Anyone for a slice of Authoritarian Bologna?

Holy smokes! I think I just found The Fletcher Memorial Home. Much like the rest of you, for almost 10 years I submitted my sites with no result. I have attempted many combinations, all of them rational, in the proper category ect .... but no matter how hard I tried my sites were never included.

I have read many of the replies of these so called "Administrators & Editors". They make it clear to the world that OPEN does not imply FREE. It is "OPEN" to those who share a commonality in beliefs, and rejects those who fall outside its parameters. The ODP is a major contributor of content to AOL and other similar SE's. In many ways, it appears that the ODP DMOZ is a great experiment in censorship. Oh, I'm sorry we should replace that word with a much more politically correct phrase "Faqtorship".

jme60 had it right, you either make it free for all or you institute a fair policy. Heck if you want to use a system based on relativity then cut out the large corporations and websites that get a billion hits a year, and reach out for the rest. Check out Paypal's usage system. It seems to work. But I always believed it should be reset every 90 days, rotating the order of the sites so that no one site can dominate the top ten unless it is deserved.

Well, I've said what I wanted to say. Right or wrong, it's my opinion. Which by the way is both OPEN and FREE!

Good night all.

They make it clear to the world that OPEN does not imply FREE

Click to expand...

Correct.

In a DMOZ context the only thing that is 'open' is the ability to take the output of our work and display/use/modify it as you wish (providing correct attribution of course).

It is "OPEN" to those who share a commonality in beliefs, and rejects those who fall outside its parameters

Click to expand...

If beliefs equates to duplicate or illegal content and those types of sites we have advised everyone we don't list, then your statement is correct.

In many ways, it appears that the ODP DMOZ is a great experiment in censorship

Click to expand...

In fact it's one of the few places where diametrically opposed views on a subject are listed, however if you choose to believe that censorship means not allowing the same thing to be said repeatedly (duplicate) as opposed to at all (unique) then I guess we do censor the content of our own site (As you do on your own site)

you either make it free for all or you institute a fair policy

Click to expand...

From our perspective this already exists. We are not going to become a FFA link list, so that's out, and our existing policy is fair - any site stands the exact same chance of being listed. What it doesn't have is the exact same chance of any particular editor wishing to work on that site on a given day, however any category of sites that is not receiving attention is available for editors to take an interest in (either a new editor or one widening their interest)

The reality is that many categories are lacking interest for current editors. Sometmes the editor that built the category lost interest, or even died. Sometimes the amount of spam suggested makes an editor too frustrated to want to edit there. In the end if you see a category that needs attention and you don't want to help update/repair/add to it, then you are the problem, not the existing editors.

There are os course caveats on that - we don't let new editors loose in large categories, and you need to show you can be impartial and add not just your own but all your competitors sites without bias, but the general statement is valid. Only categories that have interested editors are consistently edited, if you have an interest, edit, don't bitch from the bleachers.

I'm glad you understood all that garbage, gimmster, I was getting ready to say, "What?".

All I got out of his post was that we had one more frustrated spammer venting.

They make it clear to the world that OPEN does not imply FREE.

Click to expand...

I don't recall anyone ever saying that the "open" in Open Directory Project does not imply "free". Many aspects of the ODP are free: it's free to suggest your site, it's free to be listed (if and when someone gets around to reviewing your site), and it's free to use our data on your site. What the ODP isn't is "open" in the sense of "open source".

It is "OPEN" to those who share a commonality in beliefs, and rejects those who fall outside its parameters.

Click to expand...

Erm, commonality of beliefs is irrelevant for a site to be listed in the directory. In fact, we even list anti-ODP sites, if they meet the guidelines.

The ODP is a major contributor of content to AOL and other similar SE's. In many ways, it appears that the ODP DMOZ is a great experiment in censorship.

Click to expand...

Censorship how? Because we don't list every single site in existence on the planet? Because we have guidelines for listability? Because editors work in an essentially random manner than precludes offering a suggestion-to-listing timeframe for listable sites?

Thank you all for responding!

Dear Gimmster, motsa and crowbar:

I wish to thank you for taking time to reply to my thread. It was a much better reply than others have gotten. Thank you.

Far from bitching from the bleachers, I have sought you out. Gimmster, Once or twice I believe I did make an attempt at becoming an editor. However at the same time, I felt that it would be unfair if my sole purpose was to list my own sites. I did notice that my category did not have an editor, so, based on your reply, my chances of getting listed were slim. So, in that respect, I am in agreement with you.

On the other hand, as it is the responsibility of an editor to use their judgment objectively when editing the DMOZ, then it should be the ODP's reponsibility to make certain that all sanctioned categories have an editor.

Again, the ODP provides its data FREE of charge to those who wish to use it. Unfortunately, those that use it derive an income from its inclusion in their own content and those lucky enough to be a part of that content gain an economic advantage as well. Since the DMOZ is somewhat static, the ability of the ODP to provide fair objectivity is diminished. This is the problem. Yes, editors may come and go, but it is their legacy that is vital and essential and is part of the problem. If a section of the DMOZ remains unchanged, it allows those that were listed once apon a time to remain listed forever. Invariabley, those such as myself who do not have "repetitious websites" and run legitimate commercial ventures fall through the cracks and are ignored. This then provides those "legacy"commercial websites within the category who have been listed when an editor was once active a tremendous traffic and rank advantage.

Motsa said

Because editors work in an essentially random manner than precludes offering a suggestion-to-listing timeframe for listable sites

Click to expand...

Essentially, the DMOZ in many ways is a Kibbutz. But in that envionment, there is a need for some Operational directive. Though there are guidelines which are outlined in the FAQ, it is not enough to use Faqtorship as an all inclusive answer. Yes people such as myself are frustrated because we do not receive or have not received the same opportunity to bloom as legacy links have. We are simply shouting "hey I'm here, over here, look at me", with the hope that someone will see our signal and not leave us stranded.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Randyf

On the other hand, as it is the responsibility of an editor to use their judgment objectively when editing the DMOZ, then it should be the ODP's reponsibility to make certain that all sanctioned categories have an editor.

Click to expand...

As we're all volunteers, who edit in our free time, how would you go about forcing more people to use their free time to edit here? Assuming that they were all honest, had no personal agendas of getting their own sites listed, and had the interest to edit somewhere specific?

I did notice that my category did not have an editor, so, based on your reply, my chances of getting listed were slim. So, in that respect, I am in agreement with you.

Click to expand...

Many categories have no named resident editors, but that doesn't mean they are not being edited, .

I edit at the US level, which means I can edit in every category within the United States, every city, county, region, metro, and state, but, I'm only named once at the US level, instead of every category that I can edit in.

Editors named in a higher category can and do edit in everything beneath them.

Again, the ODP provides its data FREE of charge to those who wish to use it. Unfortunately, those that use it derive an income from its inclusion in their own content and those lucky enough to be a part of that content gain an economic advantage as well.

Click to expand...

We have no control over how other entities use our data or what they use it for. We just collect data and offer it openly to anyone who wants to use it. Editing is a community project, by the community, for the benefit of web surfers looking for specific information, not a listing service for site owners.

Our only concern is for the web surfer, . No one else.

Far from bitching from the bleachers, I have sought you out. Gimmster, Once or twice I believe I did make an attempt at becoming an editor. However at the same time, I felt that it would be unfair if my sole purpose was to list my own sites.

Click to expand...

I do not recall any correspondence from a randyf I'm afraid. Also I am not involved in the editor approval process. You are correct that it would be unfair to become an editor *just* to list your own site, although, as I said before, it is OK to treat your site equally with others you list as an editor.

I did notice that my category did not have an editor, so, based on your reply, my chances of getting listed were slim. So, in that respect, I am in agreement with you.

Click to expand...

The fact that there is no *named* editor on a categoty does not mean there is no editor, just that no one deals only with that category, or keeps it as a pet category. Example: I can edit anywhere in Regional, my name is not on the New York City category I last edited, but is on my home state in Australia. I probably work far more in categories I have never had my name on than on the ones I do/did, and most editors that have more than a couple of categories are the same - as you gain higher level permissions, you remove the lower level ones that got you there.

Just as a matter of interest I checked, of my 36,437 logged edits, they are spread over 10,270 categories.

We are simply shouting "hey I'm here, over here, look at me", with the hope that someone will see our signal and not leave us stranded.

Click to expand...

I can sypathise with that. The fact is though that the shouting gets counterproductive and just gets both sides more annoyed. Suggesting the site is the 'look at me', there is no value in yelling louder, just like repeating something louder doen't get your English understood any better by a non-English speaker.

it should be the ODP's reponsibility to make certain that all sanctioned categories have an editor.

Click to expand...

That would be good but the public at large isn't all that keen on conscription.

Of the applications that I process, (unless the category is unsuitable for a beginner) I accept all that demonstrate the necessary communications skills, understanding of the category requested and integrity. Unsurprisingly, these requirements are analogous to the standards that any sane real life employer would set. Should I relax those standards just to boost the number of editors? No way and I don't believe that you would either.

You've chosen not to become an editor. So have a huge number of other surfers and website owners. That's OK. That's your and their freedom and editing isn't for everybody anyway.

Oh and so far today, I've joined two new editors .
<added> Five now </added>

That would be good but the public at large isn't all that keen on conscription.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Jim, now I've gotta clean the coffee off my computer screen.

Mebbe you need a :umbrella:.

I recant my initial opinion.

Gentlemen:

It appears that I was to quick to rush to judgment. I am sorry for that. The issues you present are complex and rational. I think you need to present what you've argued here to the public en masse.

If I was not working 16 hrs a day, I might reconsider editing. One idea though, you might consider working with a points reward company who could issue points to be applied to discounts based on their efforts. That might provide the incentive you need. It has been very successful in the banking industry.

Respectfully,

Randyf

Unfortunately, that wouldn't work with people who are editing for the fun of it, as a community project to help web surfers. Most of us have real jobs, this is our hobby, .

And we are an international group with editors in Hong Kong, the UK, Canada, Denmark, South Africa, Australia, Russia and Argentina to name only a few examples. Even if an incentive system had been something that people were interested in (many, or most, editors would probably leave the project if anything like that was implemented, as shown by internal surveys) it wouldn't be possible to do, so it's rather pointless even as a thought experiment.