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

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...ghlight=#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.