Amount of time
- Thread starter wellsld
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
pcmt said:
Not exactly
First of all there isn't a queue there is just a pool of suggestions. So there also is no 'head of the queue'.
If the pool is small it still can take a long time to get reviewed.
If the pool is very large you still have a chance of being reviewed within a few minutes of your suggestion.
Not exactly
Thanks, and... that's why I was saying it's a popular misconception - one that I was under too, until this thread. I don't really have a view on the merits or demerits of the OPD policy. It is what it is and I wouldn't argue either way because I don't know enough about it, nor have I thought too much about it either. I've had a couple sites go in within two weeks of submission and others - one in particular - still not be reviewed after a wait of eighteen months. I suppose like most people, I submit a bona fide site in the hope it will be reviewed and listed before too long, and it's only now that I realize there isn't a queuing system, so eighteen months doesn't mean it's any nearer, or further, or anything. If it means anything at all, it's not encouraging.
The difficulty is obvious. The ODP matters very much, both to the ordinary surfer and to the individual wanting to promote genuine site. On the one hand the editors work unpaid, doing something they believe in, and on the other there are frustrated webmasters who see a category with sites they believe are less deserving than theirs (and in some cases they will be right).
This thread has been very helpful, to me, at least, and the feedback is appreciated.
Regards,
Patrick Taylor
pvgool said:
Thanks, and... that's why I was saying it's a popular misconception - one that I was under too, until this thread. I don't really have a view on the merits or demerits of the OPD policy. It is what it is and I wouldn't argue either way because I don't know enough about it, nor have I thought too much about it either. I've had a couple sites go in within two weeks of submission and others - one in particular - still not be reviewed after a wait of eighteen months. I suppose like most people, I submit a bona fide site in the hope it will be reviewed and listed before too long, and it's only now that I realize there isn't a queuing system, so eighteen months doesn't mean it's any nearer, or further, or anything. If it means anything at all, it's not encouraging.
The difficulty is obvious. The ODP matters very much, both to the ordinary surfer and to the individual wanting to promote genuine site. On the one hand the editors work unpaid, doing something they believe in, and on the other there are frustrated webmasters who see a category with sites they believe are less deserving than theirs (and in some cases they will be right).
This thread has been very helpful, to me, at least, and the feedback is appreciated.
Regards,
Patrick Taylor
>But surely, this is exactly what could happen, or be thought to happen - even if that isn't the
>motive - unless submissions are reviewed in strict chronological order?
Chronological order from *when*, though? From our POV, a site that was launched two years ago and submitted yesterday (or never was submitted at all!) has been waiting longer than a site that was launched a year ago and submitted a year ago. Our users have been waiting to have the first site added to their list of browsing options longer than they have been waiting for the second site.
>It would come as a surprise to discover that an editor doesn't actually know when a site was submitted
Well, that's not entirely true. We do know when a site was *last* submitted, but each *new* submission overwrites the last one, and most of the people who are concerned enough about getting an ODP listing to complain about the wait have also been re-submitting on a monthly basis, so we have no idea when their site was first submitted. More importantly, though... we don't care that much. How long ago a site was submitted doesn't have any bearing on that site's quality, freshness, suitability to the ODP, urgency to our users, or anything else really. I can't see as it even matters to the webmaster that much. If one crafts shop submitted six months ago and another submitted a year ago, getting a listing wouldn't be any less important to the first shop owner than the second. Heck, the first business may even have been around longer than the second one.
>motive - unless submissions are reviewed in strict chronological order?
Chronological order from *when*, though? From our POV, a site that was launched two years ago and submitted yesterday (or never was submitted at all!) has been waiting longer than a site that was launched a year ago and submitted a year ago. Our users have been waiting to have the first site added to their list of browsing options longer than they have been waiting for the second site.
>It would come as a surprise to discover that an editor doesn't actually know when a site was submitted
Well, that's not entirely true. We do know when a site was *last* submitted, but each *new* submission overwrites the last one, and most of the people who are concerned enough about getting an ODP listing to complain about the wait have also been re-submitting on a monthly basis, so we have no idea when their site was first submitted. More importantly, though... we don't care that much. How long ago a site was submitted doesn't have any bearing on that site's quality, freshness, suitability to the ODP, urgency to our users, or anything else really. I can't see as it even matters to the webmaster that much. If one crafts shop submitted six months ago and another submitted a year ago, getting a listing wouldn't be any less important to the first shop owner than the second. Heck, the first business may even have been around longer than the second one.
Odp
If one takes the view that the ODP is put together purely according to what the editors feel should be included and that the submission system is just one of maybe several sources they look at, then no-one who submits a site has any justification for expecting (or complaining about) anything whatsoever, in exactly the same way as I decide which sites I link to from mine.
I'm certain, though, that many webmasters believe the ODP is some sort of public service and that the submission system is the only source of entries and that there is, or should be, a properly administered queue, which eventually one can get to the top of (and, of course, then be rejected). This is the common concept of fairness we come across every day, whether it be at the bank, MacDonald's, wherever. You wait your turn, no matter how broke or hungry you are, but eventually you do get served.
So I think the problem is this misconception about the ODP. It seems it isn't like MacDonald's - submitting a site to the ODP is perhaps more like sending material to a book publisher... where you submit, you wait, and you don't really expect too much. I think the more those who run the ODP can get this across, the better for everyone.
Incidentally, who does own the ODP?
Regards,
Patrick Taylor
If one takes the view that the ODP is put together purely according to what the editors feel should be included and that the submission system is just one of maybe several sources they look at, then no-one who submits a site has any justification for expecting (or complaining about) anything whatsoever, in exactly the same way as I decide which sites I link to from mine.
I'm certain, though, that many webmasters believe the ODP is some sort of public service and that the submission system is the only source of entries and that there is, or should be, a properly administered queue, which eventually one can get to the top of (and, of course, then be rejected). This is the common concept of fairness we come across every day, whether it be at the bank, MacDonald's, wherever. You wait your turn, no matter how broke or hungry you are, but eventually you do get served.
So I think the problem is this misconception about the ODP. It seems it isn't like MacDonald's - submitting a site to the ODP is perhaps more like sending material to a book publisher... where you submit, you wait, and you don't really expect too much. I think the more those who run the ODP can get this across, the better for everyone.
Incidentally, who does own the ODP?
Regards,
Patrick Taylor
>But surely, this is exactly what could happen, or be thought to happen - even if that isn't the motive - unless submissions are reviewed in strict chronological order?
Motive, shmotive.
When this question comes up, I can't help thinking about that parable where people got ticked off because someone else got a gift and they didn't. And the squire said, "You haven't been cheated, man, you got what you earned. And now you're jealous because I'm generous? Get over it."
The ODP ideal is: nothing the ODP does is ever fair, because everything is a free gift. But it's a gift to our users -- nothing is done as a gift to webmasters. Even submittals aren't a gift from the ODP to webmasters. They're proffered gifts from the general public (including webmasters and even SERP perps!) to the ODP. And they can be unwrapped whenever and however it's convenient. The result is conceived to be consistent with (if I might quote an ancestor) "the greatest good for the greatest number".
It is better for everyone that we focus on producing "greater good for the great number of surfers," rather than on inefficient, unrealistic, inefficient, unimplementable, and even counterproductive notions of "fairness" to webmasters -- a population that the ODP makes neither claim or effort to serve.
Motive, shmotive.
When this question comes up, I can't help thinking about that parable where people got ticked off because someone else got a gift and they didn't. And the squire said, "You haven't been cheated, man, you got what you earned. And now you're jealous because I'm generous? Get over it."
The ODP ideal is: nothing the ODP does is ever fair, because everything is a free gift. But it's a gift to our users -- nothing is done as a gift to webmasters. Even submittals aren't a gift from the ODP to webmasters. They're proffered gifts from the general public (including webmasters and even SERP perps!) to the ODP. And they can be unwrapped whenever and however it's convenient. The result is conceived to be consistent with (if I might quote an ancestor) "the greatest good for the greatest number".
It is better for everyone that we focus on producing "greater good for the great number of surfers," rather than on inefficient, unrealistic, inefficient, unimplementable, and even counterproductive notions of "fairness" to webmasters -- a population that the ODP makes neither claim or effort to serve.
W
wrathchild
pcmt said:
At the bottom of every page at ODP is: Copyright © 1998-2004 Netscape
There is also this entry in the FAQ found through the "about dmoz" link: http://dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html#runs
I think it's also worth mentioning that the ODP ideal of fairness is *also* aimed at our users rather than the owners of the website. We strive to be utterly impartial and unbiased in our reviews because that is what our users expect and need from our directory. If we favored one site over another, put in lots of stupid stuff to mess with site rankings or whatever, then our users could not trust our directory anymore. That is why we're so committed to judging sites in a fair and non-self-interested way.
A lot of webmasters seem to have the mistaken belief that it's against the law somehow for us, or Google, or anyone else to arrange our websites in a way that might turn out to affect somebody's business for the better or the worse. It isn't. It isn't even against our policy. If an editor deleted all his competitor's websites, that would lead to the editor being fired because it is bad for OUR business, not because it is bad for the competitors. That's a fine distinction, but an important one, because if, on the other hand, I spend all week working in a diamonds category and doing nothing whatsoever in a rubies category, and this actually turns out to increase the sales of jewelers who use diamonds and the jewelers who use rubies are apoplectic, that's not my problem. Any more than Newsweek would be to blame for running an article about the diamond industry and not one about the ruby industry (though of course if they ran an article promoting the editor's son-in-law's jewelry store, that would be a different matter.)
A lot of webmasters seem to have the mistaken belief that it's against the law somehow for us, or Google, or anyone else to arrange our websites in a way that might turn out to affect somebody's business for the better or the worse. It isn't. It isn't even against our policy. If an editor deleted all his competitor's websites, that would lead to the editor being fired because it is bad for OUR business, not because it is bad for the competitors. That's a fine distinction, but an important one, because if, on the other hand, I spend all week working in a diamonds category and doing nothing whatsoever in a rubies category, and this actually turns out to increase the sales of jewelers who use diamonds and the jewelers who use rubies are apoplectic, that's not my problem. Any more than Newsweek would be to blame for running an article about the diamond industry and not one about the ruby industry (though of course if they ran an article promoting the editor's son-in-law's jewelry store, that would be a different matter.)
Social Contract
Thanks for the further explanations - and the link... where I read Netscape's "Social Contract with the Web Community". I imagine Abe would have been more eloquent but I think I get the gist. And amongst other things, it does say "We will make every effort to evaluate all sites submitted to the directory" and perhaps this statement is wherein lies the perception problem, and takes us back to the original post. Many people who submit a site imagine some kind of queue they can eventually get to the top of, and they think maybe three years is a long time in World Wide Web terms. As I say, the issue for me is not whether the ODP is good or bad but what gives rise to webmasters' frustrations, justified or not.
I'll probably bow out here. Thanks again for the feedback.
Regards,
Patrick Taylor
Thanks for the further explanations - and the link... where I read Netscape's "Social Contract with the Web Community". I imagine Abe would have been more eloquent but I think I get the gist. And amongst other things, it does say "We will make every effort to evaluate all sites submitted to the directory" and perhaps this statement is wherein lies the perception problem, and takes us back to the original post. Many people who submit a site imagine some kind of queue they can eventually get to the top of, and they think maybe three years is a long time in World Wide Web terms. As I say, the issue for me is not whether the ODP is good or bad but what gives rise to webmasters' frustrations, justified or not.
I'll probably bow out here. Thanks again for the feedback.
Regards,
Patrick Taylor
The real problem is that a huge chunk of editors probably does not put more than an hour per month into editing sites.
63,785 editors... if each editor did only one website per day they could review almost 2 million sites in one month. Yes there is more than just reviewing sites, like it was said, but that is not the #1 problem.
I just don’t understand this. If you do not plan on devoting more time into editing, than why volunteer? If you get bored editing, than leave and let others do it.
I waited two months to learn that my website was rejected, in the category that got 8 new websites in the last 4 months.
Apparently this editor looks into submissions less than once per month.
Him and bunch of others…
63,785 editors... if each editor did only one website per day they could review almost 2 million sites in one month. Yes there is more than just reviewing sites, like it was said, but that is not the #1 problem.
I just don’t understand this. If you do not plan on devoting more time into editing, than why volunteer? If you get bored editing, than leave and let others do it.
I waited two months to learn that my website was rejected, in the category that got 8 new websites in the last 4 months.
Apparently this editor looks into submissions less than once per month.
Him and bunch of others…
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2002
- Messages
- 3,704
Nope, that's the total number of persons that were ever accepted to edit somewhere in DMOZ. It's not very easy to get precise figures on the number of active editors, but it's something like a fifth of that number. You might ask, why not give the number of active editors on the home page? That's because we want to acknowledge the contribution of each and every editor, whether from nearly 6 years ago or from today, whether they've got massive editing stats or just listed half a dozen sites.HellaCooL said:
BTW: "Active" editor = an editor who made at least one edit during the last 4 months, see http://dmoz.org/help/existing.html#why...
>> The real problem is that a huge chunk of editors probably does not put more than an hour per month into editing sites <<
Great! That is an hour more than zero time spent. However, as volunteers, they aren't required by the ODP to do any set amount of editing above one edit every 4 months. Submitters can demand even less than that.
>> 63,785 editors... <<
Nope. That is the total number of people who have ever contributed to the project. However, the number is totally irrelevant. It matters not if 1 editor reviews 50 000 sites, or 50 000 editors do one each.
>> if each editor did only one website per day they could review almost 2 million sites in one month. <<
However, you are imposing your agenda onto volunteers. The ODP promises you nothing. If you get anything, that is a bonus.
>> Yes there is more than just reviewing sites, like it was said, but that is not the #1 problem <<
It might be your #1 problem, but it is not ours. Spam, mirror sites, duplicate submissions, wrongly submitted suggestions - those are our problems.
>> I just don’t understand this <<
I can tell that you don't. You need to read back through past threads where this has been asked and answered many many times.
>> If you do not plan on devoting more time into editing, than why volunteer? <<
You really cannot tell volunteers what they should be doing. Not at all.
>> If you get bored editing, than leave and let others do it. <<
Who said anyone was bored? Huh? And your supposition that an inactive editor in a category somehow stops anyone else editing there is a wild and horrendously wrong assumption.
I am sorry to say that it is extremely clear that you have no clue as to what the ODP does, or how it does it.
However, our goals, (something which you seem to have totally neglected in your post) are to build a comprehensive directory of web sites on a wide range of topics. Over a million sites are added per year - but in a totally random order. So, for us, we are doing what we set out to achieve.
Please read this thread again and again until you understand it.
Great! That is an hour more than zero time spent. However, as volunteers, they aren't required by the ODP to do any set amount of editing above one edit every 4 months. Submitters can demand even less than that.
>> 63,785 editors... <<
Nope. That is the total number of people who have ever contributed to the project. However, the number is totally irrelevant. It matters not if 1 editor reviews 50 000 sites, or 50 000 editors do one each.
>> if each editor did only one website per day they could review almost 2 million sites in one month. <<
However, you are imposing your agenda onto volunteers. The ODP promises you nothing. If you get anything, that is a bonus.
>> Yes there is more than just reviewing sites, like it was said, but that is not the #1 problem <<
It might be your #1 problem, but it is not ours. Spam, mirror sites, duplicate submissions, wrongly submitted suggestions - those are our problems.
>> I just don’t understand this <<
I can tell that you don't. You need to read back through past threads where this has been asked and answered many many times.
>> If you do not plan on devoting more time into editing, than why volunteer? <<
You really cannot tell volunteers what they should be doing. Not at all.
>> If you get bored editing, than leave and let others do it. <<
Who said anyone was bored? Huh? And your supposition that an inactive editor in a category somehow stops anyone else editing there is a wild and horrendously wrong assumption.
I am sorry to say that it is extremely clear that you have no clue as to what the ODP does, or how it does it.
However, our goals, (something which you seem to have totally neglected in your post) are to build a comprehensive directory of web sites on a wide range of topics. Over a million sites are added per year - but in a totally random order. So, for us, we are doing what we set out to achieve.
Please read this thread again and again until you understand it.
HellaCool, you still do not understand the process. Reviewing one site a day does not equal a listing. I delete or move at least 90% of the sites suggested in my category. In the time it takes to review just one of those suggestions, depending on how well they hide their affiliation, I could have gone out and found three sites to add myself. Moving a misplace suggestion can also take time since I still have to look at the site, then I have to find the most appropriate category to move it to.
No category is owned by a single volunteer so new volunteers can volunteer at any time.
Oh, and did you miss that editors are not required to review the sites in the suggested pool at all? So, how is that a problem for the ODP?
No category is owned by a single volunteer so new volunteers can volunteer at any time.
Oh, and did you miss that editors are not required to review the sites in the suggested pool at all? So, how is that a problem for the ODP?
giz said:
I am saying that most editors are really excited when they start and probably review a lot. Then after a while they are not so excited about doing it...and do it less. That’s all I said and it is true. It is human nature to get bored doing the same thing over and over.
So I am saying that if you find your self devoting your time to ODP only once per month, you should leave, and have your space open to other potential editors.
I have applied once to the category I was really interested in.
Basically I was said that even though they would really like to have me in ODP, the category I was applying to had already enough editors. So basically if I was going to do this five hours per day I was rejected because there was an editor already there (maybe putting in only 5 hours per month)
So yes, in one way they do stop others from editing…
Having a low-activity editor in a category doesn't prevent anyone else from editing there and if that low-activity editor leaves, then we're actually losing the one or two edits that person may do every month or so.
Actually, the rejection reason you got would have said the category you applied for was either already well represented or was too large for a new editor -- usually, it's the "too large" thing that applies there.
>> So I am saying that if you find your self devoting your time to ODP only once per month, you should leave, and have your space open to other potential editors. <<
Editors do NOT take a space. I said that above. Some categories are heavily edited even though no one is actually named for the category; editing "from above". Some named editors may be more occupied elsewhere, but that doesn't stop any other existing un-named editors from editing there. For new applications the presence of a, or several, named editors isn't a bar to having yet more new editors named there, but if there are several editors already named it is likely that the category is too high in the tree for a new editor to start with. There were probably other clues in the email you were sent.
<edit>see Motsa's post above</edit>
Editors do NOT take a space. I said that above. Some categories are heavily edited even though no one is actually named for the category; editing "from above". Some named editors may be more occupied elsewhere, but that doesn't stop any other existing un-named editors from editing there. For new applications the presence of a, or several, named editors isn't a bar to having yet more new editors named there, but if there are several editors already named it is likely that the category is too high in the tree for a new editor to start with. There were probably other clues in the email you were sent.
<edit>see Motsa's post above</edit>
Yeah, if you look around the directory it won't take you long to find categories with five or six different named editors.
We really should take the "well-represented" bit out of the form letter, in my opinion; it's misleading. The issue at hand is actually that we *don't accept new editors at all in categories they might get into trouble with.* I realize that may be discouraging, but all you've got to do is prove yourself with a smaller category first and then you'll have the chance at the bigger one. That's precisely what I did when I first joined.
We really should take the "well-represented" bit out of the form letter, in my opinion; it's misleading. The issue at hand is actually that we *don't accept new editors at all in categories they might get into trouble with.* I realize that may be discouraging, but all you've got to do is prove yourself with a smaller category first and then you'll have the chance at the bigger one. That's precisely what I did when I first joined.
longcall911
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2004
- Messages
- 106
The information provided in this thread, by editors, has been extremely helpful to me (a web developer).
Thanks for the insight.
Thanks for the insight.