Voting Chart

Total votes : 10

Should DMOZ be regulated?

  •  
    Yes
  •  
    No
  •  
    Can´t decide

Should DMOZ be regulated?

  • Martin
  • Novice
  • Novice
  • Martin
  • Posts: 22
  • Loc: Berlin

Post 3+ Months Ago

They did a good job, they are highly successful and it is a fine example of true internet democracy - but only at first sight.

Democracy is about broad and easy public participation (perfect with DMOZ), transperency (lacking) and mechanisms against abuse of power (inappropriate).

Unless they come up with a new, improved policy to overcome transperency and control deficits, it is only a question of time that legislation will step in.

I doubt, however, that the "meta editors" and anonymous persons behind the scene are open for a change.

Martin
http://ipinfo.info/
http://geotek.de/
  • Buster
  • Student
  • Student
  • Buster
  • Posts: 71

Post 3+ Months Ago

>>Democracy is about broad and easy public participation (perfect with DMOZ)

Who said the ODP was a democracy? Who said it was public property? Who said that everyone and his dog has a say in its operation? What you actually mean to say is that it is about time webmasters where able to shove their oar in because editors choose not to list their utter crap! Sorry but that is the only word for it.

It is not a directory for webmasters. It is not public property. You worry about your own site and let the ODP worry about theirs. If I was to tell you that you have to add my link to your site I can only guess at what the response would be. I have no right to tell you what to put on your site so why on earth should ODP be any different.

>transperency (lacking)

You cannot get more transparent. Our guidelines are on public display. If you are asking to find out specific of rejection then you are not going to get it and this is to prevent abuse by webmasters. Simple.

>and mechanisms against abuse of power (inappropriate).

A report abuse link has been added onto every page (some pages have not yet hit the public server but they will once they are generated again). ODP take abuse very seriously and editors found to be abusing the system soon get ejected. If you check in RZ you will find many 'my login don't work... why?' threads. Put 2 + 2 together and work out why. I take great pride and enjoy checking up on fellow editors. I like finding out why that editor ammended that description and I like being suspicious and checking if that editor is connected to that site in anyway. There are a lot of eyes looking at every editor.

>Unless they come up with a new, improved policy to overcome transperency

can't see this issue. Transparency is plentiful. But don;t expect to find out how to be abusive of the directory because that is when walls will be built.

>and control deficits

Don't understand what this is meant to be implying.

>it is only a question of time that legislation will step in.

ODP is a website. Why should ODP have legislation? You put on your website what content you like.... so does ODP.

>I doubt, however, that the "meta editors" and anonymous persons behind the scene are open for a change.

Meta editors spend a lot of their time arranging change and ensuring it is implemented. Just because you don't see it please don't be nieve enough to think it is not happening.

As for the anonymous persons behind the scenes.... what is anonymous about AOL?

What you are asking for is 'please tell me how I can fix my site because I want it listed'.

Why should I or any other editor oblige. If you need financial advice you ask a financial adviser, not a shop assistant. If you want advice on how to make a website interesting and fascianating and UNIQUE you don;t ask and editor of a directory that you are trying to get listed in.

It is almost like applying for a job and asking the employer what he would like to see on the CV so you can get the job! Please!

I am not that nieve that I don't know abuse is going on but trust me editors don't like being tarred with the same brush as the minority. Systems are in place and a lot goes on behind the scenes. If we said what went on behind the scenes then abusive editors whould know how to bypass them. That is why transparency is not always a good thing in some instances.

ODP don't tell you what to put on your website so why are people constatly trying to tell them what to put on theirs and then kick off when they don't do it.

I have not voted because it is regulated and regulated by the people who operate it. The vote should have asked 'Should the public have more say in the running of DMOZ' then, I would have voted, NO! It is not a public entity so why should the public (more specifically webmasters) have a say.

I cannot remember hearing one of our users (who is not a webmaster) complaining.
  • Martin
  • Novice
  • Novice
  • Martin
  • Posts: 22
  • Loc: Berlin

Post 3+ Months Ago

Buster,

Let´s calm down, O.K.?
I said "They did a good job", and that includes you and all of your collegue editors who have spent much of their time working on the project.

>Who said the ODP was a democracy?

dmoz.org states in it´s "About" Page: "It is constructed and maintained by a vast, global community of volunteer editors", "The Republic of The Web", "in the spirit of the Open Source movement" and so on. To me, this is a clear commitment to good democratic internet tradition.

>You cannot get more transparent.

Are you kidding? The DMOZ.org website doesn´t even have an impressum: no email address, no webmaster, no postal address, no contact name, nothing. Under german law they could be sued for this omission. Who are the people behind DMOZ? How are decisions being made? How is DMOZ organized? Is there a managing board and who are the members? Do they openly publish controversal issues?

>You worry about your own site and let the ODP worry about theirs

Full ACK as long as neither of our sites has a dominatiing position. Google certainly is in this category; I opened this discussion to find out what other members think if DMOZ has reached this position!

>What you are asking for is 'please tell me how I can fix my site because I want it listed'

I feel offended by this statement.

Martin
http://geotek.de/
  • Buster
  • Student
  • Student
  • Buster
  • Posts: 71

Post 3+ Months Ago

I am perfectly calm. I apologise if it sounded like on big rant back at ya but I am afraid that after replying to stupic amounts of rants in any given day you find your tolerance level getting very low especially when most of the post exist only to stir things up.

>dmoz.org states in it´s "About" Page: "It is constructed and maintained >by a vast, global community of volunteer editors", "The Republic of The >Web", "in the spirit of the Open Source movement" and so on. To me, >this is a clear commitment to good democratic internet tradition.

It is not clear to me. DMOZ.org is 'a website'. It is constructed and maintained by... blah blah blah. That does not make it a democracy in the sense of public involvement.

The full text of that paragraoh says:
Quote:
The Open Directory was founded in the spirit of the Open Source movement, and is the only major directory that is 100% free. There is not, nor will there ever be, a cost to submit a site to the directory, and/or to use the directory's data. The Open Directory data is made available for free to anyone who agrees to comply with our free use license.


In the spirit of Open Source movement the data that is made by the editors is made available under free to use license from rdf.dmoz.org That is Open Source. Open Source is not opening up the entire operation of a project, including internal operations, to the public.

I states how you can get involved and contribute:
Quote:
Like any community, you get what you give. The Open Directory provides the opportunity for everyone to contribute. Signing up is easy: choose a topic you know something about and join. Editing categories is a snap. We have a comprehensive set of tools for adding, deleting, and updating links in seconds. For just a few minutes of your time you can help make the Web a better place, and be recognized as an expert on your chosen topic.


Quote:
No Email address


But has a feedback link on nearly every page and in many places you will find the staff@dmoz.org address. It also has a fourm, not connected with ODP, at http://www.resource-zone.com and an abuse link is also visible on most pages.

Quote:
no webmaster


It is a directory! The content of the directory is maintained by editors. Each editor is contactable via their profile. If it was a single webmaster I doubt that they would have time to reply to emails :lol:

Quote:
no postal address


And what purpose would a postal address be for a online resource? Does that make every webmaster resource on the net questionable or hidden behind walls?

Quote:
Under german law they could be sued for this omission.


I am afraid there will not be a single website on the internet that will comply with every law in every country. The ODP, I understand, operates under laws in the State of California (well at least the license does).

Quote:
Who are the people behind DMOZ?


See http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Sear ... y_Project/

Quote:
How are decisions being made? How is DMOZ organized?


See http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Sear ... rocedures/ which details a lot of the procedures for how the ODP operate internally and as a whole.

As for
Quote:
Is there a managing board and who are the members?


There has recently been a change in the way ODP operate as a group however as I am unsure as to any public announcements so I will refrain from commenting however I am aware that certain bits of information are leaking through into some of the webmaster forums. However it is safe to say that for the majority of aspects decisions are made on a consensus basis. Sometimes these decisions will include the standard editors and other times it will be made by a group of experienced meta editor behind closed fora. Other than legal and alike issues most decisions are based on consensus so there is not really a head honcho as it where.

It is self-regulating. To be honest most people only know about DMOZ, and complain so much, because of the Google connection. Yet the connection with google is just as little as the jo.bloggs.com site who also downloads our data.

The problems that everyone seems to refer to would not exist if Google was not such an important part of the internet these days. It is an unfortunate by-product of such a successful directory and community. We are the middle man that everyone is begging for the leg up. If Google stoppe using ODP data our job would be a lot easier and suddenly webmaters would not really be all that interested in being listed.

I make them last comments because it is my opinion that DMOZ is no-where near this dominating position in my opinion. Google is yes... and in a big way... but they are only a user of our data like anyone else.

I am not sure on the stats of DMOZ but I bet it is visited by more spiders/robots than human searchers (of course excluding the webmasters checking for their listing).
  • Jess
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1153
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

The problem with DMOZ is down to their business model. It was doomed from the start.

Running a directory where volunteers are free to voice for the company on their forum is going to fail from the start.

A lot of issues people have are regarding how unhelpful DMOZ are to get listed in.
On the forums i've seen a lot of the editors being rude and inconsiderate to people trying to get listed.

The time limit for sites could be justified if they presented themselves with a public face - soemone who was helpfull and answered peoples questions

As it is - you site takes months to get listed - the mods are rude..... people are dropping DMOZ'sd results from there sites daily, top programmers are leaving their company......

They gotta do soemthign and fast.
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
The problems that everyone seems to refer to would not exist if Google was not such an important part of the internet these days. It is an unfortunate by-product of such a successful directory and community. We are the middle man that everyone is begging for the leg up. If Google stoppe using ODP data our job would be a lot easier and suddenly webmaters would not really be all that interested in being listed.


Exactly.

I am an editor for a few other directories, but do they get anywhere near the submissions as DMOZ, no. Why? Because they do not have a Google connection. That is why DMOZ is so important.

The few DMOZ categories I am the editor for have hundreds of sites that are backlogged and have been backlogged. I get to them when I have time, after all, I am a volunteer, I am not getting paid to do this. That's why people have to wait to be included in DMOZ. DMOZ is great...it is very important to Google and its FREE...just be patient with your submissions, stop complaining all the time.

Some editors can be rude, but it's usually the more important ones, because they get the same questions over and over again. If people would just read the guidelines and do a little research at http://www.research-zone.com, they would get a lot of their questions answered.

If people want to get listed in a week, call Yahoo and get a Yahoo Directory listing. Of course, you'll have to shell out $299.00 per year, and it won't be nearly as important as DMOZ.

Maybe DMOZ should just start charging for quick inclusion. I think most people would pay for that.
  • madmonk
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • madmonk
  • Posts: 2115
  • Loc: australia

Post 3+ Months Ago

I doubt dmoz can charge for quick inclusion. dmoz will have to totally change their system for paid inclusions.

I agree that many people will pay for it, inclding myself :-) heheh.
pfi dirs are getting shelved sooner or later, in my opinion.
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

That would be the only way to stop people's complaining that it takes to long to be included. To have the resources to have instant inclusion and to be regulated, you would need more money coming in.

Hmm...Google's got monies
  • madmonk
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • madmonk
  • Posts: 2115
  • Loc: australia

Post 3+ Months Ago

heheh. maybe dmoz should change into an ebay clone and start charging people for inclusion? the higher the bid, the first in line you will be. lol.

I think it may work cuz it is always the guys with bigger pockets who win..
  • Jess
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1153
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

vetofunk wrote:
Quote:
Some editors can be rude, but it's usually the more important ones, because they get the same questions over and over again. If people would just read the guidelines and do a little research at http://www.research-zone.com, they would get a lot of their questions answered.

If people want to get listed in a week, call Yahoo and get a Yahoo Directory listing. Of course, you'll have to shell out $299.00 per year, and it won't be nearly as important as DMOZ.

Maybe DMOZ should just start charging for quick inclusion. I think most people would pay for that.


Sorry but no matter how much a company gets asked the same questions its up to them to offer the same customer service level. If a person cannot handle that then they shouldn't be doing what they are doing.

When was the last time you went into tescos and asked where the chips/fries were and they were rude about the fact they were down isle 8? It doesn't happen because it isn't good business.

For DMOZ to offer a paid option would go against all of the original business principles of DMOZ.... i.e "open" directory project......... Not paid directory project............
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

It's not really a company, its a volunteer organization. Those people in Tescos are getting paid, they are not volunteering. It is a whole different story when people are getting paid.

God. I am starting to sound like I am backing the rude people...by no means am I. Anytime anyone emails me a question about their site, I always answer with a kind response. But, it goes back to DMOZ being regulated. DMOZ is not, so many of the top editors can be rude and get away with it.

As far as PFI, of course its not the business model, but if people want sites included instantly and want a little person to answer their every question, DMOZ is going to need money. Either from PFI or get someone to back them. This is where Google could come in. Google has the money to do so.
  • Jess
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1153
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

vetofunk wrote:
It's not really a company, its a volunteer organization. Those people in Tescos are getting paid, they are not volunteering. It is a whole different story when people are getting paid.



Thats exactly my point :)
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

We agree...

:-)
  • Jess
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1153
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

veto - whats ya name? I think we will get on :P hehe
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

Your first day here and I think we have went back and forth (agreed/disagreed) about ideas on quite a few things. Most posts for me in a quite a while. Cant wait for new threads ;-)

Welcome to Ozzu.
  • Jess
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1153
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

vetofunk wrote:
Your first day here and I think we have went back and forth (agreed/disagreed) about ideas on quite a few things. Most posts for me in a quite a while. Cant wait for new threads ;-)

Welcome to Ozzu.


Thats what discussion forums are all about :) I love to learn new things - there are many people in the world who know more than me about the net and i hope to learn from them.

You never did tell me ya name! ... Im Jessica - like you didn't guess :P
  • vetofunk
  • A SEO GUY
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2243
  • Loc: Chicago

Post 3+ Months Ago

My actual name is Veto...
No, it's Jef.

:-)
  • Jess
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1153
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

nice to meet you jeff :)
  • Buster
  • Student
  • Student
  • Buster
  • Posts: 71

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
For DMOZ to offer a paid option would go against all of the original business principles of DMOZ.... i.e "open" directory project......... Not paid directory project............


Correct. One very important part of the project is it overall aims and objective and in all fairness none of the aims include anything about including submitted sites 'quick fast'. While the directory grows for the user it is on the right path and no junctions are required for any reason. In other words there is no need to speed up how quick sites are added from the suggestion pool. The only people that want them processed quickly is the webmaster/company and they are not why we edit.

As for the charging... completely 100% (if not 1000000000%) against the motives of the project and would not happen under any circumstance. The backbone of the project is it non-commercialism and it is that that makes it so successful for the user.

A result of charging for inclusion would instantly give financial bias and motives to the operation of the directory.

Start charging and every single editor I know would leave within 10 minutes of the announcement.
  • Jess
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1153
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

you mention the user.... but exactly who is the DMOZ's target user group?


See one of the problems i noticed is that the main people who visit DMOZ are the webmasters trying to get their sites listed.

Obviously people don't use DMOZ like they would use google - so the only benefit of the dmoz directory if for webmasters.

So lets look at the webmasters need - quick registration / listings.... A good amount if traffic.... But as you just said - the needs of the "actual" users are not important.

Thats where DMOZ goes wrong. The directory works because of ther webmasters trying to get listed - not because of the users trying to find sites.


If anything this is the whole point. Signed post

Volunteer Regional Editor

The word of DMOZ - no... the word of an editor.... the simple fact is - any business emplyee would never reply to a post with the phrase...

In other words there is no need to speed up how quick sites are added from the suggestion pool. The only people that want them processed quickly is the webmaster/company and they are not why we edit.

Because they would knoe who their target market is.
  • Buster
  • Student
  • Student
  • Buster
  • Posts: 71

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
the only benefit of the dmoz directory if for webmasters.


Your kidding right? If users don't use the directory then there would be no point in webmasters trying to get in. There are plenty of ways to get links without getting into DMOZ.

Most of the users who benefit from ODP come from the downstream data users and yes google happens to be one of them. I have a copy of the ODP within many of my sites and they are rather busy sites even though it is an exact copy of thousands of other sites who also include ODP data on their sites.

If users benefit from the Google directory (and yes thousands upon thousands of people use the directory within google) then we, as editors, are pleased that our work is of benefit from the people who are navigating down to find a site by category. That is one of our aims.

Quote:
So lets look at the webmasters need - quick registration / listings.... A good amount if traffic.... But as you just said - the needs of the "actual" users are not important.


Thats for Yahoo to worry about.

Quote:
Thats where DMOZ goes wrong. The directory works because of ther webmasters trying to get listed - not because of the users trying to find sites.


I don't see that DMOZ is going wrong. It list sites. It does exactly what it says on the tin. As for the directory going wrong because webmasters can't get in no-one cares. Sorry but that is the hard truth and respectfully this is the one hard facts that gives editors a bad name allbeit an unjustified bad name.

You see and editor saying "I don't care about you - I don't care about your site" and you think that this is bad customer service and that we owe you something more. The fact is a submission is a 'suggestion'. It's a 'heads up' that a site exists. It is NOT an application for a listing. I am a webmaster and I can sympathise with others who want to get their site listed but 'as an ODP editor' that is not my concern.

How would you feel if I asked you to add my 'sponge cake menu' to YOUR menu hobby site and then got really annoyed with you just because YOU decided that it was not what YOU wanted on YOUR site.

ODP is for the users and not the webmaster. Until that fact can be understood no-one will ever get any closer to understanding why dmoz DOES work and continues to work in a very big way. I say again that it only 'don't work' for the webmasters.
  • Buster
  • Student
  • Student
  • Buster
  • Posts: 71

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
Because they would know who their target market is.


Market? Market? DMOZ is not a marketing company or site. It is not business promotion tool. It don't care if your business is going to calapse tomorrow because we delay in your site being listed. I am damn sure I don't care and I will not loose one ounce of sleep (not as an editor anyway).

The simple fact is (and anyone who is reading this can take this how they like) ANY site that relies that heavily on a listing in DMOZ to suceed seriously needs to address their business model.

A listing in DMOZ, if it happens, should be treated as nothing more than a pat on the back that an editor felt your site was of use to our users.
  • Jess
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1153
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Lol - webmasters do not try and get into DMOZ because of the huge amounts of traffic it is going to send to their sites..... The simple fact is, people do not use directories... they use search engines.

Webmasters.... use directories. - theres a big big difference.

True there are plenty of other ways to get links - but how else can you get a link in google directory? Well you can't can you - not without being in DMOZ....

A single link in DMOZ gives you an average PR link on a lot of sites... these sites covering multiple IP blocks, the way google, yahoo and msn like their backlinks...... No webmaster is going to miss an opportunity like that (not if their in their right mind anyway.)

Quote:
Thats for Yahoo to worry about.


This is my whole point - your an editor... a VOLUNTEER editor... your giving your voice as the voice of DMOZ... and everyones going to take it as that as gospal.

There isn't a single successful business in the world that would have given that response.

Quote:
It does exactly what it says on the tin.


Indeed it does... but where does it say on the tin that the editors have the right to be rude to you and 99% of the time be unhelpful.....

That must be in the small print huh? ;)

Crappy sites shouldn't get into the directory... agreed. If a site doesn't meet the standards then it has no means being there... thats not the argument. But you did make a good point....

Quote:
As for the directory going wrong because webmasters can't get in no-one cares. Sorry but that is the hard truth


Yea.. you guys just don't care...... thats why DMOZ isn't the force it could be. Ive seen websites not make the directory because of the person that submitted it.... (and editors admit this) ive seen sites removed because a new editor took over and the site they removed was in direct competition with them.... all you editors care about is looking after nuumber 1 - you don't care what reflection your comments have upon DMOZ.

Your whole comments have justified all my posts above... the same "i just don't give a damn attitude" that you guys always give.

good analogy witht he sponge cake thing - but really not relevant.....

Quote:
ODP is for the users and not the webmaster. Until that fact can be understood no-one will ever get any closer to understanding why dmoz DOES work and continues to work in a very big way.


I think until the editors understand who their user base is - nothing is ever going to change.

Quote:
Market? Market? DMOZ is not a marketing company or site.


lets re-read what i said....

Quote:
The word of DMOZ - no... the word of an editor.... the simple fact is - any business emplyee would never reply to a post with the phrase...

In other words there is no need to speed up how quick sites are added from the suggestion pool. The only people that want them processed quickly is the webmaster/company and they are not why we edit.

Because they would know who their target market is.


where does that say anything about dmoz being a marketing tool? or a marketing company? nowhere.

I was refering to dmoz's user base.....

You havn't directly answered anything regarding my posts yet you have quoted them.....

To end with - we do agree on one thing -

Quote:
The simple fact is (and anyone who is reading this can take this how they like) ANY site that relies that heavily on a listing in DMOZ to suceed seriously needs to address their business model.


I couldn't agree more. I seen a comical post on the forums not so long ago saying he was gonna have to close his site down if he didn't get listed.....
  • Buster
  • Student
  • Student
  • Buster
  • Posts: 71

Post 3+ Months Ago

Well it is cleary a case of having to agree to disagree. I know why I edit as do I also know why other editor edit and none of them focus on the needs of the webmaster - they are a by-product of the website but not part of 'our' equasion.

Quote:
I seen a comical post on the forums not so long ago saying he was gonna have to close his site down if he didn't get listed.....


I think somewhere there was even the 'my family is that poor we are falling off the bread line and if you don't list us we will loose our house and our kids will go hungry'.

Of course legal threats are always ripe simply because a site don't get listed. <editor hat off> I don't normally refer directly to sites but you should pop over to Resource Zone and check out messages that refer to osca-cars.co.uk and onestopcaradvice.co.uk - this is one of the persistent pain in the arses but does make funny reading all the same.

See http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7163
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9446
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10101
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21914
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?p=115621

<editor hat back on>
  • Jess
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1153
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
I think somewhere there was even the 'my family is that poor we are falling off the bread line and if you don't list us we will loose our house and our kids will go hungry'.


Lol - i bet you hear some great stories :P
  • madmonk
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • madmonk
  • Posts: 2115
  • Loc: australia

Post 3+ Months Ago

what exactly makes dmoz editors qualified for their jobs? Just a few questions and they pass the test?

what happens if your site is rejected by a not so good editor? isnt that tragic? :-)
  • Jess
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1153
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Im obviously missing your point?

Nobody is saying 5the DMOZ editors are bad.......
  • madmonk
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • madmonk
  • Posts: 2115
  • Loc: australia

Post 3+ Months Ago

I am totally out of point here.
I was just wondering about all these, hence the questions.
  • Jess
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1153
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

madmonk wrote:
what exactly makes dmoz editors qualified for their jobs? Just a few questions and they pass the test?

what happens if your site is rejected by a not so good editor? isnt that tragic? :-)


It does seem to go a bit deeper than a couple of questions... I.e the y look into your experiences online .....

if you7r site is rejected by a not so good editor... well then they shouldn't have made it through the critique part. Thats up to dmoz to decide.

There cannot be good editors and bad editors for a project to be successful. They all need to be of the same standard......
  • Managedlinks
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • Managedlinks
  • Posts: 294

Post 3+ Months Ago

DMOZ can't be regulated.
It is open to abuse
It is abused
It is not the fault of DMOZ

DMOZ like so many powerful organisations and people totally lacks humility.

If one complaint is (IMHO) voiced more than any other its the length of time it takes to get a site recognised. eg I submitted a site months ago. where is it in the queue ? I have no idea.

A few more automated scripts would go a long way in helping. a way for people to log in and check on the progress of their submission
That way peoples concerns that they are being ignored could be alleviated. and a lot less agro would be generated.
  • Buster
  • Student
  • Student
  • Buster
  • Posts: 71

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
A few more automated scripts would go a long way in helping. a way for people to log in and check on the progress of their submission


This is something that has been discussed internally and extrenally on many occasions and I think an overall consesnus was reached.

The 2 'main' reasons that is could be considered not to good an idea are these:

1: Such a script serves only the purpose of serving the webmaster (it is of no use to our users).
2 (and more importantly): It open the door to a lot more abuse.

The reason it opens ODP upto abuse is simply because everytime that persistent webmaster or SEO finds that his/her/clients site has been declined we would be subject to another co-ordinated attack of submissions. As it stands some only re-submit when they are told about the rejection which 'could' have been many months ago however with the ability to get an instant update it would seriously increase the amount of spam.

The domino effect is that the same 'ole people who have already been rejected keep submitting and keep getting rejected whilst at the same time constantly using the editor resources, who have to keep manually declining them**, and thus moving the editor focus away from the good sites that are in the pool.

**of course there is an option to create a sister script to delete automatically from the pile sites that are banned or completely wrong for DMOZ however this would never happen as site content changes and even sites we consider banned are still looked at, by a human, upon re-submission to verify the ban etc is still valid and appropriate. We as editors would not like to hand the human process of rejection/deletion over to automated scripts.

I think the idea itself is a good one and in theory not one that every editor is against - I think it is more the side effects that are a concern internally.
  • Managedlinks
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • Managedlinks
  • Posts: 294

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
1: Such a script serves only the purpose of serving the webmaster (it is of no use to our users).

I know you will argue this point but your users are in fact webmasters. without their submissions the directory would grow much slower indeed. if at all.

If you really don't want webmasters then the ODP should rely ONLY on submissions by registered reviewers and drop the submission from external sources completely.

Quote:
2 (and more importantly): It open the door to a lot more abuse.


This could more than easily be dealt with by the same set of scripts. if a site has been declined then simply block it from resubmission for a suitable period. or have a script check it to see if its been rewritten (compare reviewed with new) combined with an enforced delay period it would stop such abuse.

If a domain is accused of abuse, then drop the entire domain for a set period.

If the ban period is set high enough say six months, that would make all webmasters think twice about abusing the system.

It would dramatically reduce the amount of abuse without any human intervention and without the loss of human control.

How the scripts would actually function is irrelavant but it can be done and with a moderate amount of input.
Heck put it to the open source community, you would have working scripts within a very short period of time.
  • Buster
  • Student
  • Student
  • Buster
  • Posts: 71

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
I know you will argue this point but your users are in fact webmasters. without their submissions the directory would grow much slower indeed. if at all.


I think, truly, you have very little understanding of how the cogs within DMOZ turn and this could be a general problem here and webmaster world throughout. The submission pool is the smallest of the sources available to editors. Most (and yes I truly mean most) of the listing are made by editors who physically search the net for quality sites. The reason they do that is the ration of good/bad sites is far more favourable when looking yourself. In other words the submission pool is that full of rubbish that it takes to long to find a 'gem'.

I will tell you now, in all honesty, there is a huge gatering of editors who would cheer very loudly if submission where completely turned off - never to return..... dissapear into yonder. It has been discussed however the only reason it was not turned off was simply because we may missing out on that 'one quality site' that we would not have found otherwise.

Many editors don't even look at the submission pool - they did not join to look at them and looking at them is not a condition of being an editor. Whether they add sites from the submission pool, the local newspaper, the back of a bus, and advert on the telly or searching on the net then that is all fine. But truthfully every other source is more reliable and provides better results that the submission pool.

I can see why on the outside submissions seem important and it can be hard to actually see how we get all of our links but submission really do play a small part in the growth - and that is a fact.

Quote:
This could more than easily be dealt with by the same set of scripts. if a site has been declined then simply block it from resubmission for a suitable period. or have a script check it to see if its been rewritten (compare reviewed with new) combined with an enforced delay period it would stop such abuse.


I see what you are saying but the human factor is very very important. A script cannot tell if the content has changed etc etc and we would never trust a script to make such decisions.

Quote:
If the ban period is set high enough say six months, that would make all webmasters think twice about abusing the system.


Again it is the human factor. Okay, many editors would like to punish the webmasters who abuse the directory, but in the true spirit of ODP it is not something that helps anyone. Next month the domain could be taken over, sold on, changed content etc etc and as such if listing it would help the user then we are happy. Not listing it under a ban would have gone against our beliefs.

I can see what you are saying and I am sure that some scripts of some sort could be used (infact some are but that internal and I won't go into that) but many of them have been discussed and considered and ruled out for very valid reasons but mainly coming back to the sole purpose of the directory.
  • Managedlinks
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • Managedlinks
  • Posts: 294

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
I think, truly, you have very little understanding of how the cogs within DMOZ turn
If you include every other webmaster with me in that statement.
You have done NIL to reduce the perception of arrogance that comes from within DMOZ.
I find nowhere on DMOZ's submission pages a statement to the fact "We May or we May NOT even bother to look at your submission, Tough to you if we dont"
Little wonder so many people get upset by DMOZ.

And as far as the scripts go. No they would never replace human interaction. but if a site was re-submitted and the script said no changes were made then why bother review it again. it saves the editor time. If the script says the site changed by say 50% then a new review would be warranted.

DMOZ has grown from a community project to one that has been percieved as powerful. so regardless of what its aims are something that becomes too powerful and full of little demigods must be watched with extreme caution.
Please note. your comments have made me do an entire backflip on my attitude to DMOZ.
  • Buster
  • Student
  • Student
  • Buster
  • Posts: 71

Post 3+ Months Ago

Now I can see why other ODP editors get annoyed and either stop posting or turn blunt.

Quote:
You have done NIL to reduce the perception of arrogance that comes from within DMOZ.


What the heck have I said to make you feel that way? Sorry for telling the truth. Sorry for taking time out of my own life to try and explain things a little clearer.

Scripts have been spoken about on hundreds of occassions and way before I ever heard of DMOZ. I apologise that I, single handedly, cannot change the mind of all of the other thousands of editors. Editors do have lives outside of DMOZ and many of them, if not a large percentage of them, are in the field of webmaster/computer/programming industry so although many people feel that all editors can do is review sites they often do know what they talk about and also, if not, know a few other thousand editors who do. What I am tring to explain by saying this is that editors do not make decisions blindfolded.

There are scripts in place, infact there are many scripts in place, but there will never be a script that analyses a site that spiders a site for perentage of change. Even less than 1% could result in a listing or even a deeplink and while a script cannot make a decision it would be useless to implement.

Quote:
If the script says the site changed by say 50% then a new review would be warranted.


This would mean that the sites that have 5-10,000 pages would need to change 2-5000 pages!!!! Crikey!! Yet a site with 2 pages of rubbish would only have to change a few words.

You forget that we don't just list URL's. We also list content. This means that a 10,000 page site may be rubbish on the whole but there is '1' article that the editor felt was very worthy of a listing; thus he/she decided to deeplink. Yet, if the script was in place, the adition of this article would not have been noticed, especially as it is contained within a larger site but the article is only short. This is a los in quality that would not be considered.

We have a lot of tools which do have a serious impact on the mount of submissions and how we process them (including one really cool new one - wwriten by an editor as are most of the tools) however I am afraid that it is probably as good as it is going to get on a ratio basis.
  • Johan007
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1079
  • Loc: Aldershot, UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

I am DMOZ editor and think it works well though I prefer the Zeal model.

Major head aches caused by bitching webmasters (with no content sites) on forums can be solved if we have a few automatic template emails for submissions.

eg:

1.Your site has been kept in un-reviewed until it has more content blb bla
2.Your site has not been included because of x y z

This has the bonus of not been given aggressive submitter tags because one of my sites has been given that and it not my fault the editor kept it in unrelieved for a few years waiting for content that it did eventually have but the tag will stay.
  • Managedlinks
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • Managedlinks
  • Posts: 294

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
What the heck have I said to make you feel that way? Sorry for telling the truth. Sorry for taking time out of my own life to try and explain things a little clearer

You said and I quote
Quote:
Many editors don't even look at the submission pool - they did not join to look at them and looking at them is not a condition of being an editor.

So you are saying that our(webmaster collective) efforts to submit a site or page for submission could be wasted. Many webmasters put in a great deal of effort to make their submission and yet your ARE ADMITTING DMOZ treats them with less than the respect they deserve.
Earlier you claimed (in essence) Webmasters should not tar all editors with the same brush. That some in fact such as yourself are honest and forthwright. THEN you proceed to tar all webmasters with your own brush.
Added to that you drop the bombshell that "heck editors don't even need to look at your submission". So many webmasters are indeed simply wasting valuable time in a FALSE BELIEF that they will receive the attention they expect.
Given that, what do you expect from webmasters?

To get back to the scripting solutions. I realise you are just one voice amongst many. but I nor any other webmaster rates a voice at all. You all appear to treat us with scorn. so having put your head up in this forum expect someone like myself to take the opportunity to regale you with what we see as solutions.

In your example of a site with 5-10,000 pages either you are being deliberately pedantic or simply have not thought it through (I don't know which but I am starting to form an opinion). if a site was to resubmit don't you think it would be easier for the editor if he got a note along with the resubmission that said...
1/ No site changes
2/ pages z,y,z have changed all others unchanged

He/she would then only need to consider x,y & z without needing to wade through the other 4,997 pages.

This type of script is the VERY LEAST I would expect if I was an editor. I and I am sure you, don't have the time to waste wading through thousands of unchanged pages re-evaluating them.
  • Buster
  • Student
  • Student
  • Buster
  • Posts: 71

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
So you are saying that our(webmaster collective) efforts to submit a site or page for submission could be wasted. Many webmasters put in a great deal of effort to make their submission and yet your ARE ADMITTING DMOZ treats them with less than the respect they deserve.


Partly right yes! Whether the suggestion be a webmaster or member of the public they get treated like any other site the editor can see. And yes, many editors don't even look at the submissions.

The submissions are merely suggestions - nothing else.

If you have a good look around RZ then you will see what I mean. I did not become an editor to be a slave over people who submit sites - I became an editor to help build the directory and I, like any other editor, will do that in the way that we prefer and if that means looking in magazines or newspapers then that is my parogative. If I feel like looking at suggestion sent in, then fine also. Editors are under no obligation whatsoever to review submitted sites if they choose not to.

It is voluntary and wherever they find the sites is good! It is not that your time is not appreciated but we only offer the promise to review it when we can.

I am an editor for dmoz and not the webmaster.
  • Jess
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1153
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

If thats the case- and I actually do agree with this one.

Wouldn't it be better to switch off submissions, and open them for like one day a month - that way the submissions wouldn't build up - webmasters would be able to submit their sites still - editors would know that there was going to be a large amount of submissions on that day and could pull together to get them reviewed and out of the way quickly?
  • Buster
  • Student
  • Student
  • Buster
  • Posts: 71

Post 3+ Months Ago

touce'

That is also something that many editor, me included, think would be a very good idea. Editors may well be considered to be the enemy but we are not nieve enough to know that there are some good (excellent infact) sites within the pool that we would love to include for our users and it would be excellent from my point of view to filter them out and start on a level playing field again.

I am not sure about a time period and how that could be introduced but switching off submissions (or should I re-iterate 'suggestions') until they fall below a certain level would definately get my vote.

I think only having submssions over a few days would have the effect of a DOS attack given the scale of submissions.
  • Johan007
  • Guru
  • Guru
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1079
  • Loc: Aldershot, UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

Switching off submissions would result in many more bogus applications to become an editor (and will then bugger off when their site is listed).
  • stevel1973
  • Born
  • Born
  • stevel1973
  • Posts: 2
  • Loc: UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

Dont shoot me for this but...
After reading the rezourse zone, though onestop took it to far i believe that he has a point in that the sites that are currently listed in the ODP directory where his was, are not better, nor have more content than his site given that was the reason you gave for his to be removed.
Almost makes me want to become an editor.
  • lioness
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1615

Post 3+ Months Ago

What is this "rezourse zone" you talk about?
  • stevel1973
  • Born
  • Born
  • stevel1973
  • Posts: 2
  • Loc: UK

Post 3+ Months Ago

have a look on page 2 of this post.

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 44 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
cron
 

© 1998-2016. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.