our submissions repeatedly. It wasn't until we contacted DMOZ directly (after 8 months of trying) that finally was the site added and the editor removed.

The second instance involed a site which was running a specific brand of software. In this case the editor removed every site (including ours) running this software. An investigation into this matter revealed the editor sold a competeing brand of software. Thus creating an advantage to sites running his software.

In both instances, IMHO the editors self-interest prevented them from performing their duties fairly.

Unfortunately, the ODP doesn't have any checks or balances in place to identify when an editor reveiws sites unfairly. Plus contacting them to report such incidents is next to impossible.

Hence my point that the ODP has an inherient downfall because many editors are reveiwing their competitors web sites, and can (perhaps unconciously) at the click of a button - discriminate against perfectly good sites.

[cbp]

Unfortunately, the ODP doesn't have any checks or balances in place to identify when an editor reveiws sites unfairly. Plus contacting them to report such incidents is next to impossible.

DMOZ takes editor abuse very seriously. Report it here:
http://inelegant.org/ddp/03014/

CBP

[Steven Glover]

Another example of where some of the changes I suggested might have helped. Would these changes have prevented this type of behavior? Maybe, Maybe not. However, I believe firmly that my suggestions would have at the least made that 8 month period much shorter.

[Steven Glover]

I am getting the chance to see ODP from the editor section and I cannot wait to discuss how this is working. I will have a very long winded commentary on this later. Stay tuned!

[Steven Glover]

Yesterday I had the opportunity to look over ODP from the editor control panel. I had hoped that this would put some of my fears to rest and in turn I could come post my findings in here and put some of your fears to rest as well. I am sad to say that this was and will not be the case.

So what did I learn?

Internally the ODP is disorganized to say the least

Editors have set guidelines and from some of the items I looked at they are not always being followed

Even the best editor’s intentions can be overwritten by one bad editor.

In one case there were comments about a site that stated the site was not approved because it was an affiliate of a few other sites. However I happen to know for a fact this site has never been an affiliate for any of the other sites mentioned. (I know the owner of the site) Unfortunately once a comment has been added it is there to stay. So if an editor didn’t like your site I could make a comment and when you resubmit your site a few months later an editor will see the original comment and more than likely without any research at all other than reading the original comment will disapprove your submission.

I also heard many horror stories of some editors that have manipulated the system and many more that continue to do so in many cases unchecked for months at a time.

I do have hope, from looking at the internal structuring it would be easy to implement many of the changes that have been suggested here with no more than a few added lines of code. I truly believe in order for ODP to maintain some level of credibility they will have to make some changes.

I am available for any specific questions anyone may have about what I saw.



[/list]

[kctipton]

I could not be happier to see we have another new editor at ODP. What, Mr. Glover, is your editor name? Which category are you editing? I am sure that you found something well worth your valuable time. I look forward to you posting many times in the internal ODP forums with your ideas for our staff to make the directory better and better.

I am very concerned that you claim to know of ongoing abuse at ODP. I wouldn't expect a brand new editor to know about more abuse than someone who's been an editor for years, but I imagine that it's possible. If so, surely you wouldn't mind sending all of the relevant, factual details through the internal abuse reporting system in order for this to be investigated and then acted upon? If you refuse to "out" the abusers, then you are abetting them and essentially become one yourself.

Please keep in mind that there are confidentiality rules that you, as an editor, are expected to follow. http://dmoz.org/guidelines/communication.html is a public document (Google's indexed it, for example) that clearly explains your responsibilities when communicating as an editor. I don't want your quest to write an exposé of ODP in these Webproworld forums to lead you afoul of the editor guidelines.

Of course, your credibility as an ODP reporter would be enhanced if you could provide corroborating evidence that you now have an editing account. I am not yet convinced that you do.

[Steven Glover]

I never once stated I had become an editor. What I said was that I had a chance to look over the editor control panel. I did with an actual ODP editor who pointed out to me the items I mentioned in my earlier post. Similar to a reporter I have no intention to of revealing my source. However according to the guidlines you pointed out.


Rephrasing is allowed only if the communication as rephrased could not be attributed to a specific editor and disclosure would not violate any editor's expectation of privacy, with the understanding that a diplomatic choice of words is the re-phraser's responsibility.


I don't believe I quoted any editor comment specifically nor gave any information that would attribute a comment I have made to any specific editor.

[kctipton]

Your being shown editor-only stuff is a violation of editor confidentiality since that editor, whoever he or she is, is letting you associate names with editing actions. Please don't encourage your editor acquaintance to break the rules.

[Steven Glover]

I didn't get to see any names other than that person. You weren 't mentioned. ;) I only wanted to see the approval/disapproval process. During the discussion the other items were volunteered. I didn't even have to ask.

[minstrel]

I'm a little puzzled by the exclusive emphasis on internal DMOZ/ODP confidentiality, etc., given

(1) that the issue(s) raised were questions of general public interest,
(2) that such issues have potentially significant implications for the integrity of the directory (or at least public perceptions of integrity), and
(3) that the integrity of the directory is clearly a matter of significant concern to anyone with a website.

The directory is, after all, called the "Open Directory Project"... so if a question is asked about the processes and controls that ODP has in place to prevent abuses, do you think a satisfactory or reassuring response is one that basically says, "that's an internal matter and not open to public discussion"?

[Steven Glover]

I to see concern. I am sure some of the hard core linux users could back me up on this. Usually when something is "open" the reasoning behind it is because the creator of the original process in his/her infinite wisdom thought their product could be greatly improved by not only being free to the public but by also being directed, altered, and improved by that same public. I can only imagine the original intent of ODP was to have that same process improve upon the directory.

I would hope that anything presented here will not just be looked at as an attempt at shedding negative light on ODP, but as it was truly intended which is to try and improve a directory that was formed from a noble concept.



It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change. - Charles Darwin

[kctipton]

Open = open source

Open Directory Project = Open Source Directory Project

The database is free as long as a few criteria are met.

[Steven Glover]

Ahh so then ODP is not interested in making improvements?

[samiam]

You should read the DMOZ Social Contract (http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html) carefully. (the other documents at the dmoz help central (http://dmoz.org/help/) site are also good reading..)

"We will keep all official ODP editorial guidelines and policies open for public view at all times.*"

"Our application process is necessarily selective due to our commitment to building a quality resource. Not all applications will be accepted."

Not just anyone can go right in and make an improvement to the Linux Kernel. You need Linus' approval for the patch - usually preceded by the maintainer of that part of the Kernel. If you want to use your patch/modification, you are welcome to download the source, modify it, and use it yourself.

If you want changes to dmoz, and they aren't accepted, feel free to download the RDF (http://rdf.dmoz.org/) and make your modifications.

If you are not an editor already, it is really hard to suggest changes to how dmoz operates that are realistic and practical. It's hard for editors to look at suggestions from the outside and accept them if the person making the suggestion has not been an editor. You could suggest that the number of edits per day an editor makes be posted on their profile to hold editors accountable, but until you've been an editor, you might not realize why that's not a good idea.

That's not to say we don't take suggestions from non-editors. There is a recent example of a change suggested by a non-member (who uses dmoz data and modifies it how he would like) over at the resource-zone.


I'm a little puzzled by the exclusive emphasis on internal DMOZ/ODP confidentiality, etc., given

I'm sure you can understand the reasons for our communication/privacy (http://dmoz.org/guidelines/communication.html#privacy) guidelines. The main purpose is to prevent harassment of individual editors. Once you've heard the stories or had it happen to you - you really don't want to expose yourself.


(1) that the issue(s) raised were questions of general public interest,
(2) that such issues have potentially significant implications for the integrity of the directory (or at least public perceptions of integrity), and
(3) that the integrity of the directory is clearly a matter of significant concern to anyone with a website.

The integrity of the directory is of perhaps more significant concern to those who are maintaining it. If it has no integrity, it has no use. If it has no use, why bother maintaining it. All editorial actions are logged, editors are encouraged to report abuse that they discover, and we have a mechanism for public abuse reporting (http://inelegant.org/report-abuse/) as well.


The directory is, after all, called the "Open Directory Project"... so if a question is asked about the processes and controls that ODP has in place to prevent abuses, do you think a satisfactory or reassuring response is one that basically says, "that's an internal matter and not open to public discussion"?
Our policies (http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Searching/Directories/Open_Directory_Project/Policies_and_Procedures/Editing_Guidelines/) and guidelines (http://dmoz.org/guidelines/) are open for review by anyone. Specific details of how we find and prevent abuses must be kept from the public. Not all editors will know everything that is done, either. This is integral to being able to find abusers. If we say "here are the methods at our disposal to catch and prevent abusers: ....." then they will know exactly what they have to work around.

If we discuss specific cases, we face the same risk, and we are effectively telling people how not to get caught in the future.

So we don't. We can't have it both ways.

But, again, the policies (http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Searching/Directories/Open_Directory_Project/Policies_and_Procedures/Editing_Guidelines/) and guidelines (http://dmoz.org/guidelines) are open for you to see, and we invite reports of abuse (http://inelegant.org/report-abuse/). We review, internally, guidelines and policies as needed, often prompted by external discussion. As the social contract says, we "foster a self-regulating community governed by community-driven standards" We do seek to improve, but we do so, in general, from within.

[minstrel]

Thank you, samiam. That was a much more informative and reassuring post than the earlier ones by your colleague which prompted mine.


I'm sure you can understand the reasons for our communication/privacy guidelines. The main purpose is to prevent harassment of individual editors. Once you've heard the stories or had it happen to you - you really don't want to expose yourself.
I have no issue with that - my comment previously was why was the response focusing on this when it wasn't the question?


That's not to say we don't take suggestions from non-editors. There is a recent example of a change suggested by a non-member (who uses dmoz data and modifies it how he would like) over at the resource-zone.
To whom should such suggestions be submitted to increase the likelihood that someone who might have the power to implement the suggestion actually reads it?

[samiam]

>my comment previously was why was the response focusing on this when it wasn't the question? <

But it was the question. Sharing editor-only information (which, from Mr. Glover's post, indicated that he had seen specific internal information - "In one case there were comments about a site...") is a violation of the guidelines. All editors must be aware of guideline violations and discourage, prevent, and report it whenever possible. If I had not gotten here after kctipton's post, mine would have been extremely close to his. (Similar to kctipton's earlier post, which encouraged the reporting of specific instances of abuse, his second post focused on ensuring the integrity of the directory and that editors are following the guidelines.)


To whom should such suggestions be submitted to increase the likelihood that someone who might have the power to implement the suggestion actually reads it?

To the extent permitted by the forum guidelines (http://resource-zone.com/guidelines.php), the Open Directory Public Forums (http://resource-zone.com/) are a good starting point. However, look through the old threads and you'll find a lot of ideas have already been discussed.

Alternatively, you can discuss things in various external forums (where editors read and take ideas back), or send an email to staff@dmoz.org, or use the official contact form (http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/feedback.cgi?). Staff rarely replies to the email, but does read it (or so I'm told). But discussion is the best way to bring out an idea, find its strengths and weaknesses, and develop it into something which is feasible to implement.

[minstrel]

>my comment previously was why was the response focusing on this when it wasn't the question? <

But it was the question. Sharing editor-only information (which, from Mr. Glover's post, indicated that he had seen specific internal information - "In one case there were comments about a site...") is a violation of the guidelines. All editors must be aware of guideline violations and discourage, prevent, and report it whenever possible. If I had not gotten here after kctipton's post, mine would have been extremely close to his.
Actually, the way I read it, the question was about potential abuses by ODP editors and the adequacy of the controls to address this - kctipton then made the issue the source of Mr. Glover's information isntead of the question itself - that's what I meant by my comments.



To whom should such suggestions be submitted to increase the likelihood that someone who might have the power to implement the suggestion actually reads it?
To the extent permitted by the forum guidelines (http://resource-zone.com/guidelines.php), the Open Directory Public Forums (http://resource-zone.com/) are a good starting point... or send an email to staff@dmoz.org, or use the official contact form (http://dmoz.org/cgi-bin/feedback.cgi?). Staff rarely replies to the email, but does read it (or so I'm told).
Thanks for this information.

[Steven Glover]

Although the potential abuse of the editors is a part of the focus, I am even more concerned by the lack of a system. I can think of no other system where a person asks to be included in something and does not receive some response letting that person know one way or the other.

When I apply for credit I have to meet a certain criteria, if that criteria is not met I receive a form letter in the mail telling me why I was not approved.

[samiam]

Although the potential abuse of the editors is a part of the focus, I am even more concerned by the lack of a system. I can think of no other system where a person asks to be included in something and does not receive some response letting that person know one way or the other.

When I apply for credit I have to meet a certain criteria, if that criteria is not met I receive a form letter in the mail telling me why I was not approved.

Are you talking about applying to be an editor or have a site added to the directory?

For the first, there is a system. Not counting certain exceptional cases, you will receive a response either way. Usually with a form letter explaining why, sometimes with a few personal words from the editor who processed the application.

For the second, here's the thing: If a site was deleted and not listed or forwarded to a more appropriate category then we can imagine it did not meet the guidelines for inclusion (http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html). What will most submitters likely do? Turn around and resubmit it, increasing the overall backlog further. People don't go and reapply for credit at the same place after being turned down. It's also (generally) a much more involved process to apply for credit than to submit a site to dmoz.

Additionally, a bank will be making a profit off of giving you credit (assuming you don't default) - all dmoz wants to do is make the directory better for the user, looking for sites. Listing the site is enough to accomplish that.

An avenue (http://resource-zone.com/) exists to find out more information if it's absolutely necessary. Additionally, there you can find some past discussions about the idea for notification on listing/not listing of sites. I can understand the desire for this tool/service, but it is unlikely to be implemented.

[Steven Glover]

For the second, here's the thing: If a site was deleted and not listed or forwarded to a more appropriate category then we can imagine it did not meet the guidelines for inclusion. What will most submitters likely do? Turn around and resubmit it, increasing the overall backlog further. People don't go and reapply for credit at the same place after being turned down. It's also (generally) a much more involved process to apply for credit than to submit a site to dmoz.

That is kind of an easy out isn't it? Sure some will likely submit over and over again. I would also argue that a majority of the sites you currently see being resubmitted repeatedly (which get unfairly clumped into the spam grouping in most cases) are actually people who just don't know they have been turned down. I would further venture the reason they keep resubmitting is that they think some how their submission has been lost or never received.


I do not feel that DMOZ is bad. I think it is a good project, but with a little open mindedness it has the potential to be great.

[minstrel]

If a site was deleted and not listed or forwarded to a more appropriate category then we can imagine it did not meet the guidelines for inclusion (http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html).
How does the submitter know which happened? If it is forwarded to a different category is there a notification sent? If it doesn't meet the guidelines, one might indeed imagine that some editor was unhappy with it for some reason, perhaps because it didn't meet a guideline - but which one? - or perhaps because that editor didn't like the site for other, maybe personal, reasons. Does an editor have to report the reasons for rejecting the site to anyone? If not, isn't that a huge hole in the system of checks and balances? If so, then why can't the submitter also be informed? The previous argument about protecting anonymity for the editors is specious to say the least - there are several simple ways to inform the submitter and protect anonymity, and if ODP editors don't know that it worries me greatly.


What will most submitters likely do? Turn around and resubmit it, increasing the overall backlog further. People don't go and reapply for credit at the same place after being turned down. It's also (generally) a much more involved process to apply for credit than to submit a site to dmoz.
1. poor analogy in this case - for one thing, with a credit application the individual is told (or can easily find out) why he was turned down, and for another he may well re-apply after correcting some misunderstanding or misinformation or omission in the application.
2. what's wrong with re-submitting? If the site owner is informed as to why the site was rejected, correct the problem, and re-submits, in what universe is this a bad thing?


all dmoz wants to do is make the directory better for the user, looking for sites. Listing the site is enough to accomplish that.
That's what this thread was all about, initially - making it better. "Listing the site" is only a part of that; accountability is another, volunteers or not - it's about ensuring the integrity of the directory for editors and users alike.


An avenue (http://resource-zone.com/) exists to find out more information if it's absolutely necessary. Additionally, there you can find some past discussions about the idea for notification on listing/not listing of sites. I can understand the desire for this tool/service, but it is unlikely to be implemented.
Frankly, having said in your earlier post that ODP is always open to new suggestions and on (one?) occasion even implements them, it sounds like you are now saying "but if you're not part of the ODP network, don't waste your time".

For some reason, the phrase "blank wall" keeps echoing in my ears. I have a feeling that I might get more satisfying answers at this site (http://www.pandorabots.com/pandora/talk?botid=f5d922d97e345aa1), posted recently in an other WebProWorld thread.

[Steven Glover]

I found that to be very funny. Why do people find things funny? Because to some degree the comedy echos reality.

Isn't it a sad day that when DMOZ is the brunt of a joke that reflects such a negativ e light?

I am sorry I love the idea of DMOZ but I really dislike DMOZ in its overall resistance to change.

[kctipton]

Let's be clear that suggestions _all_ have to be implemented by our staff engineer. Haranguing editors for this limitation is counterproductive. Editors are not staff engineers.

Open to suggestions, yes. Agreeable to every suggestion, no. Able (and/or willing) to implement all agreeable suggestions, no.

But, some suggestions do get implemented, and just about all of them are suggested _internally_ in appropriate places where the staff engineer can read them and, if desired, work to implement them. The chance of our engineer visiting this or any other outside forum and reading a long thread for tidbits of wisdom is essentially nil.

[Steven Glover]

Hmmmm. I am sure you are correct about them not visiting forums looking for tid bits of knowledge. However many editors are invloved in forums just like this one. Do you think they might pass those tid bits on? Also have you read any tid bits oif wisdom on this forum? Would you pass them on?

[simonm]

Wow, its the Duracell post - it just keeps running and running!
Joking aside, and to address (a minor part of) Steven's overall criticism of the ODP. Yes, I am sure that there are clear and identifiable abuses of the system, that can be expected with over 100,000 volunteers. Overall though, I expect the rate of abuse is low. For me, I like ODP as it is - warts and all - as it is an expression of democracy where just about anybody can participate and are judged by their peers.

I do note from some of the posts above, that where abuses have occurred and been reported they have been resolved. i.e. there is a means of contacting DMOZ and this can result in a successful conclusion where DMOZ makes a change.

Now what was that web related entity that has even more impact than DMOZ, keeps its rules secret, doesn't appear to have had spokespeople formally or informally submit to this forum, seems to be able to drop sites at will and .......

Oh, its just come to me, its Google!

Personally I don't think DMOZ is broke and that being the case it is unwise to fix it. I would agree with Steven that there are minor tweaks that might help, however the minor tweaks that I would like to see are different to his. The last thing I would want to see is any commercialisation or paid placement on DMOZ.

What however would be interesting is to consider an alternative and competing model to DMOZ. Something with a dynamic directory structure, where sites could get posted and appear quickly, no formal editors though perhaps moderators? Peer review, move and deletion of posted site entries. Perhaps based on the forum model? After all ODP is fundamentally a paper based directory transferred to the virtual world without the dynamism and flexibilty that the this new medium can offer.

[Steven Glover]

I am not certain how or why you would compare Google to DMOZ (apples and oranges?) DMOZ is to Open Directory as Google is to Search Engine. Google has a clear and identified process as to inclusion of a site. It is done by spidering a website and a very defined peice of code determines placement. DMOZ has a living breathing person deciding the placement of a website. Do you see where there is a notable difference?

I would also say Google is much more respondent to change. Google has many tet projects in the works that you can look at on their site as well as a contest they hold every year open to user submission.

Please don't lump Google into the DMOZ category. They have their own problems and are much more open to fixing them.

[simonm]

Steven says:
"Google has a clear and identified process as to inclusion of a site."

"spidering a website and a very defined peice of code determines placement."

Not in the dimension I am currently in.

As to Google and the ODP being different tools, yes of course they are, my point was that though they come from different stables so to speak, they have different problems which ultimately effect us in the same medium in similar ways - ie an impact on web presence!

After 5 pages I get the idea that you are not a fan of the ODP. (:¬

[Steven Glover]

Perhaps but when google changes their algorhytms it is meant to improve the search results and is implemented on all of the web sites that Google spiders. It is not done hands on, one on one basis. If Google hand selected each site it included in its results I assure you I would be starting a similar thread where it is concerned.

[donaldb]

Please don't lump Google into the DMOZ category. They have their own problems and are much more open to fixing them.

Google has lots and lots of paid tech support - ODP has one person :)

Does Google actually implement user suggestions other than bug fixes? Just curious as I don't really pay much attention to that sort of thing.

I think that one of the things that people forget about the ODP is that it's a very grassroots type of organizations. Just because it is owned by a big corporation and some of the downstream users seem to find the data useful doesn't mean that there is a lot of funding coming down the pipe. Nor do we really want that to change. We like what we are.

That doesn't mean that ideas and suggestions fall on deaf ears, it just means that we take longer to hash things out and implement them. Also, not all ideas are good ideas :)

Steven, I'm just not sure what you're looking for from the ODP. Are you looking for some type of acknowledgement that your ideas are being considered? I can't see that happening. Not because we don't want to acknowledge your contribution, but only because your contribution probably won't look the same after all of the kinks are worked out and it is possibly morphed into something familiar but different.

If you were an editor we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion. Editors make suggestions every day. We have 2 internal forums specifically for Bugs and Features. New features come on-line all the time. Maybe you can get your editor friend to submit your ideas to the internal forum and something might come of it.

[Steven Glover]

If you were an editor we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.


Although I appreciate what you are saying in the rest of your post I am slightly disturbed by this comment. It reminds me of other comments such as:

Sorry this is an exlusive club.

Members only.

I get the impression that editors are some sort of special society. If I were an editor I would know better than to open my mouth or have a differing opinion from my fellow editors. Hmm Disturbing.

[donaldb]

You're kidding, right?

We wouldn't be having this discussion if you were an editor, because you would have already submitted your suggestions to the Bugs and Features forum. The ODP is not some kind of exclusive club. It's beyond me how someone could even think that. Especially after you've already been inside and seen how things work.

I get the impression that you are never going to be happy by the answers that any editors give you about the ODP. I get the feeling that ODP editors are not welcome here unless they agree with your theories about how we operate. Or is it just my answers that you don't like? Do you want us to stop posting here? If this is supposed to be an exclusive non-ODP Editors forum, then we can stop answering people's questions. It's not a problem.

[minstrel]

Answers? Where were they?

I had intended my "blank wall" post to be my last in this thread because I think one has to recognize sometimes that you are attempting to have a debate with people who would rather you just sit down and be quiet. However, I don't want to leave the impression that Steven is the only one here who is unhappy both with the issues he has raised and with the responses from those here who have indicated that they are affiliated with ODP. Do not assume that, because you have silenced a person, you have convinced him - it's simply a matter of recognizing that beyond a certain point it is just flogging a dead horse.

I haven't seen a lot of "answers" to either agree or disagree with in this thread - I've seen a lot of defensiveness, hostility, and indignation that anyone outside of ODP would dare to criticize those within, or to suggest improvements. Eventually, even those responses which initially seemed promising turned into either "we don't discuss ODP with outsiders" or "if you want to make a difference then join ODP as an editor" or "you are free to make a suggestion but if you're not an editor expect it to be ignored".

Today, I see a post that says, "we like ODP the way it is and we don't want to change". And another that says, "some of the downstream users seem to find the data useful", which I must say is a comment that I find especially fatuous - if those "downstream users" were merely individuals (end users) who could pick and choose which directories they found useful, the comment might be appropriate but when those "downstream users" include major search engines, I would suggest that there is an issue of responsibility that really hasn't been addressed.

Elsewhere, I have stated my opinion that ODP, while a notable and noteworthy notion, is fundamentally flawed in concept - it cannot possibly keep up with the expansion of the web and therefore is doomed to collapse under the weight of its own goals. This is partly because the project itself is impossible and getting more impossible every day with every new website added - human editors cannot realistically keep pace with the goal of personally reviewing all of these sites. Moreover, I think what I see in this thread suggests to me that the collective attitude of ODP volunteers means that anything that might be done to at least stave off the inevitable implosion is not anything they want to hear about.

So, I give up... Have it your way. Leave everything in ODP just the way it is. Let the project fall farther and farther behind in its goals and farther and farther out of touch with the rest of the web until it becomes so out of date and irrelevant that it will revert to merely a hobbyist's playground.

If there is one primary law of nature it is that everything will eventually become extinct - and those entities that cannot change, evolve, and adapt will be among the first to suffer extinction. Google understands this - evidently ODP does not.

[donaldb]

I think we're having some strange communication issues here. Are we speaking the same language? I really don't understand where you're coming from or how you are interpreting my statements the way that you are. I feel like I have personally offended you somehow but I really don't know why. This is bizarre.

I think that I've made it perfectly clear that we are constantly open to suggestions. Taking suggestions and acting on them are two different things. I make suggestions all the time and sometimes they get acted on and sometimes they don't. I said that Steven's suggestions have not fallen on deaf ears. I'm really not sure what else I can say to you about that, or what you are expecting to hear. I'm baffled.

Who said anything about not wanting to change? Please read my statement about that again.

Just because it is owned by a big corporation and some of the downstream users seem to find the data useful doesn't mean that there is a lot of funding coming down the pipe. Nor do we really want that to change. We like what we are.
The "that" in the sentence was referring to not wanting to change how we are funded. We like being a grassroots organization. We don't want to be funded by the parent company. They supply servers and bandwidth, and a couple staff people and that's about all we need from them.

I'm really not sure that I understand where you're coming from on my statement about the downstream users. Very simply, we are building a directory. We give out the data to whoever wants it. If search engines use the data there is nothing I can do about that. It's not my concern or the reason that I want to build this directory.

I want to build this directory so that people can find information. There really is no ulterior motive beyond that. I find it odd when people say that it is going to fail. How can it fail? As long as people are willing to volunteer their time and energy to add web sites to the directory, then the project is successful. There will always be people who are willing to help out.

I suspect that you are going to come back and pick this apart and twist it around to make me out to be the evil ODP editor again. This thread started off with me being the evil ODP editor so nothing has changed. So be it. But you might want to take your "Evil OPD" blinders off for a minute and re-read some of the posts. I have never had a harsh word for anyone here even though the original purpose of the thread was to slam me personally. I think that I've been honest and straight forward. My only reason for being here was to try and shed some light on the concerns that people had with the ODP. I guess that makes me the bad guy and the ODP an evil secret society out to rid the world of all web sites :)

Maybe it's time to close this thread and move on to more pressing concerns.

[simonm]

Well said Donald.
I think it is relevant to consider that this thread started with a comment about not being accepted as an editor. Strange that during the course of this thread there has been an equivalent thread about how to get to be a wpw forum moderator (don't call us, we'll call you - which I happen to agree with).
This thread seems to have evolved into criticism of ODP, largely based on not changing to factor in individuals ideas who in turn seem reluctant to join and make or suggest change from within.
I agree that this thread has run its course.
But I wonder who's going to have the last word?
My bet is we reach 7 pages!

[samiam]

A couple things:

2. what's wrong with re-submitting? If the site owner is informed as to why the site was rejected, correct the problem, and re-submits, in what universe is this a bad thing?
Nothing. But experience shows that the key to that - correcting the problem is a rare step to actually be taken. Often there is a fundamental reason why the site can't be included and that can't be just fixed (mirrors, doorways etc).


However many editors are invloved in forums just like this one. Do you think they might pass those tid bits on? Also have you read any tid bits oif wisdom on this forum? Would you pass them on?
If I saw a new idea on a forum, like this one, that had potential, I would pass it on and post in the internal forums, referring to the thread where the idea was first mentioned. However the issue that seems to be under discussion here, automated submission status mechanisms, has been discussed extensively and for many reasons, it is unlikely to happen. If that idea had not been discussed, I can imagine this thread would have prompted internal discussion.


ODP, while a notable and noteworthy notion, is fundamentally flawed in concept - it cannot possibly keep up with the expansion of the web and therefore is doomed to collapse under the weight of its own goals


The Open Directory Project is the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web. It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global community of volunteer editors.... [Editors] can each organize a small portion of the web and present it back to the rest of the population, culling out the bad and useless and keeping only the best content.* (source) (http://dmoz.org/about.html)

We're not trying to list every site or every page. It's not just an issue of quantity. The explosive growth in web sites out there is not matched by the (admittedly still large) growth of quality, useful websites.

The guidelines say By joining the ODP, you are helping to build the most comprehensive and widely distributed Directory of the Web. *The ODP is a diverse community of editors representing many nationalities, cultures, and interests. *The common denominator is an interest in creating an unbiased, objective resource for the general public, fully covering the breadth and depth of human knowledge, and representing all topics and points of view.

I think we're doing pretty well towards that goal. Granted, there's always room for improvement, and some portions of the directory are more ideal than others, but whenever I find a useful/quality website while I'm using the web, I check to make sure it's listed. Usually they are. If not, the directory just got better.


you are attempting to have a debate with people who would rather you just sit down and be quiet
I don't think that's what anyone's said - I think the only thing that we're saying is we've considered this idea.


If there is one primary law of nature it is that everything will eventually become extinct - and those entities that cannot change, evolve, and adapt will be among the first to suffer extinction. Google understands this - evidently ODP does not.
The ODP has been changing and evolving throughout my time as an editor, and probably has before that, too. The guidelines have evolved (http://web.archive.org/web/19991013104144/http://dmoz.org/guidelines.html), the roles of editors have evolved, and the community has been moving to be more self-governing.

[minstrel]

I keep trying to get out of this thread because I find it frustrating to the max. However, I feel I must at least correct some misinformation...


I think it is relevant to consider that this thread started with a comment about not being accepted as an editor.
No. It didn't: Where in the initial post do you see that question? Steven was not applying to be an editor - he was trying to get information about a site submission to ODP and his citation of that particular thread in the ODP forum was to make a point about the obfuscation inherent in the responses of the ODP editors.


I recently was looking into the submission status for our website at DMOZ so naturally I came across www.resource-zone.com which seems to be the forum for the (volunteer) editors of DMOZ.

Nice little forum and seems to work well. However once I posted my question about the status of my submission I decided I would look around. I came across this post. I am removing the responses not directly on topic.



DonaldB(DMOZ Editor): It looks like your application was reviewed and denied. I think it may be time to find a different hobby.

Cooleditor2(Applicant): Could you give the reason(s) i failed? it will help me for my next application. I read the submission guidelines. The category i chose had 2 links only. Experience: editor for zeal.com, musicmoz.org, and editor for dmoz.org about 2 years ago. Titles and descriptions were fine to me.

Motsa(editor): I would take donaldb's suggestion that "it may be time to find a different hobby" literally and not apply again.

Cooleditor2(Applicant): You are right Mosta but 1 It was a suggestion 2 This is the OPEN directory, open to volunteers from all around the world

DonaldB(DMOZ Editor): Two thumbs up for the effort, but I think it is time for you to forget about the ODP


Again, some of the posts were left out to read in full look here (http://www.resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=49319&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1).

Now this seems to be the type of attitude you find riddled throughout DMOZ - "because I said so." It is almost impossible to get a straight response. The concept of ODB seems pretty straightforward and a good one. However I am wondering if better checks and balances should be in place for submissions for not only websites but editors as well. I think if your application for either one of those items is turned down an email should be sent explaining why. I would even write the script(for free!) that would make this as easy as cake.

I guarantee that there would be a lot less frustration about the ODP and you would have a LOT less resubmissions thus cutting down previously rejected websites that these volunteers have to go thru. It may even decrease unethical SEO practices.

For example I submit site A. Site A has some masked text. An editor reviews the site sees the masked text. The editor uses the a generic form letter that has a box checked explaining the rejection (possibly even a small text area for custom text). The owner of site A gets his letter decides to either fix the issue or not. Then resubmits if the issue gets fixed.

In many instances if the problem cannot be fixed or the owner will not fix the problem the site will never be resubmitted relieving the pressure on the volunteer editors. The system works MUCH better.

What do you guys think? Sorry bout the long windedness!
Note the comment about "It is almost impossible to get a straight response." It seems to me to characterize the feedback we've had in this forum from ODP editors.


Strange that during the course of this thread there has been an equivalent thread about how to get to be a wpw forum moderator (don't call us, we'll call you - which I happen to agree with).
Which thread is that? And how is it relevant to the questions posed by Steven?


This thread seems to have evolved into criticism of ODP, largely based on not changing to factor in individuals ideas who in turn seem reluctant to join and make or suggest change from within.
"evolved into" a criticisim of ODP? Didn't it start that way? And, once again, note the reference to "change from within" - read "suggestions from outside the club will be disregarded".


I agree that this thread has run its course.
As in "hit a brick wall"? I couldn't agree more...

[minstrel]

2. what's wrong with re-submitting? If the site owner is informed as to why the site was rejected, correct the problem, and re-submits, in what universe is this a bad thing?
Nothing. But experience shows that the key to that - correcting the problem is a rare step to actually be taken. Often there is a fundamental reason why the site can't be included and that can't be just fixed (mirrors, doorways etc).
So why the reluctance to say just that and at least give the site owner the opportunity to correct it? Doorway pages can be removed... so can mirrors... tell the site owner what you don't like and if s/he chooses NOT to correct the problem, so be it...


However the issue that seems to be under discussion here, automated submission status mechanisms, has been discussed extensively and for many reasons, it is unlikely to happen.
But why not? That hasn't been adequately explained... and that is a major part of the problem.

To quote PeeWee Herman yet again, "Something you can share with the rest of us, Amazing Larry?"



ODP, while a notable and noteworthy notion, is fundamentally flawed in concept - it cannot possibly keep up with the expansion of the web and therefore is doomed to collapse under the weight of its own goals

The Open Directory Project is the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web. It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global community of volunteer editors.... [Editors] can each organize a small portion of the web and present it back to the rest of the population, culling out the bad and useless and keeping only the best content.* (source) (http://dmoz.org/about.html)
We're not trying to list every site or every page. It's not just an issue of quantity. The explosive growth in web sites out there is not matched by the (admittedly still large) growth of quality, useful websites.
I will assume you are fully aware that you are evading the question here...



you are attempting to have a debate with people who would rather you just sit down and be quiet
I don't think that's what anyone's said - I think the only thing that we're saying is we've considered this idea.
So please don't bring it up again? See my previous post...

[Steven Glover]

I really think it boils down to editors feeling like any suggestion made from anyone other than an editor is an attack on ODP and that mentality seems to be justified at least to themselves by thoughts such as "well this person is upset because he was turned down as an editor" or "His/Her site was rejected in the DMOZ directory.". When in all fairness no one (NO ONE) in this forum posting to this thread is trying to do that. In fact I "VOLUNTEERED" to write some scripts for DMOZ (FREE OF CHARGE). I like the project and would love to see some positive changes. They are positive and if people would quit being so defensive and open up their minds for just a moment they would see that.

I'll go one step further. In the event that I am afforded the opportunity to donate any improving scripts I will give DMOZ a list of websites that I own that are in the DMOZ directory so that they can be removed so that their is no appearance of a payoff so to speak.

[kctipton]

But why not?

I have a little kid who asks that same question all the time too.

Our engineer has had months to read the thread in question - yet, for some reason, it hasn't been implemented. That the thread hasn't been locked is a slightly good sign, but that's the only bone I'll throw you on this.

[minstrel]

But why not?
I have a little kid who asks that same question all the time too.
And does he get any answers?


that's the only bone I'll throw you on this.
Thanks...

[dssquirt]

Okay. One more comment here. I applied to be an editor once. I have approximately 5 years web design experience and think I could be an asset to this whole thing. However, I never heard back. So if they are really trying to get sites out there in an impartial and accurate manner, why don't they want someone with experience as an editor?

[kctipton]

Your not hearing back does not automatically mean you aren't needed. Rejects and accepts should get an emailed response. Perhaps the email got caught by a spamfilter of some sort and never reached your inbox. It happens.

[Steven Glover]

I just don't know how to respond to that.

Let me get this clear. So if I apply as an editor I should recieve an email with the status of my application?

[lvalics]

I feel that DMOZ have a lot of lacks regarding Human Editors and programming behind.
When I say this, I based on my experience with DMOZ and as an ex. editor.
What I observed and I don't like it ...

If you submit a site, you expect to have a history about what is happened with your site.
For example I submitted my site and I gived out my e-mail address (in case they needed).
This e-mail address will be never used to notify me about my page, about the status of the page, about why was rejected, or if was approved.
So nothing about feedback to site owner.

1. I think is not to hard to DMOZ to send out a mail when a page is approved with link to check if is OK.

2. To send out a mail when an editor reviewed a site and made comment (and check if is public to site owner or just for internal use.

3. To send out a mail when site was rejected, moved to another category, or delayed for some reason.

4. To send out a mail when DMOZ robots find site with problem (not work and delisted)

Opinion? Anyone who know someone on DMOZ? :-)

[minstrel]

Hello, Valics:

Welcome to WebProWorld!

While I personally agree that there are some major problems with DMOZ/ODP, I've moved your post here to this thread where some of your points were discussed at length a couple of months ago. Feel free to add any further comments here.

[eko]

Dear Verne,
Maybe you dont have any experiment about DMOZ.Its an open source and voluntery editors,not robots.This is their official definition,now I will tell you the details.Indeed they are a group of FOOLS.They seem working serious but they do nothing.IM afraid only being a fool person is enough to be editor in DMOZ.My site has been on screen nearly 1 year but still it hasnt been indexed by DMOZ.Some could though I wasnt submit to right category.Right? Definetly not.A familiar site of mine was indexed very long months ago but even my site is more professional,it doesnt.
Those FOOLs has a forum and I also wrote this situation on the forum.They said one of the editor changed my category and its still waiting on the turn.They wanted sometime.Ofcourse this was 2 months ago.

People do better, yeah, but it depends on which people is he.We discussed with European editors very long but they dont accept their mistake.They dont behave fair.I told if any DMOZ editor can explain me why that amateur site was indexed and why mine hasnt I will pay him 10.000€.Ofcourse they couldnt.And I protested them, I dont want to be indexed by DMOZ anymore even they cost me really much loss.

So, if you think they are serious,you will disappoint.They are using the authority as they want,they dont care about your loose or traffic.Just a group of FOOLS.

[cbp]

They are using the authority as they want,they dont care about your loose or traffic

You obviously have a serious misunderstanding of what DMOZ is about. DMOZ do not give a damn about traffic to your site or your ranking in Google or your competitors. DMOZ's aim is to build a human edited directory of sites that of value to the users of DMOZ.

Last I heard is that ~7000 sites get submitted daily and ~1000-2000 get listed daily. So most get rejected as not meeting the requirements of what DMOZ is. What DMOZ is is clearly spelled out in the Social Contract and Guidelines. Your perception of DMOZ being there to help you with a listing is wrong.

Ministrel did ask that messages such as your name calling be posted in another thread. Did you read his message?

CBP

[minstrel]

Thanks, cbp.

As you can see, I've now moved the posts in question to this thread - if you wish to add comments to the debate(s) about ODP/DMOZ, please do so here.

[Steven Glover]

This thread and cockroaches (before anyone jumps to coclusions I am not talking about DMOZ editors when I say cockroaches) will be the only thing left after a nuclear war.

[cbp]

This thread and cockroaches (before anyone jumps to coclusions I am not talking about DMOZ editors when I say cockroaches) will be the only thing left after a nuclear war.

...yes... similar threads exist all over the forums.

I guess it all comes down to two things:

1) The aim of a webmaster (wants to promote site) is different to the aim of DMOZ/ODP (wants to create a useful directory of some sites) --> conflict

2) You and I can list who we like our sites; ditto for DMOZ/ODP

CBP

[Mel]

While the ODP may not be a model of efficiency it is perhaps the most important of all directories, and they accomplish this with (I think this is correct) less than 5 paid employees.

My only advice to those who are not happy with OPD (DMOZ) is to apply to be an editor themselves and make the changes from inside the system.

[cbp]

they accomplish this with (I think this is correct) less than 5 paid employees

Only 2.

CBP

[eko]

I know DMOZ is not a promoting tool its good for getting links from others if you are indexed.I dont know about others but European Editors are definetly using their Authourity in wrong way.Their mind is not to help you, just to refuse is easier for them.
In the end they bored me and gave that up. I wont help their unsatisfied ego.In my opinion they are just FOOLS.

[cbp]

Their mind is not to help you

EXACTLY - the volunteers are not there to help you. They are there to build a directory that is useful to users to users of the directory.

CBP

[TaoOfSearch]

While the ODP may not be a model of efficiency it is perhaps the most important of all directories, and they accomplish this with (I think this is correct) less than 5 paid employees.

My only advice to those who are not happy with OPD (DMOZ) is to apply to be an editor themselves and make the changes from inside the system.

I think there is at least another way for unsatified webmasters/site owners: looking for alternative. As Steven has said wayyyyy back in his early comments, the better system is coming!

[simonm]

Following this thread is like walking the Grand Trunk Road (read Kim by Rudyard Kipling). All manner of conversation, life and opinion is here. Long may it endure.

[Mel]

While the ODP may not be a model of efficiency it is perhaps the most important of all directories, and they accomplish this with (I think this is correct) less than 5 paid employees.

My only advice to those who are not happy with OPD (DMOZ) is to apply to be an editor themselves and make the changes from inside the system.

I think there is at least another way for unsatified webmasters/site owners: looking for alternative. As Steven has said wayyyyy back in his early comments, the better system is coming!

Nice to look for the holy grail but at the moment there is no other directory that provides the feed to the google directory and to many other directories so that a listing in DMOZ gets you many links. Wish there were another directory with the same reach.

[eko]

Quote:
Their mind is not to help you


EXACTLY - the volunteers are not there to help you. They are there to build a directory that is useful to users to users of the directory.

CBP

What does this mean? If we dont index our sites on DMOZ, what the users will find about their search?

This is not the right answer,CBP. The main problem is authourity (in European area) in wrong hands.

[cbp]

Eko

You did not read what I wrote...

Why do you want your site listed in DMOZ? (I presume your answer is as above - you want to be found in a search) --> I am not actually sure how you think DMOZ helps you do this. The aim of DMOZ and social contract of DMOZ does not give a damn about your site being found in searches and how your sites rank (you might, but DMOZ does not)

Why does DMOZ want to list your site? The answer is because it adds value to the directory (nothing to do with your desire to show up in a search). If your site does not add value to the DMOZ directory --> no listing.

Most sites submitted to DMOZ will not get listed. I read a comment from a senior editor recently, that the most productive time in recent memory (when a lot of sites was added to the directory) was when there were technical difficulties with the submission process and no one could submit. So, there is a good argument to do away with DMOZ accepting submissions and editors can be freed to build a category by finding sites from searching for them and not have to deal with all the rubbish that gets submitted.

CBP

[cbp]

I should have dealt with this comment:


The main problem is authourity (in European area) in wrong hands.

If this is correct, then have you actually reported this? Report editor abuse here:
http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/

If you are right in your claims, it will be dealt with.

CBP

[eko]

Dear CBP,
Ofcourse these are true but I cant spend my time by them.Also I dont need their indexing my site,only I wanted is to show the inside of DMOZ to young friends in here.They mustnt assume that Open directory project is perfectly going.

One of an editor though another category is more suitable for my site and changed.Till here is okey.But the editor of new category didnt accept my site in new category and refused to index. What is this? A foolish cooperation between editors of DMOZ.Right?

Actually, I dont need DMOZ.Im on the last days of creating a new dimension on internet.My project is nearly finished(15 days later) People will see the " Most intelligent web site on the net" in a few days.
My project will give other people new ideas. I can give a technical detail, while a normal PHP forum contains 26 data base tables, my project right now has 38 data base tables.

So,if you project is good, you dont need snob editors of DMOZ. I just wanted to warn young web masters.

[Dragonsi]

Firstly let me say that DMOZ has 'narked' me off slightly by rejecting one of my main sites with the answer "your submission has been reject as will all future ones". I was then pointed to a standard 'possible reasons for rejection' page which gave about 20 differant totaly unrelated reasons why I was rejected.

Since it seams pritty obvious that getting listed in DMOZ is important for getting a higher PR, I would like to ask if this 'Open' directory has got too big for it's boots? All through the forum there is "YOU MUST" & "YOU WILL" dictations of how to 'behave'. I would like to say that some (but not the majority) of editors have got 'POWER' fever and could do with leasons in attitude and mannors themselves.

One editor informed me that since my site was a directory and so was DMOZ, I needed to make my site better then DMOZ > what planet is this guy from...

I can truly understand that every website in the world cannot be listed, but when a similar local directory got listed 8 months after I submitted my own and another listed site is no longer in operation, it seams that on occasions, these voluntiers take their power too far.

In the area I live, where unemployment is high (about 25%) and the main source of income is with the tourism trade, I need to get my directory listed high in SE's to give me the chance to make a living.

I think it is time that the major SE's stop relying on directories like DMOZ to deside how 'important' website's are.

(I'm glad that's off my chest)

[minstrel]

Firstly let me say that DMOZ has 'narked' me off slightly by rejecting one of my main sites with the answer "your submission has been reject as will all future ones". I was then pointed to a standard 'possible reasons for rejection' page which gave about 20 differant totaly unrelated reasons why I was rejected.

One editor informed me that since my site was a directory and so was DMOZ, I needed to make my site better then DMOZ > what planet is this guy from...
Perfect! I don't know if you've read through this thread from the beginning, Dragonsi, but that is exactly the attitude among certain ODP/DMOZ editors that got this thread rolling and kept it going. And you're absoulutely right - this is the major problem with ODP.

[Verne]

Cbp I initially wrote the question about HOW to get listed in DMOZ. I did not initiate a 'complaint' forum. Please remove my e-mail from this list so that people are not addressing Verne about complaints they have. My subject was apparently eliminated. Thank you.

[minstrel]

I initially wrote the question about HOW to get listed in DMOZ. I did not initiate a 'complaint' forum. Please remove my e-mail from this list so that people are not addressing Verne about complaints they have. My subject was apparently eliminated. Thank you.
Verne/Theresa:

The topic you began still exists here:
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=12039.

The problem was that people were posting global complaints about ODP/DMOZ in answer to your questions - there was already an exisiting thread on complaints about ODP/DMOZ and I have been moving "complaint" posts from the thread you started to this one so that your thread can focus only on issues relating to submitting, editing, and tracking your listing in ODP/DMOZ.

You can click on "stop watching this topic" at the bottom of the "complaints" thread but I believe any time one posts to your original thread you will receive a notification even though I move the post.

I have now changed the title of the "complaints" thread for the second time in the past couple of weeks, and I have posted two messages in the other forum asking people to stay on topic - I am hopeful (perhaps blindly so) that eventually people will reserve the thread you started for its intended purpose.

Moderator
Google
Search Engine Discussion
Search Engines Insider Reports

[Verne]

I understand explanation and thanks for input...

[fathom]

Admittedly none of us are perfect - neither is DMOZ but the nature of the beast is this...

I always act with respect when submitting/inquiring and/or changing listings and always sing praise to DMOZ and all its editors -- whether accepted or declined, whether moved, edit, removed, or replaced.

I get more that way.

I've haven't known too many people that will bend over backwards for someone when that same someone calls them "useless, lazy, self-serving, unprofessional, corrupt, idiots, and/or morons etc., etc...

Would you?

Please note: this post is not directed at anyone... the only way to get listed - if you can't... is remaining to "be nice" while proactively attempting to get listed.

[minstrel]

That is generally excellent advice, Fathom - my mother used to like to say, "you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

But what do you say to someone like Dragonsi who tells you that an ODP editor rejected his site and told him "your submission has been rejected as will all future ones" (see above)?

How does one remain "nice while proactively attempting to get listed" in the face of a message like that?

[Mel]

That is generally excellent advice, Fathom - my mother used to like to say, "you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

But what do you say to someone like Dragonsi who tells you that an ODP editor rejected his site and told him "your submission has been rejected as will all future ones" (see above)?

How does one remain "nice while proactively attempting to get listed" in the face of a message like that?

Depends on the circumstances, If the site in question is one of those that DMOZ does not and will not index (porn, affiliate sites,...) that is a very informative response, even if it is not nicely worded.

I agree that DMOZ is not the best run organization in the world, but with 10,000 or so editors and 2 full time employees to do everything including maintaining the database and site code, there is no one to monitor the standards.

Can you imagine a commercial company with 10,000 employees and only two members in the management group?

[minstrel]

Depends on the circumstances, If the site in question is one of those that DMOZ does not and will not index (porn, affiliate sites,...) that is a very informative response, even if it is not nicely worded.
Hmmmmm... double-checking what Dragonsi wrote in his post above, I have difficulty understanding how what he was told could be characterized as "a very informative response" or where one would get the impression that he was trying to submit a porn site or affiliate site - I may be misreading something here but I believe the site in question is a tourist accomodation site...

[Mel]

I will try to make it plainer.

There are categories of sites that DMOZ do not index, and they generally do not index ANY site more than once in the topical or regional sections. IF (please read this carefully as I am not suggesting the this is the case simply postulating that this is a common occurance) any of these are the case the response that any future submissions would be declined is possibly quite factual.

Now for the legal disclaimers;
Nothing in the above post should be construed to suggest or imply any critism of any posters or their sites, the content therof, or any potential for the same. I am simply expressing my (unpopular) opinion.

The berating of DMOZ is quite common, but IMO those who do the moaning are generally not editors, not privy to the actual situation on the ground inside DMOZ and generally unable or unwilling to spend the time to correct those problems by becoming editors.

Please don't take this as an endorsement of DMOZ, I have had my own problems with them, but have learned to overcome them. and found specifically that if you have a legitimate problem and discuss it in a reasonable manner at the DMOZ forum it can often be clarified or resolved.

[Mel]

Looking into Dragonsi's specific case and noting that there appear to be only two pembrokeshire directories listed in DMOZ (which tallies with his comment about two others listed) if he tried to list in either of those categories he is not likely to be accepted now or in the future as one is:

Regional: Europe: United Kingdom: Wales: Pembrokeshire: Arts and Entertainment

which his pembrokeshire portal does not fit as he covers much more than this.

The other is:
Regional: Europe: United Kingdom: Wales: Travel and Tourism: Accommodation

which again his portal does not fit as it is not just about accomodation.

If he were my client I would advise him to go to http://www.resource-zone.com and explain his situation politely and ask where his portal could be listed.

While I agree that the reported response from the editor was less than optimal, there should be a way to resolve the problem.

[Dragonsi]

When the site was submitted, it was in the:
Europe > UK > Wales > Pembrokeshire > Guides & Directories.

As you say, there are other similar sites in this category, which I agree do have very similar content to my own site. I can understand being told that my site could not be listed in this field but I was welcome to apply for another category - it's just the way in which I was informed that the site was rejected.

I have since re-submitted the site under 'travel & tourism' - that's see what happens now..

[Mel]

Hmmmm....
I would think that you submitted to the correct category in the first instance and would expect that you might not be successful in travel and tourism.

I note that none of these categories have an editor, the next one up the chain is at Wales, and thus you may be reviewed by the same editor again.

If it has been more than three weeks since you submitted, I would visit the DMOZ forum and look up the thread that asks about what happened to my submission, and tell your story plainly and politely asking what you should do now.

Several meta and editalls post there and they will often give you a quick answer to your question. They also have the ability to add the site themselves if they feel like it.

This is a thread I picked up on a brief visit there just now and I believe the site owner got quite a lot of information as a result of his postings, and it was from editors and metas. Good reading if you are having listing problems.

http://resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=62472&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Good luck!

[cbp]

your submission has been rejected as will all future ones

I would be curious to know more detail behind this - for an editor to say this, it means that there is something more to it than simply a "normal rejection". This usually indicates a number of things including threats to an editor; using devious tactics to spam the directory etc - I am not saying that you actaully did any of these things but..

Did you spam the directory with multiple submissions to multiple categories? I checked your thread at resource zone and notice that the editor actually said "Allof its submissions have been declined as will all future ones be"

When you submit - instructions are explicit --> submit to the one best category.

CBP

[Don Lee]

I was so fed up waiting for DMOZ to add my site that I applied to be an editor ot one of their subcategories. I was a practicing attorney for 10 years before I had a change of career because of my love for the Internet and I applied to be an editor for their legal category. That was more than 3 month ago and I have yet to get a response from them. If they are overwhelmed and if someone who has right qualification wants to volunteer, I thought they would be much more receptive than waiting for more thna 3 months.

[cbp]

1. Did you get an automated email reply after applying? --> if not --> reapply

2. If you got the automated reply, you should have heard by now. Go to http://www.resource-zone.com/ to ask about the status of your application

3. If you are applying as you want to list your site --> don't bother applying

CBP

[fathom]

That is generally excellent advice, Fathom - my mother used to like to say, "you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".

But what do you say to someone like Dragonsi who tells you that an ODP editor rejected his site and told him "your submission has been rejected as will all future ones" (see above)?

How does one remain "nice while proactively attempting to get listed" in the face of a message like that?

hmmm.... well a response from an editor can be a nice value added correspondence that can be shared with a senior editor or editall, or resource zone - but politely.

Please note that there are two sides to every story - the editor could in fact be correct if the site really doesn't belong there (as in an affiliate site for acme products - the true acme website is all that is needed).

Notwithstanding - getting a second opinion is never wrong nor can it be considered "not being nice" - just the same though if a senior editor/editall comes back with a similar finding - you should re-think your strategy.

[Dragonsi]

your submission has been rejected as will all future ones

I would be curious to know more detail behind this - for an editor to say this, it means that there is something more to it than simply a "normal rejection". This usually indicates a number of things including threats to an editor; using devious tactics to spam the directory etc - I am not saying that you actaully did any of these things but..

Did you spam the directory with multiple submissions to multiple categories? I checked your thread at resource zone and notice that the editor actually said "Allof its submissions have been declined as will all future ones be"

When you submit - instructions are explicit --> submit to the one best category.

CBP

Back in 2000 when I first started to submit sites to SE's, I used a mass submission tool (AdWeb), this tried to submit to DMOZ but got an error code. So I submitted the site manualy. Several months later(about 6), I noticed that my site had not been included, so I submitted again (not reading the guidlines completely). Until last week, these are the only submissions I have made for this site.

I will repeat what I said before, I understand that sites are rejected but what I have taken offence too is the "...as will all future ones" part of the answer. This makes me feel like I'm some sort of SPAM Lord and the content of my site is unsuitable for viewing.

I just feel that too much power is in the hands of someone who is totaly unfamiliar with my local ecommomy and has no idea of what I'm about.. This just proves that a voluntier run organisation which has this much power is wrong and injust.. Proper administration and management are needed so that innocent businessmen like myself are not abused..

[cbp]

NEWSFLASH

Being listed in DMOZ can actually hurt your Google ranking!!!.... so many people have all these complaints about not getting into DMOZ, now there is a suggestion that some might want to ask to have their DMOZ listing removed because of Google.

I think its bullocks, but could not resist pointing out this thread at Resource Zone:
http://resource-zone.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=62898&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=93&fpart=1

Talk about taking a very tiny piece of theoretical information in one forum out of context and think it is fact and post it in another forum.

CBP

[Maximilian]

The reason for the post was in hopes of improving a project that was groundbreaking from conception. I would like to see the project continue without losing (any further?) ground or credibility.

Greetings Steven,

I think your reason for your post concerning ODP in hopes of improving a project that you consider groundbreaking from its inception is quite noble.

Please continue posting on this subject - we all would enjoy discussing the pros & cons of DMOZ listings even further.

Maybe CBP can chime in with his vast knowledge on the subject as an editor for ODP DMOZ.

Cheers!
Max

[GapBridge]

I don't see how a DMOZ listing can hurt even though I agree with the fact that a listing no longer helps like it used to.

By the way I was banned from RZ for this:

http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?p=159020#post159020

It's amazing that people will put up with their attitudes just to get included :rolleyes:

[cbp]

Its amazing the DMOZ editors put up with the 25% of posters there who can't read guidelines and format requests wrong.

Its amazing that DMOZ editors put up with those who can't read gudielines and spam DMOZ.

CBP

[GapBridge]

Hmmm ... since when do 2 wrongs make a right? And why even bring up that bogus " information " that DMOZ listings hurt?

What is on your agenda?

[rlrouse]

The second post in this thread was:


I am not sure, but I understand that editors are encouraged not to communicate directly with webmasters about rejections etc becasue of abuse, threats etc.

Later in the thread this post was made:


Finally, on the subject of emailing submitters - as has been said in the past we don't do it because editors have been badly bitten or harrassed about sites that have been rejected, or listed with a title and description that isn't full of hype or repitition like the webmaster wanted. The last thing we want is editors quitting because they cannot take the harrasment.

I can't really see how an editor would be open to personal threats or abuse with an automated, anonymous system.

This seems to be the most common complaint about DMOZ: no feedback about the status of a submission. This would be a very simple complaint to reduce to virtually nil with a couple of simple automated responses:

After the submission form is completed and submitted the webmaster receives a message something like this:

"While the ODP's editors strive to process website submissions as quickly as possible, the huge volume of submissions to many categories can and often do result in a long waiting period before a site can be evaluated. Your submission has been received and is now in the queue awaiting review.

Please do not re-submit your site because doing so will move it back to the end of the queue and delay the review process even more. You will receive an automated email message upon review informing you of the status of your submission (accepted or rejected). Please do not reply to this automated message as it will not be received.

Thanks for supporting the ODP by submitting your site for review and possible inclusion."

If the site is reviewed and approved the webmaster could be sent an automated email such as this one:

"Thanks for submitting your site to the ODP for review. The site has been accepted and you can find your listing by searching for your domain name.

Thanks for supporting the ODP!"

If the site is reviewed and rejected:

Thanks for submitting your site for review and possible inclusion in the ODP. Unfortunately, we are unable to accept your website because it doesn't meet the requirements set forth in the admission policies which can be reviewed at the following URL:

[URL here]

Please study these policies carefully and make the required change(s) BEFORE re-submitting your site for review. Please do not reply to this automated message as it will not be received.

Thanks for supporting the ODP!"

These messages can be completely automated. All the editor should need to do is hit the "accept" or "reject" button and the appropriate message would be sent.

I might be missing something but it seems to me that this would put a stop to (or at least reduce by a wide margin) repeated submissions and help build more confidence in the way the ODP operates.

While the ODP doesn't owe webmasters anything, IMO a little automated information and respect would go along way towards easing frustrations and editor workloads.

Another point:

I fail to see the logic in requiring new editors to start out in a small category when the huge backlogs tend to be in the larger ones. Perhaps a short trial period would be in order where the first 10 (or 20 or 50 or whatever) site reviews are reviewd by a senior editor.

Yes, that would add to the workload of the senior editors but the acceptance of more new editors in the backlogged categories should eventually help reduce the backlog to a managable level (reducing the workload for all).

[greeneagle]

Quite avidly, I must admit that I personally wouldn't put up with the abuse that the DMOZ editors get in these threads and elsewhere. They volunteer their time and I can guarantee that there is no engendered perk they are privey to that makes it worth it!

What drives them to continue?

Ken

[cbp]

These messages can be completely automated
Thats gets discssed a lot and it is very unlikey to happen.... purely because of the spammers.
As soon as they know that there latest disguised effort has been detected, they know they can try again using another - better to keep them gussing if they are still waiting or have been found out.

The spammers ruin it for the legit webmasters.

BTW this is a really old thread (from OCT 2003) that has been resurrected - since the thread started, DMOZ has grown by ~ 600 000 sies

CBP

[minstrel]

@rlrouse: Your suggestion was proposed by Steven Glover on page 1 of this thread and rejected outright by one of the DMOZ editors: "can't be done".

I've since seen it proposed in other forums -- same response.

Of course it's not going to be implemented. It makes far too much sense.

@greeneagle: No need to pity the DMOZ club. The abuse heaped upon DMOZ editors pales in comparison with the arrogance and condescension they (or at least the ones that frequent the Resourceless Zone) heap upon others.

[rlrouse]

Thats gets discssed a lot and it is very unlikey to happen.... purely because of the spammers.
As soon as they know that there latest disguised effort has been detected, they know they can try again using another - better to keep them gussing if they are still waiting or have been found out.

True about the spammers, but I believe the benefits (tons fewer re-submissions and tons less frustration with DMOZ) would far outweigh the negatives related to the spammers.

You're going to be dealing with spammers regardless of what you do. After being rejected a few times and sent to the back of the line the spamming would likely be reduced.

The guidelines are the guidelines and simply trying a new way of spamming should still result in a rejection. That's what editors do, right? Unlike a search engine algorithm, a human editor can match the site to the guidelines and reject it if there is a discrepancy. In other words it should be harder to slip in under the radar. This is of course assuming the editor is:

a) competent
b) ethical
c) diligent

If a spammer repeatedly sees his sites getting rejected he'll eventually see the attempts as futile.

IMO it makes little sense to alienate the 95% of non-spamming webmasters in a futile attempt to undermine and deter the 5% who are spammers.

[GapBridge]

About 85% of editors sign up, get their own sites in and are only lifting a finger when it comes to getting friends' or clients' sites in.

That is where the problem is!

[greeneagle]

At this point , listening to everyone else, even with 25 years experience in many roles as technician, technical manager, Engineer, Sr. Engineer, Engineering Manager, Technologist, Sr. Technologist, Marketing Strategist etc... for the position I was rejected under, I am quite content in being rejected!

Ken

[cbp]

About 85% of editors sign up
Why do people bother inventing this type of BS? Whats your agenda?

CBP

[GapBridge]

My agenda is about the blame game that is going on.

[cbp]

My agenda is about the blame game that is going on.
How is that agenda being helped by making up BS?

CBP

[GapBridge]

It is not made up. Give me your estimate about how many editors are stale then.

[GapBridge]

You need to be careful with who you're calling a spammer IMO. Just because someone resubmitted his site a lot out of not knowing the guidelines does not pu him/her in the same categories with those who wilfully violate the rules of the ODP.

[GapBridge]

You wouldn't want ppl to put you in the same category with skrenta, would you?

[cbp]

It is not made up
It is made up and you know you made it up.

Give me your estimate about how many editors are stale then
You are now showing your misunderstanding of DMOZ. There is no such thing as a "stale" editor or anything like that.
Editors are volunteers and can edit as much as or as little as they like. Whenever they edit, they are contributing to the overall cause of the project - what is wrong with that? What is the point in denigrating those voluntary contributions with BS.

There is no stats on how active editors are etc etc - at the end of the day it does not really matter. In the absense of hard information, you achieve nothing by making up a lie.

CBP

[GapBridge]

I do have editor friends, cbp ... those are not lies.

[cbp]

You need to be careful with who you're calling a spammer IMO. Just because someone resubmitted his site a lot out of not knowing the guidelines does not pu him/her in the same categories with those who wilfully violate the rules of the ODP.

So now you admit to you being apart of the problem and creating all this extra work for editors in deleteing the spam, and you complain about how many sites get added.

The guidelines are clear. Ignornace of them is not a defence.

Your agenda is now clear.

CBP

[GapBridge]

The reason good editors are overworked is because of the majority of inactive ones who cannot step up to the plate. You need to stop bashing and cleaning up your own neighborhood.

[cspelts]

No editor is overworked. Like cbp said, each editor edits as much or as little as they please. Why is that so hard to understand?

[GapBridge]

cspelts, just fyi: nobody cares one way or the other.
This is about the conduct on RZ and why some defend it outside of that place of disgrace.