Am I reading this correctly?

The announcement of technical problems is dated Oct. 23! So this site has basically been down for nearly 2 months? Is there any concern that the fact that the internet has continued functioning without it for two months makes the open directory project seem somehow extraneous?

To say nothing of the fact that surely even a guy running a couple of servers in his basement could get things back up in less than two months! As Anthony Bourdain might ask, "What kind of crack house are you people running here?"



I'm joking, to a degree, but.... two months? Really?

Or maybe I read that wrong....

The site has been up, and so far as we know the surfers and SE-spiders have been accessing it just fine. It is only the development servers that have been down -- inconveniencing the volunteers, but hardly more than that.

You want REAL frustration, try dealing with a server that's almost (but not quite) working fast enough to be tolerable (like, um, the editor server summer before last). That lasted more than 3 months, IIRC, before new hardware was passed all around and the delays went away.

And, once again, this time 'round part of the extra delay was spent ensuring that IF the same thing happened again, it WOULDN'T inconvenience even the volunteers.

I agree with you about servers in basements -- very few private-issue servers have more than a few megabytes of original material: nothing that couldn't be completely restored in minutes, or regenerated in a few days. And maybe that's all you've ever worked with -- after all, that's a fair description of most sites in the world.

Your point is well taken, and forgive me if I'm not understanding something here, but the announcement seemed to indicate that the public pages being served to surfers are static -- they're being served from backups -- and hence haven't changed since October. One could argue that this inconveniences surfers (i.e. people like me) looking for up-to-date info.

Moreover, being unable to submit new sites during this time also arguably inconveniences webmasters (i.e. people like me) looking to promote their sites.

Am I not grasping a key point somewhere? I'd be glad if I were, believe me. And it wouldn't even be the first time today.

Bah Hum Bug

I agree that in 2 months the problems should have been corrected. I listed my site nearly 4 months ago, in the correct category I might add, and still it has not been listed?

Maybe the editor of my category is a competitor? Someone help!

This forum may not be used to request special treatment. In simple justice, your competitors deserve as much from us as you do, and more.

I listed my site nearly 4 months ago, in the correct category I might add, and still it has not been listed?

Click to expand...

I'm afraid like many others you have misunderstood the purpose of the ODP, and the process you agreed to participate in.
The ODP is not, and never has been, a listing service. Those exist elsewhere on the internet. In the ODP, volunteer editors perform a number of activities (when the technical side of things is working, anyway), one of which is building the directory with new sites that they find wherever they think to look. By suggesting your site you have simply made it easier for a volunteer to find it, that's all.
When that might happen, or what might happen next, are completely un-knowable, because volunteers are free to spend their time as they wish, within the bounds of their permissions, and in accordance with the guidelines.

You can read more about all this in those guidelines (a public document), and in the FAQ of this forum.

thegreyscraze said:

Am I not grasping a key point somewhere?

Click to expand...

I'm afraid so, yes, but thank you for being politely puzzled.

Unfortunately I think it is similar to the mistake tom40x and countless other webmasters make, of thinking the ODP is something it is not. For our part, we can perfectly understand why you wish it were different, and how it would then help you promote your sites, but that is simply not the purpose of the ODP, and wishing will not make it so.

We also understand that this might be very disappointing news, but as all the explanations, mission statements and guidelines are publicly available, and have been for many years, we in turn are often puzzled at the number of people who still seem to be misinformed.

You are quite right -- I have not availed myself of the public documents you refer to. And I shall -- because as it is I'm now more confused than ever! It almost sounds like you're saying that the mission of the ODP has more to do with creating full "employment," if you will, for the volunteer editors, than having as its ultimate goal the creation of a rich, robust, dynamic, current directory...

[scurries off to read the FAQ]

Umm, I'm not sure how you read that in my reply.
Perhaps you were puzzled by my reference to finding sites being just one of the editorial tasks available for volunteers to choose from?

A little thought and further reading will provide many other activities, such as quality control (removing dead sites etc), creating new categories, discussing reorganisations, and mentoring new editors. For higher level editors there are also all sorts of community growth and management activities such as reviewing new editor applications, internal applications for wider permissions, investigating abuse reports and so on.

So while the overall mission of the ODP is as you stated ("the creation of a rich, robust, dynamic, current directory"), there are a great many ways this is achieved by the volunteers.

>It almost sounds like you're saying that the mission of the ODP has more to do with creating full "employment"...

No, full employment doesn't have to be created. It just is. There is always more to do: deeper Google searches, more meticulous hand-spidering of major resources, more exploration of non-traditional kinds of resources.

In fact, the ideal state is overemployment, and it turns out that's rather trivial to obtain also.

That way, regardless of what an editor wants to do now, there is some of that kind of work waiting to be done. And when people are doing what they want to be doing, well, they just do MORE of it.

Think of the supply-demand curve. Now, figure demand is for all practical purposes infinite, and the suppliers no longer have to worry about drudging up demand. What becomes important is the most EFFICIENT way of working (which is, again, the opposite of traditional "full-employment-seeking" schemes.) People achieve a kind of satisfaction by giving more, even though the gifts are not accompanied by reciprocal receiving of tokens of debt (money) from others (as in the usual economic models).

All this operates in that part of the spectrum which Adam Smith and Karl Marx both discussed, but (until Milton Friedman) too many economists ignored.

thegreyscraze said:

Is there any concern that the fact that the internet has continued functioning without it for two months makes the open directory project seem somehow extraneous?

Click to expand...

I´ll tell you a little secret.
The internet would continue functioning even when 99% of all sites were taken down. Even when Google, Yahoo and MSN are all down forever it will continue.

BTW do you own a website?
Yes, would the internet continue when it is down?
Yes, your site is already somehow extraneous.

Well, see, now this is fun.

OK, so there's this Directory. It's a Thing. It has a Purpose, which is to be Useful in some way. There's the Directory, and then there is its Purpose. They are separate. The directory's purpose is not just to Be -- it is to provide Utility.

Let's say that one day a technical problem arises. Now the Directory, while it is still a Thing, still exists, still has a Purpose, is nevertheless no longer fulfilling that Purpose. It no longer provides the Utility for which is was intended, desgined, implemented, and painstakingly maintained by the many Happy Volunteers.

These Volunteers, however, continue about their various tasks, doing what they like to do, and doing lots of it. Complaining Not. Questioning Not! All the while, however, the directory Functions Not. Quality Control is performed, but this Matters Not as the directory Changes Not. Removal of dead sites is undertaken, but these dead sites continue to show up in searches because the directory Changes Not. It is static. It is in many ways itself a Dead Site. Time passes and little by little the volunteers forget why they are performing these tasks -- but this Matters Not because they are all enjoying themselves very much.

It is for this reason that one such as I could come away with the idea that if the directory ceases to function for months and this is deemed an inconvenience only to those who are directly engaged in its maintenance, that something other than the Purpose of the directory must be the chief concern here; perhaps not full employment, but SOMETHING other than the ultimate goal of providing the Utility.

It's like if my car broke down and wouldn't run, and it sat in the driveway while I had to take the bus to work -- but every week I still filled my broken car up with gasoline! And checked the air pressure in the tires and what-not. Filled the windshield-wiper fluid reservoir. Made sure the radio was tuned to all the right stations. And then took the bus to work.

Frankly I find the whole thing fascinating!

But the purpose of the ODP is fulfilled by the public directory pages and the data dump. The former was down for a couple of days in October, and again for several hours this month, and the latter wasn't down at all as far as I know.

So, the directory continues to fulfill its purpose.

As editors, we're pretty bummed about not being able to improve it for a couple of months by finding new sites to list and doing surgery for link-rot. But the data would have to go quite a bit more than a few months without update to become useless. At worst, it's less useful than we'd like it to be.

A lot more like your car running slow and needing work than like it being dead and you having to take the bus.

Or like a library that ran out of funding to buy new books. You cannot get the latest releases but does that make any of the books on the shelves any less relevant?

I am tending to think the disaster is perhaps a good thing since it gives the public a time to think a bit more about what the ODP actually is.

regards

Good analogy, Eric. The work that has been done is still there and available to web surfers, and web surfers are the reason we exist.

The two month delay in adding to that work is frustrating to both editors and site suggestors, but, it's far from being a dead site.

We appreciate your sense of humor and your calm demeanor though, thegreyscraze, that's pretty refreshing, .

It's like if my car broke down and wouldn't run, and it sat in the driveway while I had to take the bus to work -- but every week I still filled my broken car up with gasoline! And checked the air pressure in the tires and what-not. Filled the windshield-wiper fluid reservoir. Made sure the radio was tuned to all the right stations. And then took the bus to work.

Click to expand...

More like your car broke down and wouldn't run and it sat in the shop until your mechanic managed to fix it. No filling it up with gasoline daily, though maybe you're saving up to fill it with gas and you've put a few jugs of wiper fluid in your garage for the day when you get the car back.

Editors have had no access to the editors side of things since October 20 so we haven't really been puttering away for two months while the public side is static. The lack of change on the public side reflects the lack of change on the editor side. Consider it temporary statis, not death. Once the editor side is working again, the public pages will catch up.

Whatever the reason, the results have impact

Unfortunately for web masters the ODP is having a huge effect on their web rankings. For those who do have their site listed in the directory AOL search picks them up, for those without a listing AOL completely ignores their web site. I know of no other way to get listed in AOL search other than to get a listing in the ODP. If I am wrong about this statement, then please correct me and tell me how to submit my site to AOL?

I admit I am a business man and 2 of my main competitors have listings. We all know I think, that Google determines web rankings according to sites that link to your web site. Therefore those who have a active listing in the ODP receive a higher web rank than those without one. I understand the purpose and the objectives of the ODP, however it's impact on webmasters is perhaps producing a result that the creators never intended, but is indeed taking place! That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

thegreyscraze said:

These Volunteers, however, continue about their various tasks, doing what they like to do, and doing lots of it.

Click to expand...

I can see I am going to have to use much shorter sentences or buy a phrasebook or something, because I keep failing to be understood.
Nowhere in my post did I say we were doing these things right now, while we have no access to the editing side of things. I was explaining what editors do when they are editing.

As explained many times prior to this thread we have not been able to do any of those things for 2 months, so it is hardly surprising that you have seen no evidence of our activity.

If your marketing plan includes a checkbox that says "Get listed in the ODP to get better rankings then my competitors" then you need to revise your marketing plan because this is a bad strategy

This is not the correct forum to discuss how web sites get listed in the various search engines, but let's just say that getting a listing in the ODP should not be what you rely on to accomplish that goal. The ODP is not a listing service for web site owners. I know for a fact that there are web sites that have absolutely no listings in the ODP that are coming up just fine in Google and AOL search (which is just Google anyway).

If you suggest a web site to the ODP, we really appreciate you helping us to build the directory, but that's all it is, a suggestion. The editors may look at the suggestion pool to help them build out a category, but it's not the only resource that editors use. Editors are going to find URLs everywhere out there in the big wide world in their everyday life, and they are going to use all of the available resources to add web sites to the categories that they have an interest in.

As an editor, I understand what you've calmly explained, tom40x, and I do symathize with the position you and other webmasters are put into, and I think you understand that we're not a listing service, and that our main focus is on web surfers who use our information, and not on site suggestion submitters of any kind, pros or amateurs.

Unfortunately, there's not a thing we can do about how other entities use the information that we provide, for their own purposes.

We cannot guarantee anyone a listing with us, let alone a timely listing, because that's not our purpose.

One of the reasons that a listing in the ODP might be given more weight (not saying that it is) is because the listings are human edited and organized, and therefore the listings have a lot more quality in them, than an automated machine system would have. A more quality condensed version, minus the junk.

Because we're human edited, and there are just so many humans who are willing to voluntarily work for free for the benefit of web surfers as a whole, the process is going to be neccessarily slower, but, if it were automated for speed, the Directory would lose it's value to those very entities that you've mentioned, as well as to the web surfers that we're really interested in helping.

The only thing we can tell you is to read our submission guidelines about writing a good title and description, submit your suggestion to the best category, (both of which will give you a better chance), and just forget about it and try to concentrate on doing other things to promote your site.

I know that's very frustrating for you, and I do feel for you, but, that's all you can do.

You could volunteer to be an editor, but, one of our meta editors would have to speak with you about that, as they're the ones who have the knowledge and permissions to grant that, not myself.

They are very good at what they do, that's why we look up to them as leaders and protectors of our community.