A very nice idea DMOZ gone bad? DMOZ more quality or monopoly of editors??

gastongr said:

Fair:
adjective
Marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism.

Click to expand...

Let's see
> self-interest
Yes, editors are not allowed to things within DMOZ out of self-interest. Although I will only work in those categories I am interested in and won't in some others because I am totaly not interested in that subject.

> prejudice
Yes and No. I will not edit in certain categories (even if I am allowed to do so)because I don't like the subject, you might call that prejudice.

> favoritism
Yes, I'm not allowed to favor my own sites (or those of my friends) or disfavor sites of people I don't like.
No, if within a category 100 sites are waiting review I will favor those with guidelines compliant titles and descriptions.

But let's turn this around: give us your definition of a category that is edited "fairly".

Click to expand...

I'm talking about what i think are badly edited categories; So it would be more related to the topic of this thread if i mention unfairly edited categoriers instead of fairly edited ones.
But i won't do that as it'd be a public acusation to specific editors, which i'm not ready to confront with such a big community of editors against what i say.

It's obvious that you wont accept that some parts of DMOZ are not working as they should.

I'll leave you with your untouchable idea of a perfectly working directory as it seems you are not being able to look at it from an objetive point of view.

Think about it, isn't it possible that some categories are not edited well?.
Is everyone wrong with their, sometimes premature, comments or complains about the DMOZ editing process?

>It's obvious that you wont accept that some parts of DMOZ are not working as they should.

It is not obvious. It is not even true. There is much more work, valuable work, that could be done.

But what IS obvious is that the way I think DMOZ SHOULD work, is not the way YOU think it should work. That's OK, it's your opinion and you have a right to your opinion, even if you can't sell it to anyone else.

The DMOZ founder seemed to think I had the right idea about how it should work ... so he let me work on it. I don't have a RIGHT to set up your opinion over his. So long as I work on DMOZ, I work within the methods and for the DMOZ goals. When I want to do something else, I go somewhere else to do it.

I don't think any conceivable website, let alone DMOZ, can do everything. I think every site ought to focus on what it can do well.

And what DMOZ does well is not "review websites on demand." You are right there, and everybody agrees. Yahoo does that better, and if you want that, go to Yahoo right now.

What DMOZ does well is "find good websites across a very wide range of topics, taking into account whatever information the editors judge likely to be productive." What we would LIKE to do BETTER is "find good websites across a very wide range of topics, taking into account whatever information the editors judge likely to be productive."

The fact that you are not willing to face is that site suggestions are often not productive information, and the editors know it from experience -- so that you cannot convince them otherwise.

> I'll leave you with your untouchable idea of a perfectly working directory as it seems you are not being able to look at it from an objetive point of view.
On the contrary we know for sure that DMOZ is not perfect. And we continously try to improve it. But reviewing suggested sites within a certain timeframe isn't a problem for us.

> Think about it, isn't it possible that some categories are not edited well?.
First define what "edited well" means.

> Is everyone wrong with their, sometimes premature, comments or complains about the DMOZ editing process?
If these "everyone" are only looking at their own site and it being reviewed, yes they are wrong as DMOZ is, never was and never will be a tool for website owners to promote their site. We have been telling that for years but "everyone" seems not interested in hearing the truth.

But what IS obvious is that the way I think DMOZ SHOULD work, is not the way YOU think it should work. That's OK, it's your opinion and you have a right to your opinion, even if you can't sell it to anyone else.

Click to expand...

I don't need to sell it to anyone, the internet community has it's own opinion, and as time goes more and more people think similar to the way i do.

The DMOZ founder seemed to think I had the right idea about how it should work ... so he let me work on it. I don't have a RIGHT to set up your opinion over his. So long as I work on DMOZ, I work within the methods and for the DMOZ goals. When I want to do something else, I go somewhere else to do it.

Click to expand...

Did i ever said that you are not working the way you should?
Now, can you ensure that all the editors are doing their job the way the DMOZ founder wanted? NO

And what DMOZ does well is not "review websites on demand." You are right there

Click to expand...

Why do you say "you are right there", i never said that.

The fact that you are not willing to face is that site suggestions are often not productive information, and the editors know it from experience -- so that you cannot convince them otherwise.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to convince anyone about that. I know site suggestions are not always productive, i myselft have a directory.
I never said that all site submissions should be approved.

On the contrary we know for sure that DMOZ is not perfect. And we continously try to improve it. But reviewing suggested sites within a certain timeframe isn't a problem for us.

Click to expand...

Don't you think that the time it takes to get a site reviewed is a weak point of the directory?

First define what "edited well" means.

Click to expand...

I defined it already.

Just accept it, dont change the topic or ask other questions.
Some categories are not well edited! It does not involve you but other specific editors so you can't deny it, you can never be as sure as you say you are.

Don't you think that the time it takes to get a site reviewed is a weak point of the directory?

Click to expand...

No, I think it's a meaningless factoid.

Some categories are not well edited.

Click to expand...

This is sadly true, and a lot of time and energy is spent on rectifying that situation, so I don't understand why you think anyone is denying it?
What has been pointed out is the fact that your idea of "not well edited" may not be quite the same as ours, which is understandable. But you can rest assured that a great deal of volunteer effort is devoted to improving the directory.

Don't you think that the time it takes to get a site reviewed is a weak point of the directory?

Click to expand...

I can see how this would be a weak point if reviewing suggested sites was one of the main goals of the directory. But it certainly is not a goal (however much webmasters might wish it were), so the time taken is simply irrelevant.

Any improvements that are made to the ODP won't be for the benefit of webmasters or SEO's, I think, they cause most of the problems we have, and slow down the whole process for everyone.

Don't you think that the time it takes to get a site reviewed is a weak point of the directory?

Click to expand...

For you, yes, for us, no, because we are not a listing service, we are not a listing service, we are not a listing service.

We are under no obligation to become a listing service.

No one has a right to be listed.
We are not all inclusive.
No promise was ever made to include every site suggestion.

We don't care about page ranking.
We don't care about optimization.
We don't care about webmasters.
We don't care about SEOs.
We don't care about how other entities use our information, we just collect it using our own priorities.

What we do care about is being of service to web surfers, using our own methods and setting our own standards. What you think or wish, does not matter to us, because you have not contributed one iota to the building of the Directory, nor have you given one moment of your free time to do anything but complain.

I'm not trying to convince anyone about that. I know site suggestions are not always productive, i myselft have a directory.
I never said that all site submissions should be approved.

Click to expand...

Then, go work on your own Directory, and stop complaining about ours.

Don't you think that the time it takes to get a site reviewed is a weak point of the directory?

Click to expand...

The idea of the directory is to provide a resource. Were we to depend on site suggestions that resource would be not be very good. The fact is that the majority of people creating good quality informative non-commercial sites have no idea of SEO at all or even the need to get at least one back link.

I believe your question assumes the time to be the time from when the site was suggested. In many areas there are few suggestions and the majority of sites reviewed have never been suggested. 'time to review' is thus a meaningless concept.

regards

xeren said:

FOOD FOR THOUGHT!!!!!
Let me start like this, first of all it is very sad that Google and other SE's index and rank sites according to their placement at DMOZ or any other human edited similar portal!

Click to expand...

In Google's The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertexual Web Search Engine article, you'll find that they value Yahoo!'s directory because if a site is listed, it's likely to be good. Google is innocent. They're just playing it smart because if a site is listed in DMOZ, it's likely to be better.

Start browsing the DMOZ directory and try to buy a domain off of everybody. Eventually you'll land. You can 301 redirect that domain's index page and you'll forward the Google value.
Reply With Quote

Click to expand...

I see you've posted that horrid advice in this thread as well.

What you are suggesting, like so many thoroughly debunked SEO practices, is good for a short term gain at best -- and when Google kicks in the penalites the long-term incarceration in whatever Google calls the sandbox these days, is quite painful.

I see you've posted that horrid advice in this thread as well.

Click to expand...

I didn't notice that because he had some other stuff with it and I was trying to do too many things at once.

Gone now.

spectregunner said:

I see you've posted that horrid advice in this thread as well.

What you are suggesting, like so many thoroughly debunked SEO practices, is good for a short term gain at best -- and when Google kicks in the penalites the long-term incarceration in whatever Google calls the sandbox these days, is quite painful.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that Google called anything the sandbox. I thought other people called it that.
Please cite where Google, Yahoo!, or MSN has declared it as a violation.

This thread is getting very close to being beyond the purpose of this forum.

donaldb said:

This thread is getting very close to being beyond the purpose of this forum.

Click to expand...

Please, dont delete or close it.
It's good to discuss about these kind of things and share opinions.

Then, go work on your own Directory

Click to expand...

I'm not looking for work here, i do have a lot of work to do.

, and stop complaining about ours.

Click to expand...

it's funny to see how you say "ours".
Reminds me to Gollum from The Lod of The Ring.

This is sadly true, and a lot of time and energy is spent on rectifying that situation, so I don't understand why you think anyone is denying it?

Click to expand...

Many editors here are denying it.

What has been pointed out is the fact that your idea of "not well edited" may not be quite the same as ours, which is understandable.

Click to expand...

Perfectly true, but my reasons for definig a category as not well edited are not that crazy IMHO

>my reasons for definig a category as not well edited are not that crazy IMHO

Which is to say: you're sane so far as you can tell. Whether faint praise or modesty, that's really irrelevant.

There's only one definition that matters to me. And it is this: Is a category so poorly edited that I'm willing to spend my time and energy improving it?

Any category where nobody answers "no" to that question is, for all PRACTICAL purposes, well enough edited.

I don't care if you spend your time on it or not, a category with crappy, unusefull, and even down sites, that does not approve any new listings and has been last edited 6 months ago IS bad edited, and that can not be discussed.
bye

a category with crappy, unusefull, and even down sites,

Click to expand...

Yes, such a category is badly maintained. You will not hear anybody here deny that, nor will anybody deny that such categories exist in the directory. We are working continuously to remove bad URLs, fix broken links, re-review sites that are not up to par.

that does not approve any new listings and has been last edited 6 months ago

Click to expand...

That on the other hand does not necessarily mean it's a bad category. There are perfectly good and useful categories which haven't had an edit done to them for a year. (Also remember that all editing actions don't show in the "last edited" date. If somebody goes through a category checking all links and finding that all sites are good, it hasn't been edited in the strictest sense of the word, and so the date won't change.)

And "adding new content" doesn't equal "good". In some categories there's a lot of content missing to the point where the category isn't at all comprehensive -- again, you won't see anybody denying that. In others, there may be some or a lot of listable sites that are not yet listed, but the category as such still offers a good selection of sites, which is what our users are interested in. And of course in thousands of categories there are no, or very very few, additional sites that could be listed there.

I follow these discussions with much interest. I would like to become an editor and have many topic areas i'd plan on contributing to (music, politics, etc).

I also am a webmaster and submitted a site that was never listed, but that's hardly important to my reply. I'm one of the one's who has moved on years ago with that project and DMOZ is not on the radar for that work.

I'd want to be an editor and feel i would contribute in the spirit of the project, which is why i want to comment on one recent post (after reading this whole thread BTW) where it was said:

hutcheson said:

>

There's only one definition that matters to me. And it is this: Is a category so poorly edited that I'm willing to spend my time and energy improving it?

Any category where nobody answers "no" to that question is, for all PRACTICAL purposes, well enough edited.

Click to expand...

I may have this wrong, ("for all PRACTICAL purposes", was said) but i don't think a group or single editor should have the power to decide when a topic has been covered enough. No catagory should ever be "finished". New information is always coming to lite on the web on any topic you could think of evaluating as "edited well enough".

Now while i agree that there should be no time constraints placed on editors, i think all submissions should be required to be evaluated for the reason above. When i am able to submit an editor application and if i am approved for multiple catagories (i hope;-) I would not want to miss the chance for good content simply because it's buried in a long list of submissions.

hi there

but i don't think a group or single editor should have the power to decide when a topic has been covered enough.

Click to expand...

No editor has that power. Suppose I get fed up with category/subcat and decide there are better areas to work on, its good enough etc. I've decided that it is well enough edited. Hutchenson could then come across the category, decide it could do with some TLC and do some work on it.

Often someone decides to apply to be an editor because they think a particular category is in a bad shape and can be improved. How they then improve it is up to them - either by clearing all the suggestions or looking for new sites themselves. Each editor developes an understanding for the quality of sites in the suggestion pools of the categories they work with. In some areas, the suggestions are usually good, in orders mainly spam - it varies.

So if you decide to apply and get accepted, it will be up to you to decide how you want to work and multiple categories means more suggestions to be processed

regards

PS note you can only initially apply for one category