3 yrs to submit and still waiting!!

Hi,

I have submitted <URL Removed> once 3 years ago, and followed the guidelines exactly. I also made a point of submitting once and being VERY patient.

I often check the category i submitted to, and have found new submissions which are of less value than my website in actual content being ADDED, some site layouts are even unreadable and ridiculous.

There are many FRUSTRATED submitters in the forum, and i understand that the task is HUGE, but i also believe that an automated courtesy email to decline a site would not take a lot of effort to keep dedicated DMOZ fans a little bit happier.

Remember, a little info goes a long way......

There are indeed many frustrated submitters, and ... for the vast majority, it is our simple duty to perform acts which will invariably frustrate them. Now if we could tell only which those were! But we can't, not until we've reviewed their suggestions. And at that point ... well, I'm sure you're sincere in your speculation about what might happen if we did this: but we've tried it, and we know what happens in THIS universe, and it was not what you think. You're of course welcome to scroll around the forums and see some of the hundreds of prior public discussions of the (automated or non-automated) e-mail response idea.

On the issue of beauty-challenged sites: you might think of us as art critics, but we can't be. It is not our right to not list a site just because our aesthetic sense differs from the web designer's. And so I've listed many sites that had (in my estimation) suffered from infelicitous design decisions. All that can matter is "significant unique content." (But you may even see listed sites that fail THAT test, for various historical reasons. If you do, please report them in our "quality feedback" forum!)

No luck

I've been trying to even get to add a site but the category I want keeps telling me service unavailable - been like that for like 3 months. how can i get a site added faster - i'd be willing to donate even.

A word to the wise: even hinting at the possibility of offering a bribe can get everything you touch banned forever. Just don't go there, OK?

And there's no rush to suggest a site. Whether or not a site is suggested, some editor may review it at any time -- or may at any time review something else instead. There is no way you can impose your priorities on someone else: either now or at any other time--we call that "protecting the integrity of the directory" and we think of it as a good thing. (If it were not that way, there would be five million spammers in front of you in the line to manipulate editing priorities, and you'd be further out of luck than you are now.)

So there's no rush here. Monitor the announcements thread, so you know when you can suggest a site; and go on to the next item in your own prioritized list of things to do.

Ok, fair enough, but i think there should be some indication that a category is at least being looked after by an editor, even by adding a simple icon or E next to the category description to stop people wasting time.

I would consider myself to be new to search engine/directory technology, but i think that a resource such as DMOZ (especially as it is important to Google), needs to maintained to the highest standard for all categories for consistency and fresh content.

My last questions are;

Who is the CEO of DMOZ? Someone at the top must have a final say?

Who decides the editors?

There are currently 74,000+ editors, how can you guarantee that they are acive? There should be a minimum turnaround time to ensure responsible editors are actually serious about volunteering!

There are over 590,000 categories, does each editor look after 1 category?, if they do then you are over half a milion short!

There are currently ~7000 active editors, there have been ~75,000 over the life of the directory (the number on the front of the page is the number of editors ever accepted).

Every category in the directory is looked after (in one form or fashion), so putting an added icon on every category would be of no use.

Yes there is an Editor in Chief, but he doesn't get much involved in the day to day running of the directory. Yes there are Admins that are involved in the day to day running of the directory. Yes there are Metas involved in the day to day running of the directory.

Who decides what for the editors? Who decides who becomes editors? That would be the Metas. Who decides what editors do? That would be the individual editor.

There are 200+ editors who are able to edit any category in the directory. It's not one category per editor, some categories have multiple editors names on them, in addition to the 200+ editors. Some editors have their names on multiple categories.

Let us know if you have other questions.

Is that all, 200+ editors, and they select any category they wish to edit. Now i know why the process is so long!!

That means that some categories will never get a look in!!, and whats the point of boasting 75,000+ editors?

I think a better way to edit on these small numbers is by forcing a rotation on categories, for example;

When an editor logs in, an automated system should present the editor with the next category in queue, the editor would then at least review say 20-30 sites during the session. If the editor fails to fullfill their duty as a volunteer then they should be warned then struck off!!!

Over a process of time (still a long time based on numbers of editors/categories), each category will eventually be reviewed, and the process would start again.

The solution above is at least a start in the right direction.

The directory seems to lack from someone taking a little bit of initiative and introducing a fairer system.

Remember... actions speak louder than words!!

A bribe? Huh?

I wasn't looking to make a bribe. Even wikipedia is asking for donations right now - I just figured since it seems like the editor thing isa volunteer effort it was just supporting the overall good of the cause. I'll retract the suggestion though.

I guess I'll just keep monitoring this link http://dmoz.org/Business/Arts_and_Entertainment/Media_Production/Animation/ until I see that clicking on Suggest a URL doesn't wind up with that Service UNavailable page.

>i think there should be some indication that a category is at least being looked after by an editor, even by adding a simple icon or E next to the category description to stop people wasting time.

Comparatively, there are so few categories that are "actively looked after by a single editor" that you might as well assume there are no such categories (and you you see why your proposal makes no sense.)

So how does anything happen? Editors do it. Or have done it. It's not just that they don't do it in any way you can control. They don't do it in any way you can track or predict. Nobody, not even me, could have guessed, even as late as Tuesday night, what I was about to do yesterday. (It was in a category I'd never touched before, under a top-level category I haven't touched in years, if ever.)

Now multiply that by ten-thousand. It's not that we have the magic secret and we're hiding it from you: nobody knows the magic secret because it doesn't exist.

>Who is the CEO of DMOZ? Someone at the top must have a final say?

Who has the final say in what each editor does ... is the editor himself. The "meta-editors" and "administrators" are happy with whatever good work an editor does.

>Who decides the editors?

An editor offers to edit a category. The meta-editors decide whether to trust that volunteer with permissions to edit that category.

>There are currently 74,000+ editors, how can you guarantee that they are acive?

We can't, and we don't.

>There should be a minimum turnaround time to ensure responsible editors are actually serious about volunteering!

I have no idea what you mean. Someone who isn't serious about editing either doesn't edit (which is not a problem -- billions of people don't edit, and we've learned to work with that!) or they don't edit well (and their permissions are removed.

It really doesn't make sense to think in terms of "I want THIS category seen to NOW, how can I make it happen?" You can't. There's no way. Someone who cares about the ODP mission has to care enough about that category to work on it, as opposed to the other half-million categories that might equally well be worked on, or the who-knows-how-many categories that could be built from scratch?

If it all seems chaotic, you're probably catching on. If it seems too complex for any single person or cabal to manage, you've gotten the right impression. What we try to do is set standards (for quality of work, not amount of it!), find people who want to do good work, and LET them work.

That way, we can review sites for a hundredth of the cost Yahoo charges (in amortized time and equipment, nearly all provided by volunteers.) And ultimately, efficiency is all that matters. If we were less efficient, we'd be less comprehensive. If we were less efficient, we'd fulfil fewer perceived "needs" (whoever is doing the perceiving). If we were less efficient, we'd have less "fresh" content (insofar as that matters: but, now you mention it, are websites really more like cow manure (which is more useful when stale), or like sushi (which is more useful fresh)? You're welcome to your opinion on the subject, when it's your nickel paying for it. But all directories -- not just the ODP -- focus on stable sites: which is good, I think: those sites tend to be from the real businesses, the authoritative information sources, the lively communities. But if that's not what you want, you probably should be looking elsewhere for websites.

>I think a better way to edit on these small numbers is by forcing a rotation on categories...

You're welcome to try that system on all the volunteers you can attract, or all the mercenaries you can pay. I'm not interested in being among either group....but don't let that stop you. There are six billion people on earth, so if you ignore, say, 12000 active ODP editors that still leaves you 5,999,988,000 candidates for your organizational scheme. And if that's not enough, you might as well give up.

Is that all, 200+ editors, and they select any category they wish to edit. Now i know why the process is so long!!

Click to expand...

As has already been said, there are over 7000 active editors, and over 200 who can edit anywhere.

The basic problem is that you seem to be viewing the ODP as a free listing service. We're not. We're a group of volunteers who are building a directory. While we appreciate submissions, they aren't the only source of new sites. Adding new sites is far from the only activity for an editor.

"mb555" said:

I wasn't looking to make a bribe. Even wikipedia is asking for donations right now - I just figured since it seems like the editor thing isa volunteer effort it was just supporting the overall good of the cause. I'll retract the suggestion though.

Click to expand...

Putting "donate" and "how can i get a site added faster" tends to make the mind leap directly to "bribe" since donating in general would not have an effect on how long it took for any given site to be reviewed (nor should it or it becomes a bribe in truth). It's always best to avoid using the idea of paying in the same thought as the ODP.

"envermehmet" said:

Is that all, 200+ editors, and they select any category they wish to edit. Now i know why the process is so long!!

Click to expand...

Actually, lmocr wrote that there are 200+ editors who can edit anywhere. There are over 7000 active editors somewhere in the directory at any point in time.



Here are some key ODP concepts:

"envermehmet" said:

There are currently 74,000+ editors, how can you guarantee that they are acive? There should be a minimum turnaround time to ensure responsible editors are actually serious about volunteering!

Click to expand...

1. An inactive editor is not using up a place or preventing another editor or three coming in to edit the categories they edit with them or in their stead. We don't have a set number of editor positions available.

"envermehmet" said:

When an editor logs in, an automated system should present the editor with the next category in queue, the editor would then at least review say 20-30 sites during the session. If the editor fails to fullfill their duty as a volunteer then they should be warned then struck off!!!

Click to expand...

2. We will never force editors to edit categories they don't volunteer to edit. That means editors get to apply for categories that they have an interest in editing rather than us telling them where to edit.

3. The only "duty" that editors have is to leave the directory a better place after they've edited than it than it was before they edited. Whether that means they've added one listable site or cleaned up a load of unlistable junk from unreviewed or reviewed editor applications or whatever is irrelevant. As long as the net result is beneficial to the directory, they've done what they signed up for and we're the better for it.

People seem to have a blind spot for these key concepts (and others) -- they see us write about them time and time again but still think that they're mutable. They're not.

First of all, this is thread is not intended to say that editors are not taking their volunteer work seriously.

The simple facts are that the current system does not bond the following claim

"You Can Make a Difference"
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.


Like it says "i want an opportunity to contribute"

Whats the point of boasting 74000+ editors? This does not mean anything if the transparency of editing done is not available to the supporter of DMOZ.



hutcheson
> You're welcome to try that system on all the volunteers you can attract, or all the mercenaries you can pay. I'm not interested in being among either group....but don't let that stop you. There are six billion people on earth, so if you ignore, say, 12000 active ODP editors that still leaves you 5,999,988,000 candidates for your organizational scheme. And if that's not enough, you might as well give up.

I am not saying that my recommended system is the correct format, and you should not sound like you have a chip on your shoulder, it is not very proffessional.

At least my proposal would mean that at some stage, every site for every category would be reviewed, and either accepted or rejected.

Whats the point of an open source directory, if the submissions are not dealt with in an orderly fashion, if it was just a few complaints i could understand, but there are too many to count.

Hutcheson, i know there is no secret formula, but if you take a massive directory like DMOZ, there will be many bottlenecks in the editing process, and the sad thing is that the people "like me" and hundreds of thousands of people actually care and spend time submitting what we feel are "good sites"

When DMOZ was first conceived, i bet it was hungry for sites, now the belly is full, it seems as though many of the same people who made DMOZ what it is are being left on the side.

At least my proposal would mean that at some stage, every site for every category would be reviewed, and either accepted or rejected.

Click to expand...

On the surface, sure, it probably seems that way. But, since a volunteer editor who is forced to do something he/she doesn't want to do isn't likely to remain a volunteer editor very long, the actual result would be even less being done than is done now.

Whats the point of an open source directory, if the submissions are not dealt with in an orderly fashion, if it was just a few complaints i could understand, but there are too many to count.

Click to expand...

We're not an open source directory. And we have never, ever said that site suggestions are our reason for existence or even a high priority. We offer the ability to suggest your site to us as a courtesy, not because we are a listing service.

This is a description on the about us page

"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."


Whats the point of 100% free to submit? if the system does not allow it?

This is a description on the about us page...

Click to expand...

It says "founded in the spirit of the Open Source movement", not "founded as an open source project".

Whats the point of 100% free to submit? if the system does not allow it?

Click to expand...

"100% free" means that it is free to submit and free to use, both as a surfer and as a data user. The system doesn't allow submission at the moment because we're still recovering from the major outage and system problems we had from October to December. When the suggestion form is available, though, the fact that it costs nothing to suggest your site to us does not in any way guarantee said suggestion a speedy review or a listing.

I have given up on DMOZ submission...

I understand the overall principle, i am glad i forgot about the submission all those years ago, i only remembered Dmoz while reading an article and thought i would check out the forum to see if things have changed/improved.

I can see nothing has.. lol

When an editor logs in, an automated system should present the editor with the next category in queue, the editor would then at least review say 20-30 sites during the session. If the editor fails to fullfill their duty as a volunteer then they should be warned then struck off!!!

Click to expand...

What you are proposing is what one might see in a call center or a factory floor, where the dark overlords strap the volunteers to chairs and force them to do a minimum number of tasks, of their choosing, or take them out back and shoot them.

Off with his head!!!!!

Why?

He only did 18 edits!!!!!!!!!!

The nerve of that volunetter...who does he think he is?

Who in the world would want to volunteer for that?

I actually have a better idea. Before anyone is allowed to suggest a site, make them submit an original, notorized affidavit of service demonstrating they have contributed 100 hours of community service to a nonprofit organization during the previous six months. :love:

Wonder how long it would take for some SEO type to start selling counterfeit certificates? :unlove:

a VERY strange editor

At least we can see that the editor selection process works very well....

I think someone likes drama, your watching too many films, do some reviews instead, thats why everyone is complaining.

What you are proposing is what one might see in a call center or a factory floor, where the dark overlords strap the volunteers to chairs and force them to do a minimum number of tasks, of their choosing, or take them out back and shoot them.

Click to expand...

Hey, did we work at the same place?