Automated Site Status

Ah, you're thinking from the webmaster-ulterior-motive standpoint again.

That standpoint is best represented by the webmaster on his own site, and best totally ignored by the ODP editor doing rounds.

How does that have anything to do with the webmasters standpoint?

If your goal is to do a service to websurfers then wouldnt you want to list the best sites possible and not the ones in the top 30-40 on google?

I honestly am not even really sure what you mean by your last post. If you mean what I think you mean, I think you totally missed my point.

Editors that rely on Google need to dig deeper. They are not doing the ODP justice.

Click to expand...

That really borders on a cheap shot at the editing community.

Do you really believe that ODP editors are so single-minded that they are only capable of search Google? If so, then the discussion is probably over.

Editors use a wide variety of sources to find sites, from voter pamphlets to bus stop graffiti. Google is simply a source. Site suggestions are simply a source. Bus stop graffiti is simply a source. Business cards jammed behind pay telephones are simply a source. Church bulletins are simply a source. Junk mail is simply a source. Web links are simply a source. other directories are simplya source.

Editors, all of whom are actually capable of independent thought, are able to decide what sources they choose to use for finding sites to list. They choose the source that best serves the type of sites they are trying to add and the categories where they are adding them. They do this because they care about the directory and the people who use it.

For that reason it is impossible and impractical for you, or anyone else, to try and dictate how an editor should go about adding sites. with 7,000+ active editors, there are, I can assure you, 7,000+ approaches to adding sites.

>>By giving sites that have already made it even more weight, thus pushing great sites even further down in the results.

>How does that have anything to do with the webmasters standpoint?

What in that has anything to do with the editor's standpoint?

What editor would ever assume that a site was "great" just because it was somewhere deep in Google? Who doesn't know most of what's on the web, and on Google, is incoherent and plagiarized (and mostly both)?

What editor would ever assume that it mattered what order the unique content would be listed in?

In fact, what editor would ever assume that there was a unique ordering of sites that represented any possible useful definition of "greatness"?

What editor would ever stop to consider the effect of a site review on a single webmaster, unknown and unknowable, with no relationship whatsoever to the reviewed site?

What editor would NOT want to focus his attention solely on "made" sites -- that is, on sites that gave evidence of being around for the duration, so that his work would be more durable? Who WOULDN'T prefer to work with a stable company with a reputation, rather than on a potential fly-by-night? Who wouldn't be ESPECIALLY preferential to "made" companies when recommending a potential supplier to a friend?

spectregunner said:

That really borders on a cheap shot at the editing community.

Do you really believe that ODP editors are so single-minded that they are only capable of search Google? If so, then the discussion is probably over.

Click to expand...

I was simply responding to what one of your fellow editors said.

That being said, do I think there is a percentage of the 7k that use google exclusively? Maybe. Do I think that many are inactive or incapable of a thought? Probably. So how many good editors do you really think there are? I think people should be taking shots at the ODP now days. I think the editors should be as well. Its OK to admit that things could be better, and what was once a great managable idea a a few years back, is getting to be a pretty big problem. If one thinks that anything is perfect you are implying that it can not get any better. The ODP can certainly get better...so can I, so can you, even hutch!

None of this is personal. I am sure you and a few others here do a great job. I also bet it gets frustrating. Dont snap back at me, when I was even snapping to begin with. Quite the opposite. I have been doing what I can to help out by posting bad links and hijacks. I would do more, but my editor apps have been turned down 3 times

hutcheson said:

What in that has anything to do with the editor's standpoint?

Click to expand...

It has to do with the surfers standpoint. Isnt that who you cater to?

EDIT: Hutch, a bit of friendly advice. People dont know what you are saying at least 50% of the time. I think that is dangerous. I dont doubt that you make total sense to yourself, but I am willing to bet I am not the only one here that thinks "what the hell is he talking about" every other post you make. You are smart, you are deep, maybe its not a bad thing, but think about who you are talking to here. Ever heard of the saying "the masses are asses?" I scored a 1250 on my SAT's with a hangover, my IQ is right around 140, and I have to read your posts twice.

chaz7979 said:

Its OK to admit that things could be better, and what was once a great managable idea a a few years back, is getting to be a pretty big problem. If one thinks that anything is perfect you are implying that it can not get any better. The ODP can certainly get better

Click to expand...

Editors are the ones that are most aware of the things that could be improved. Even in the times you call "a great managable idea a a few years back" we knew that things could be improved. But the main difference between editors and webmasters is that we have totaly different ideas about which areas need improvement. The areas most important for webmasters will certainly not be changed in favor of the websmasters in the near overseable future. We focus our limited sources on the things that are important to DMOZ, our customers and the editors. Site status is not one of them. And in my opinion never will be one.

I am only thinking of things from the editors persective, and I have never talked about anything to do with site status. I fear there might be some kind of language barrier here.

I am only thinking of things from the editors persective

Click to expand...

Don't personalize this, but....

Isn't that more than just a bit difficult when one is not an editor, one does not know the tools we have, one has never seen an unreviewed queue, and one is not privvy to the volumes of advice and discussion that are available on the private editor fora?

Again, in a general sense and not aimed at you, that is often the difficulty with unsolicited advice: the intentions are usually good and honorable; but with only a very small part of the picture it is difficult (to say the least) to provide meaningful suggestions.