I'm not exactly sure where this question should be posted, but I was just wondering what takes so much time? Over the past week, I have been watching things pretty closely. I have noticed since Monday that the main tab for sports hasn't changed from 109479 entries. Of course Sports:Shopping hasn't changed from 9420. I am just wondering what the deal is. Based on this information, I can see why it takes so long to get listed with the ODP. I'm not trying to slam anyone, I am just wondering why nothing has been done for anyone in any of the catagories listed under Sports.
Amount of time
- Thread starter wellsld
- Start date
W
wrathchild
1. The public servers are not refreshed constantly. They're on a schedule and get updated every three days or so.
2. There's more to editing than adding and removing sites. Rewriting a title or description won't change the total. Moving a site to a more appropriate category within the same tree won't show a change. Same with finding a more appropriate URL for an existing listing. Writing category descriptions, working out taxonomy, tracking down spam and mirrors, and discussing changes with fellow editors are all very important editing tasks that won't change the net number of listings one bit.
"Nothing done?" Hardly.
2. There's more to editing than adding and removing sites. Rewriting a title or description won't change the total. Moving a site to a more appropriate category within the same tree won't show a change. Same with finding a more appropriate URL for an existing listing. Writing category descriptions, working out taxonomy, tracking down spam and mirrors, and discussing changes with fellow editors are all very important editing tasks that won't change the net number of listings one bit.
"Nothing done?" Hardly.
I wasn't trying to offend anyone. I was only stating what I observed, and it just seemed a little weird to me that in a subject as big and broad as SPORTS that it hasn't changed in a week. I know that all of the editors are volunteers, and only edit when they have extra time. I think all of the editors have done a great job with the directory and should be commeded.
After I posted my original question, I noticed how much other people are complaining on here too. I can see why all of you get short tempered sometimes. I know when I am doing volunteer work here in my community, nothing upsets me more than for someone to complain to me instead of also volunteering themselves if they don't like it.
Once again I apologize for making it sound like you all don't do anything.
Dale
After I posted my original question, I noticed how much other people are complaining on here too. I can see why all of you get short tempered sometimes. I know when I am doing volunteer work here in my community, nothing upsets me more than for someone to complain to me instead of also volunteering themselves if they don't like it.
Once again I apologize for making it sound like you all don't do anything.
Dale
W
wrathchild
None taken. I was merely trying to explain that making a conclusion that "nothing is being done" based on the number of listed sites is an erroneous inference. The numbers don't tell you anything more than the number of listings in that part of the hierarchy and, over the course of months, whether that number is growing or shrinking. That's all. Wasn't it Mark Twain who said something about "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics?"
Not surprising, really. Most webmasters will never know their site has been listed, and the ones that do and are happy about, do you really think they're going to track this forum down engage us in conversation to thank us? It would be nice but let's be realistic. I heard once that when someone feels good about a transaction, they'll tell three people, but if they don't feel good about it they'll tell ten people. Of course, that's one of them "statistics" isn't it?
I'm sure most people who submit sites, and those who search the Open Directory, have little or no idea what it really is or how it functions, or indeed of the work that is put in by volunteers. They probably think they're submitting to a search engine. The above clarification is helpful.
OK, I think the basic problem here is that you're assuming our "last updated" flag works just like Yahoo's "New" flag--that is, if Sports/Pointless/Unpopular/Painful/Mumblety-peg gets changed, all of the ancestor categories from Sports to Sports/Pointless all the way down will get their "updated" date changed. But ours doesn't work like that. "Sports" doesn't have ANY sites directly listed, so it will only change when a new category or newsgroup is linked in, it won't change every time a new Little League baseball team is added in Kalamazoo...
As someone said: lies, damn lies, and statistics. We might add: truth, mistakes, errors, absolute nonsense, and assumptions. Combine the two, and you have one cosmic misconception.
As someone said: lies, damn lies, and statistics. We might add: truth, mistakes, errors, absolute nonsense, and assumptions. Combine the two, and you have one cosmic misconception.
The question
I think, really, the questionner was asking why it takes so much time for a site to be added to the Directory. He/she was using the entries statistic as an indicator, which as the answers suggest, it probably isn't, but the answers were nonetheless directed to explaining the statistic rather than answering the original question (methinks).
Regards,
Patrick Taylor
I think, really, the questionner was asking why it takes so much time for a site to be added to the Directory. He/she was using the entries statistic as an indicator, which as the answers suggest, it probably isn't, but the answers were nonetheless directed to explaining the statistic rather than answering the original question (methinks).
Regards,
Patrick Taylor
I'm not sure that actually is what the original poster was asking, but the answer to it is straightforward: there are millions of websites out there, and so any *individual* website has a probabalistic chance of being the first one to be reviewed next, or the three millionth one to be reviewed next. That's why we keep saying a site will be reviewed sometime between the next three minutes and the next three years. The overall rate of growth of the directory can be plotted, predicted, and so forth, but which individual site is going to be added before which other one cannot.
The question
I'm assuming it was a genuine question. And yes, a site which was submitted three years ago may be looked at in three minutes. I would imagine the simple answer to the question "why might it take three years for a site to be looked at?" is a straightforward resource issue, especially as the editors - as I understand it - are volunteers who in some areas, by all accounts, have a mountain to climb. I'm sure their work is appreciated by anyone who understands this. It's just that not everyone seems to (understand it), which is why the question was a good one.
As I said, the explanation that there is more to this than just looking at new sites was helpful.
Regards,
Patrick Taylor
I'm assuming it was a genuine question. And yes, a site which was submitted three years ago may be looked at in three minutes. I would imagine the simple answer to the question "why might it take three years for a site to be looked at?" is a straightforward resource issue, especially as the editors - as I understand it - are volunteers who in some areas, by all accounts, have a mountain to climb. I'm sure their work is appreciated by anyone who understands this. It's just that not everyone seems to (understand it), which is why the question was a good one.
As I said, the explanation that there is more to this than just looking at new sites was helpful.
Regards,
Patrick Taylor
bobrat
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
- Messages
- 11,061
It is indeed a complex issue.
For example, I have a site in one of my categories, that has been waiting for review for years. It was submitted to multiple wrong categories while under construction, and refused. It has a history of refusal and resubmission. In it's current state [no longer under construction] it is probably ok to put in ODP, but the site design and content has no direction and focus. It covers enough different topics, that it is not clear where it should be listed. I really don't want to spend the extra time on this site, either deciding to include it in my category or sending it on to some other, when I have plenty of other sites to work on that are much simpler to deal with, so the reality may well be that it never gets published. In the end this is the fault of the site designer.
This is not uncommon, there are too many sites out there that try to do much. For example a husband and wide try to combine their businesses on one site. I don't rush to work on sites like this, not only because they are harder to work on but because the add less value to the user of ODP.
That is why a site with a good title and description stand out in the list of unreviewed and gets attention. If the site turns out to be well organized and fits correctly in the category, because the submitter took the trouble to do everything correctly then it may will get published within hours of submission.
For example, I have a site in one of my categories, that has been waiting for review for years. It was submitted to multiple wrong categories while under construction, and refused. It has a history of refusal and resubmission. In it's current state [no longer under construction] it is probably ok to put in ODP, but the site design and content has no direction and focus. It covers enough different topics, that it is not clear where it should be listed. I really don't want to spend the extra time on this site, either deciding to include it in my category or sending it on to some other, when I have plenty of other sites to work on that are much simpler to deal with, so the reality may well be that it never gets published. In the end this is the fault of the site designer.
This is not uncommon, there are too many sites out there that try to do much. For example a husband and wide try to combine their businesses on one site. I don't rush to work on sites like this, not only because they are harder to work on but because the add less value to the user of ODP.
That is why a site with a good title and description stand out in the list of unreviewed and gets attention. If the site turns out to be well organized and fits correctly in the category, because the submitter took the trouble to do everything correctly then it may will get published within hours of submission.
>And yes, a site which was submitted three years ago may be looked at in three minutes.
That's just the thing. So may a site that was submitted yesterday. So may a site which was never submitted at all. We're not a FIFO system. The only valuable way to look at this, in my opinion, is that there are millions of accessible websites out there worthy of review and that we are reviewing them in effectively random order. Submitting a site to the proper category will definitely skew the odds in its favor, but they're still just that: odds. It will still be possible that a website will be listed the same hour it is submitted, and it will still be possible that a site submitted to the proper category will still be sitting there in three or four years, just like it's possible to flip heads a hundred times in a row. We're always reviewing SOMEthing, but there's no predicting exactly which site is going to be the next one.
That's just the thing. So may a site that was submitted yesterday. So may a site which was never submitted at all. We're not a FIFO system. The only valuable way to look at this, in my opinion, is that there are millions of accessible websites out there worthy of review and that we are reviewing them in effectively random order. Submitting a site to the proper category will definitely skew the odds in its favor, but they're still just that: odds. It will still be possible that a website will be listed the same hour it is submitted, and it will still be possible that a site submitted to the proper category will still be sitting there in three or four years, just like it's possible to flip heads a hundred times in a row. We're always reviewing SOMEthing, but there's no predicting exactly which site is going to be the next one.
It is very very important to realize that the submittal date is irrelevant to editors. Completely. It has no significance of any kind. It is, in fact, a null datum -- that is, we couldn't get that information if for some insane reason we actually wanted it.
What's really important to a surfer? (Which is the same thing as what OUGHT to be important to an editor: because we act for the benefit of surfers, and we work from our best conception of the surfers' viewpoints.)
The SITE CREATION date, that's all. If a site has been up and finished for five minutes, then the clock is ticking. If it's a good site, we WANT to list it. Now. At any point in the future, any reasonable person might ask, "why not list this site?" But site submittal has no such effect: it imposes no desire or obligation on the editor, gives a person no such privilege, and causes no urgency whatsoever.
So the site submittal date is nothing, and less than nothing. Some jerks submit a site dozens of times, months and years before they lift their little finger to start publishing it. Does that kind of rude behavior deserve special consideration? NO! It deserves public contempt, ridicule, and rejection!
Some people create sites long before they discover the ODP; should their informational efforts be penalized because they are not aggressive website promotoers? NO! That would be inequitable to them and unprofitable for us!
Other people never submit their sites. Does that mean their sites deserve any less consideration than submitted sites? NEVER! We know that often the best sites are not promoted, while some people focus on promoting and never waste the time to generate a site worth promoting. We don't and shouldn't ignore those facts when we choose our priorities!
So when you ask why a site has been waiting 57 days, three hours and 23 minutes since submittal -- why should it not? We'll review a site the same way a million years before its first submittal as four years afterwards. And if we cared when it was first submitted (which we don't ever, even if cases where that first submittal isn't still in the future) we wouldn't have any way of knowing anyway -- all we have is the date of the LAST submittal IN THE CATEGORY WE ARE WORKING IN. And, if there is in all the universe a date LESS significant than the date of FIRST submittal, that would be it.
What's really important to a surfer? (Which is the same thing as what OUGHT to be important to an editor: because we act for the benefit of surfers, and we work from our best conception of the surfers' viewpoints.)
The SITE CREATION date, that's all. If a site has been up and finished for five minutes, then the clock is ticking. If it's a good site, we WANT to list it. Now. At any point in the future, any reasonable person might ask, "why not list this site?" But site submittal has no such effect: it imposes no desire or obligation on the editor, gives a person no such privilege, and causes no urgency whatsoever.
So the site submittal date is nothing, and less than nothing. Some jerks submit a site dozens of times, months and years before they lift their little finger to start publishing it. Does that kind of rude behavior deserve special consideration? NO! It deserves public contempt, ridicule, and rejection!
Some people create sites long before they discover the ODP; should their informational efforts be penalized because they are not aggressive website promotoers? NO! That would be inequitable to them and unprofitable for us!
Other people never submit their sites. Does that mean their sites deserve any less consideration than submitted sites? NEVER! We know that often the best sites are not promoted, while some people focus on promoting and never waste the time to generate a site worth promoting. We don't and shouldn't ignore those facts when we choose our priorities!
So when you ask why a site has been waiting 57 days, three hours and 23 minutes since submittal -- why should it not? We'll review a site the same way a million years before its first submittal as four years afterwards. And if we cared when it was first submitted (which we don't ever, even if cases where that first submittal isn't still in the future) we wouldn't have any way of knowing anyway -- all we have is the date of the LAST submittal IN THE CATEGORY WE ARE WORKING IN. And, if there is in all the universe a date LESS significant than the date of FIRST submittal, that would be it.
undefined
I am a New York attorney who submitted a site I had just created to the Open Directory on March 30, 2004. I submitted it in the proper descriptive category for my site, which explains my Consultant Services in Employment Law for employers and employees. The site obeyed all of ODP's rules for appropriate sites. I have never received a response. The site has only 4 pages and is very simple. I don't understand why it would take so long to review and approve. I was told that an editor would review my submission, and that it would take several weeks or more before my site is reviewed, if there was a large volume of submissions in my category. I was told to check dmoz public formums if my site was not listed after a month.
According the National Employment Lawyers Association/New York, of which I am a member, there are approximately 30 or 40 law firms which specialize or work only in the area of employment law in Manhattan. (You have only 14 firms listed in this category!!!) Even if they ALL submitted a site this year, it wouldn't take three months to review a small site. No one has even contacted me to request my resume, or to find out if I am a NELA/NY member!
If you don't have enough Editors in this category, why was my request to be a dmoz Editor in this category denied?? What is going on??? Barbara Lifton
I am a New York attorney who submitted a site I had just created to the Open Directory on March 30, 2004. I submitted it in the proper descriptive category for my site, which explains my Consultant Services in Employment Law for employers and employees. The site obeyed all of ODP's rules for appropriate sites. I have never received a response. The site has only 4 pages and is very simple. I don't understand why it would take so long to review and approve. I was told that an editor would review my submission, and that it would take several weeks or more before my site is reviewed, if there was a large volume of submissions in my category. I was told to check dmoz public formums if my site was not listed after a month.
According the National Employment Lawyers Association/New York, of which I am a member, there are approximately 30 or 40 law firms which specialize or work only in the area of employment law in Manhattan. (You have only 14 firms listed in this category!!!) Even if they ALL submitted a site this year, it wouldn't take three months to review a small site. No one has even contacted me to request my resume, or to find out if I am a NELA/NY member!
If you don't have enough Editors in this category, why was my request to be a dmoz Editor in this category denied?? What is going on??? Barbara Lifton
>> submitted a site ..... on March 30, 2004 <<
That really isn't very long at all.
>> I have never received a response. <<
One was never promised.
>> No one has even contacted me to request my resume, or to find out if I am a NELA/NY member! <<
That is quite irrelevant. The website stands or falls by what is on the .... website. Really. It does.
The ODP is many things, but one thing that it expressly has NOT been, and is still NOT trying to be, is a listing service for webmasters. The ODP is building a directory of web resources, adding over a million references per year, in a completely random order, and does not run to the beck and call of site suggestions.
You didn't submit a URL for a listing. You submitted a "suggestion for a possible review"; note the word "suggestion" well. Then go back and read the whole of this thread again.
In fact if you use the forum search facility and find and read the last 30 or 40 posts that Hutcheson has made here, you might start to get the picture of what the ODP is, and what it is not.
>> If you don't have enough Editors in this category, why was my request to be a dmoz Editor in this category denied?? <<
Your application result email should have given some instructive clues. Some categories are too large, or too spammy, for a new editor. Some applications are not up to standard. It isn't what you know about a subject, it is how well you can edit. Even Bill Clinton and George W would probably be rejected as Editors of a US Presidents category, and Stephen Hawking wouldn't make it as an editor of any Physics category either. Snide but true.
>> What is going on??? <<
With your site? Do you see the Submission Status Forum? Read the guidelines for it and request the status there. That is what it is for. Someone will let you know. Don't be surprised if it is "awaiting review".
That really isn't very long at all.
>> I have never received a response. <<
One was never promised.
>> No one has even contacted me to request my resume, or to find out if I am a NELA/NY member! <<
That is quite irrelevant. The website stands or falls by what is on the .... website. Really. It does.
The ODP is many things, but one thing that it expressly has NOT been, and is still NOT trying to be, is a listing service for webmasters. The ODP is building a directory of web resources, adding over a million references per year, in a completely random order, and does not run to the beck and call of site suggestions.
You didn't submit a URL for a listing. You submitted a "suggestion for a possible review"; note the word "suggestion" well. Then go back and read the whole of this thread again.
In fact if you use the forum search facility and find and read the last 30 or 40 posts that Hutcheson has made here, you might start to get the picture of what the ODP is, and what it is not.
>> If you don't have enough Editors in this category, why was my request to be a dmoz Editor in this category denied?? <<
Your application result email should have given some instructive clues. Some categories are too large, or too spammy, for a new editor. Some applications are not up to standard. It isn't what you know about a subject, it is how well you can edit. Even Bill Clinton and George W would probably be rejected as Editors of a US Presidents category, and Stephen Hawking wouldn't make it as an editor of any Physics category either. Snide but true.
>> What is going on??? <<
With your site? Do you see the Submission Status Forum? Read the guidelines for it and request the status there. That is what it is for. Someone will let you know. Don't be surprised if it is "awaiting review".
bobrat
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
- Messages
- 11,061
On what do you base this, do you have any idea of the internal workings of ODP, and how sites get to be listed? It seems you have ignored the whole first part of this thread. It will take as long as it takes to list a site, read all the threads here, read the FAQs, there is not shedule, there is no deadline, there are no promises.
I think you have missed the point entirely, I've no idea why you would expect any one to contact you to obtain your resume. It's not something we would ever do, it has no relevance to listing your site, it has no relevance to bineg an editor. People with Doctorates, authors of books, etc. are surprised that it's not that important, if they can't fill out the editor application form in a way that meets the standards. We are not hiring you to work here. And we don't do background checks.
The answers
Speaking for myself, I believe I understood hutcheson's post first time round.
I'm sure the popular misconception about the ODP is that you submit your site to a category then it goes in a queue: if the queue is short (a less popular category), you have a chance to get listed fairly soon, but if the queue is long you may have to wait up to two years before it comes to the head of the queue, then sure, at that point the site may be rejected. It would come as a surprise to discover that an editor doesn't actually know when a site was submitted - therefore there is no such thing as a queue - and an even bigger surprise that the site creation date is a factor - how can you tell this?
It would seem possible (and this is no reflection on the editors or the ODP) that the editor for a category could spend his or her time searching for new non-submitted sites without looking at those which were submitted, or vice versa. And it must surely be possible that an editor actually doesn't have time to look at all the sites submitted to a category, and in some cases that could be the reason why a site never gets listed. I suppose the upshot of this would be that there could be several reasons why a submitted site doesn't appear in the ODP, and that some webmasters who've been waiting for two years could never get their site listed at all.
Regards,
Patrick Taylor
Speaking for myself, I believe I understood hutcheson's post first time round.
I'm sure the popular misconception about the ODP is that you submit your site to a category then it goes in a queue: if the queue is short (a less popular category), you have a chance to get listed fairly soon, but if the queue is long you may have to wait up to two years before it comes to the head of the queue, then sure, at that point the site may be rejected. It would come as a surprise to discover that an editor doesn't actually know when a site was submitted - therefore there is no such thing as a queue - and an even bigger surprise that the site creation date is a factor - how can you tell this?
It would seem possible (and this is no reflection on the editors or the ODP) that the editor for a category could spend his or her time searching for new non-submitted sites without looking at those which were submitted, or vice versa. And it must surely be possible that an editor actually doesn't have time to look at all the sites submitted to a category, and in some cases that could be the reason why a site never gets listed. I suppose the upshot of this would be that there could be several reasons why a submitted site doesn't appear in the ODP, and that some webmasters who've been waiting for two years could never get their site listed at all.
Regards,
Patrick Taylor
Yes, I believe you have grasped it. That is a pretty fair representation of the way we work and the ramifications for people who are financially concerned about the sites they submitted.
I'm cautious about saying "never". I'd strongly say "don't depend on an ODP listing." We won't take over your site promotion obligations. And we obviously can't promote you above your competitors. But if an ODP listing appears, it will be a pleasant surprise -- if you happen to notice it.
I'm cautious about saying "never". I'd strongly say "don't depend on an ODP listing." We won't take over your site promotion obligations. And we obviously can't promote you above your competitors. But if an ODP listing appears, it will be a pleasant surprise -- if you happen to notice it.