A modest proposal improve the ODP.

We have posted a Proposal to help improve the ODP. If any editors would like to partipate in this discussion and offer suggestions, your participation is welcomed.
The proposal is at the Webmaster Forum.

Ok, since I'm not willing to register on yet another board and that 'proposal' sounds mainly like a rant, I'll answer it here:

>> Submissions are not processed in a timely manner. <<
> When a website is submitted, it ought to be reviewed and either rejected or listed in a timely manner. Many ODP editors disagree. Many ODP editors do not think that it matters when a website is reviewed. <

We try and review sites are quickly as possible, but with (and this is NOT an official figure but mearly a 'guesstimate') over 800,000 sites awaiting review (with new submissions coming in all the time), 6,000 active editors (some working on 'quality control', some working on remove 'dead sites', some investigating abuse etc), and taking around 5 to 30 minutes per site (I've once spent over 2 hours reviewing a site before) - then you start hitting problems. 800,000 sites taking 10 minutes each spread over 6,000 editors still involves nearly a day of continual editing for EACH editor... It just isn't possible.

>> They are there to find something, and that is why websites need to be listed; so that the information can be found <<

We list nearly 4million websites already - plus include links directly to Altavista and Google and many other search engines: somebody searching should be able to find something close to what they want. The way I use ODP (and my 'technophobe' relative) is to first search on Google (which actually "indexes" or spiders the entire content of the page) and then "click-thru" to the relevant ODP category to find 'More information of interest'. Try to think of a 'card index' to a library. If you know what you are looking for it can point you towards the right 'area' (say the dewey decimal code), but if you are looking for more in-depth information about a very vague term then you better hope they've got some sort of very detailed keyword listing system...

> Request a passport and you'll get it in 6 weeks. <
Last year, it took around 4 months to get a new UK passport...

> And no legitimate organization in the world processes data two years after it has been submitted. <
Well, web.archive.org (part of Amazon) processes data 6 months after it has been submitted, Yahoo isn't exactly renowned for it's quick listings (especially of the 'free submissions') etc etc.
I'm willing to admit we could be faster, but then again we could be a lot slower...

> All websites submitted to the ODP will be reviewed and either listed or rejected in 8 weeks. <
We'll be happy to oblige - just find us nearly 140,000 extra 'man-hours' of high quality editors and we'll get the backlog sorted...

>> Web sites are arbitrarily rejected or deleted from the directory <<
>> Four editors will be appointed to review any complaints dealing with deletions or rejections <<

We have the entire meta community to deal with any complaints like this, and any editor that can edit in that category (i.e. parents of the same category, editalls, metas etc) can look into the issue. If a complaint is lodged against an editor or category, then the entire meta community can investigate and VOTE on the outcome. The opinion of at least 3 metas (IIRC) has got to be in favour of taking action before any action is taken. Therefore, if you get a dozen metas taking an interest in the matter, and the split is 50/50 then the matter obviously needs more investigation before any "real" allegation of abuse can be 'charged'. Try and think of the meta community as the 'jury' - the 'police' (fellow editors or the public) find a 'crime' being commit, report it, the jury weighs up the evidence and then action is taken (with the 'judge' - ODP staff - having the final say, but being 'swayed' by the jury).

> If the deletion/rejection is found to be justified, the URL will be added to a list of URL's that will not be reviewed by the ODP. <
The content of sites change quite frequently. I've heard of occassions where a site has been changed from an apparant 'good site' to a spam-laden affiliate linkfarm within minutes of being listed. Likewise, a domain that is 'hijacked' could become available to someone that is willing to use it for a 'good purpose'.

>> Link rot <<
We actually have an automated system called Robozilla which goes round and checks EVERY single listed entry in the ODP. However, due to the system demands of checking nearly 4million links - this is only done every month or so. "Rob" goes through all the links once and compiles a list of those that flag up errors. Once "he's" done that, he goes through the list again - if they still flag errors then a 'Red Mark' is placed against the site. These 'Robozilla Reds' show up to editors of that category and above and we do have a team of editors that purposly go and hunt these 'reds' down.

FYI: Robozilla is running at the moment and is marking a number of sites 'red'. As he does so, editors then investigate each 'mark' to see if the site has moved (i.e. by checking the home page, Google cache, Google itself, the Web.archive.org and many other methods) and ONLY if they cannot find the new location of the site is it removed. This ensures that valuable content is not lost unless it has really 'disappeared' from the net.

> Links to sites that have changed and become inappropriate will be deleted <
This happens anyway. If any editors notice that the contents of a site are no longer suitable for the category it is listed in, then the site listing will either be moved to another category or deleted.

> Editors who do not edit will be removed. <
Editors are automatically removed 3 months after their last edit. Therefore, if you just 'lurk' at the ODP - then your login will be automatically deactivated after the 3 month mark.

>> Corruption <<
> As an editor I often saw editors affiliated with one site purposely lose a competing site. <
True, but did you actually bother to do anything about it - like inform more 'senior editors'. As with ANY organisation - corruption/fraud/theft/etc DOES take place, but if anybody notices it then they should inform someone else. If nobody notices that "stocks of paper" are slowly disappearing from the storeroom, then the 'thief' will continue to get away with it.

> Abuse reports need to be posted in the Resource Zone, and investigated, and answered in the Resource Zone. <
First of all, Resource-Zone is an "unofficial" forum. It is NOT sponsored or directly supported by Netscape Communications (the owners of the ODP). It is run by senior editors and contributed by editors for the assistance to the public.
Secondly, the 'meta editors' (who investigate abuse reports) would obviously like to 'keep quiet' how they locate abuse. If people that join the ODP to be 'abusive editors' knew how they could be caught, then they could "work around" the ways they could be caught - causing abuse investigations to take even longer.

>> Unresponveiness of Editors. <<
Editors are not forced to do anything - it's like any volunteer organisation in that aspect. Imagine if you freely volunteered your time to a local charity and then they said "You have GOT to do X, Y or Z" - you could just walk out if you wanted to. Yep, they may say "Arrange the items on the shelve in THIS order" and you may comply, or you may walk out, OR you may arrange them in another order and - since you didn't follow the organisations guidelines - be refused permission to continue to volunteer for them.

> Editors should be encouraged to reply to submitters in the openness of the Resource Zone forum. Resource Zone moderators should be encouraged to refrain from deleting all posts they do not like. <
Editors are aware of the RZ forum and are encourged to volunteer to assist if they want to - however, this is not compulsory and only certain editors are willing to give up the additional time and effort to do so.
I'm sure the moderators do not remove posts for "fun of it". This forum does have its own set of guidelines and if people don't follow them, then their posting priviledges may be revoked. If I came to your forum and posted links to pornography - would you then delete my posts since you didn't like them? Likewise, if I came to your forum and just posted rants with no proof, no 'real reason' or just slander - would you delete them?
I'll guess that in both situations you would - just like the moderators here.

>> Paying for the ODP <<
This has been considered before (and, I believe, there is currently a similar thread going on in the internal editor forums) but Netscape has not yet commented on this matter so we don't know what they think about it. On one hand, you've got further allegations of abuse ("The ODP only lists your site if you donate whha wahha!"), allocation of resources problems (what if Regional/ needs the most work, but most of the donations go to Business/ - do you get an editor for Regional or Business) and the training issue.

I've worked as a paid employee for a web directory before (I'm not naming names, but it was/is a major player in the UK web directory stakes and was owned by another large media organisation) and we had the same problems as ODP suffers (only so many 'man-hours' to do so much work, different areas needed different 'guidelines' etc).

Edward, I even registered to post and then realized that it was just trolling for an argument. This is the same old song that we've heard over and over. I hope that no one gets sucked into that vortex <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I wouldn't call it "trolling" - it's just that all of these arguments have been explored in depth ever since the inception of the ODP. A lot of your points are simply a result of the way ODP operates. If we were to change it really wouldn't be the ODP anymore (i.e. if editors were to be paid, or were forced to work a certain amount).

Editors are more than happy to discuss aspects of the ODP that are liable to change - but stuff like unresponsiveness, arbitrary rejections (both from the POV of the submitter mind you), or editors being forced to work a certain amount are not going to change. So it's a little pointless discussing these things.

apeuro,
We would be more than happy to help finance any project you might come up with. Is the "Donate" button idea no feasible?

I don't see a Donate button happening. Can you really imagine Time Warner/AOL/Netscape being willing to be seen begging for handouts? I don't think so.

I don't personally think that changing the editors from volunteers to paid (or even just introducing paid editors to the existing volunteers) would have an appreciable effect on what are perceived as flaws in the ODP.

I think the donate button would work as long as it was hyperlinked to Become an Editor. I think that's the best donation one can give if they really want to help <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Excellent point, dstanovic.

Fata Morgana

Being a volunteer editor gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have as a paid editor. I put much more obligation on myself than any employer could possibly do.

As any self employed person can tell you, you will always work longer and harder for yourself, than you would for an employer. Most of us originally join for our own selfish
reasons of getting our sites listed, but, soon get caught up in a much larger purpose and goal.

My interest has gone from a small locality, to building up a county, to building the state as a whole. One of my goals is to list the mom and pop outfits who can't afford to pay off the search engines to list them, or some of the other bandits out there who prey on the ignorant.

If this were not a free organization for both users and submitters, I would not be here editing. (at any price)
To me the ODP is one of the last bastions of freedom.

We are a self regulated group of dedicated individuals who enjoy the satisfaction of building something worthwhile for the benefit of all who want to use it.

We are the ones who pay for it, with our time, our efforts, and our talents. The cost is to ourselves, not to the complainers.

If you want submissions to be listed faster, become an editor who will follow the rules and work for free, as we do.

Which 5,000 sites would you like to start on? Just be aware, that while you're listing those 5,000, another 1,000 will be submitted for your attention, and they will be every bit as important as the first 5,000, . <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

I like what crowbar said. It resonates with mel. <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

The ODP runs on labour and love, not money. Unless editors were willing to work at third-world factory piece-work wages, (fractions of pennies), no one could afford to pay for the work the editors do. I do this because I like doing it and the minute someone tries to pay me for it - like most people, I'd walk away and find something else.

How much I wonder would they pay me for my twenty or thirty thousand already-completed edits? Would I take the money? Nope. Look, I do this because I like doing it and am caught up in the ideals and raison d'etre of the Open Directory and am committed to my fellow editors.

If one person offers another a ride when they really need it and drives them ten miles in nasty weather and takes them right to the door, that person has done a pretty nice thing. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> If, at the end of the ride, the passenger offers the chauffeur-friend thirty cents for it because everybody should get paid for their labour, they have achieved quite a bit. They've insulted the friend, diminished what the friend did out of altruism, let the chauffeur know that the passenger would never reciprocate and turned a friend into a pretty unhappy employee. <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" alt="" />

You can't pay volunteers with money and any attempt to do so is merely an attempt to control the volunteers. Volunteer editors may do their edits when they want to do them and they may do as many or as few as they like. The correct response would be thank you and how can I help ?

Submitters who want to help can write their descriptions in accordance with the ODP guidelines (see http://dmoz.org/help/submit.html ) . If you want to pay for a site listing, please , go to Yahoo and pay them. They need the money. It's what they do. Then, after you've paid them, and they've done their job, such as it is, tell them how to do it in future. Let us know how you make out! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Here is my own modest proposal -

Probably the best single thing that can be done to improve the ODP is for more folks to find a small category for which there is no current editor, ideally one they have an interest in. Then use the link to apply to be an editor. Then read all the instructions and other important information. Assuming you are approved, roll up your sleeves and dig in. That will make an immediate difference/improvement in the ODP.

Edward, you seem to have pretty good English and organizational skills, I bet you'd be a shoe-in as a new editor.

Cheers

Chris~

&gt;third-world factory piece-work wages,
Maybe you managed to offend members who do factory piece-work in the third world? I'm sure that was not your intention.

Interesting, codepoet, do you fit that bill yourself?

That is a very common expression here in the US, especially among the factory workers who have seen more and more US jobs and US companies move overseas where they can hire cheap labor and avoid being over taxed and over regulated.

I don't think it's aimed at the workers, but, at those companies. No honest man or woman who works with their hands every day should ever be faulted for doing so. I'm uneducated and not the least bit ashamed of working with my hands, <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

crowbar, yes, I do.
I'm glad you realize that there are people working in third world countries at low wage rates, and not employed by foreign companies - the wage rates are low in third world countries any way even without the foreign companies entering the fray. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Yes, and I bet a lot of them work extremely hard, and probably, long 12 hour days. I can identify with people who work with their hands, no matter what country they're in.
Of course, wages are sometimes relative to the cost of living in an area, as it is here, also, so it's hard to compare wages between different countries.

No matter what country we live in, we all love our children, and we all make the best livings we can. No person in any other country, loves their family any less than we do in
our own countries, and we all have the same needs and desires for them.

The governments are different, but, all people are the same, we just live in different places, <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> .

I think the discussion is difficult when we don't agree on what it is to "improve" the ODP.
Why was the ODP started? Wasn't it something like "newhoo"? Or "gnuhoo"? in the beginning. Wasn't that name chosen to poke at Yahoo!? Or why else would the "hoo" be in there? Just pondering that. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that DMOZ was started because Yahoo! wasn't processing submissions in a timely manner.
Anyway, on the whole you guys are doing a great job, and the suggestion was meant to be helpful.
John Scott
Admin - Webmaster-Forum.net

That was actually one of the reasons that GnuHoo got started. One of the founders recently gave a presentation about the origins of Gnuhoo. A few of the other reasons listed were as follows:

• Yahoo seemed to be ignoring their core asset - the directory
• Didn't want to pay an editorial staff
• Volunteers would do a better job than paid generalists, since they would be experts about their area &amp; have a personal interest
  [/list:u]
  Looks like it would have been an interesting presentation.

<img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> I'm just one of the worker bees, myself, looking up from the bottom and seeing how things are on the ground floor.
A much better view, in my opinion, as that's where the real work is.

No matter how big the organization, how complicated the system, or how many Chiefs there are, it all boils
down to individual editors listing sites, one by one, doing the best job they can.

The higher matters don't really interest me, I work for the users and the site owners. I trust my Chiefs to do
what's right and what's in the best interests of all concerned.

The ODP isn't really a thing. It's a place. We've been given a place, the tools, the essential organization, the goal,
and told, "There it is, now build it as a team, and regulate yourselves while you're doing it."

You could look at it as a pyramid, with two or three Staff at the top, for support and guidance.

Higher editing permissions are given out more as a need than a reward. If I need more freedom to do the jobs
I'm interested in doing, and if I qualify (experience and knowledgewise), I'll be given the higher permissions(and responsibilities).

That's not really the goal, though, the work is the goal, higher permissions are the tools.
<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

The ODP isn't really a thing. It's a place.

Click to expand...

That's a very good point, crowbar. It is a community of sorts, with a stated purpose; and all members of that community work toward a common goal.
But one thing is, it tends to seperate the larger online community from the more specific ODP community. It's just my two cents at best, but I feel there is a large amount of secrecy and hidden policy within the ODP (like the Sites Owned By Ex-Editors categories), and this is at odds with a open community spirit. It has potential to create an "Us vs. Them" mindset.
When I submitted my site to Zeal, the "Zealot" who listed it mentioned a few things. This is somewhat similar to ODP "Editor Comments". But at Zeal, anybody can see those comments, whereas at the ODP the editor comments are not open to public inspection.
Just something to think about.
Regards,

That's because the editor notes are for communication between editors. It's not for hiding secrets, it's to explain why certain actions were taken during the editing process or what those actions were, to each other. It's a tool, nothing more.

I think your objection is that you'd like to see those notes, so you have an opportunity to argue with the editor about the decision, or possibly so you can find a way to get placed where you'd like.

I'm not going to go into detail because I think I'm already on thin ice with this subject, but, "Open" doesn't mean you are "entitled" to all private communication between editors as they do their work.

I, personally, will be happy to explain, in great depth and with links to the Guidelines, any edit that I do, to any submitter who contacts me in regards to their submission.

As volunteers, working for free, we are not required to do that, and a lot of editors don't because of previous harrassment from submitters, or, because their editing time is limited, and they just don't have the time.

But, no, we're not hiding any great secrets or policies that I can think of, <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> . If you're a spammer and all your sites disapper from the Directory and you find yourself banned, it's pretty self explanatory I think.
I think our Guidelines are pretty darned detailed and open to the public for reading. Those are what we edit by, no further explanation should be needed, <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />