Customer Service?

I suspect this question will only resonate in people who go out of their way to act as gatekeepers. While fully understanding and acknowledging that the ODP is a catalog (directory) of websites and has no allegiance to any one webmaster, wouldn\'t it be more productive if less time was spent on actually placing sites than on the politics of getting sites placed.

So many questions and, indeed, former forum sections have been devoted to discussing the ephemera about whether sites should be included or not. Too often some editors will go to great lengths to write treatises on why a site has not been reviewed after years , what ODP policy is, why it takes so long to get reviewed, why questions can\'t be answered, and myriad other justifications for a lack of customer service.

If certain editors would spend less time arguing why they can\'t do things and would just go visit a site and place it or not then the ODP would actually meet its mission to be the most complete directory. I suspect that in the time it takes to formulate a gate keeper response, an editor could actually go see the site in question and possibly add to the great DMOZ content.

Alas, human vanity often overrides all rationality. In bureaucracies like DMOZ there is little incentive for performance and, for some individuals, this allows too much emphasis to be placed on acting as an omnicient bully. One can see time after time that webmasters are genuinely concerned about offending an editor lest he/she exercise his petty power to penalize the site.

So instead of taking the time to review a site and include it in DMOZ, some editors choose to bask in the power they have over people\'s dreams and livelihoods instead of being helpful. For those editors who are doing this, you might want to re-evaluate why you feel the need to obstruct rather than help. For those editors actually spending more time researching, placing sites, and answering questions; thank you. DMOZ should be more about helping people access information and web sites than thinking up cutesy answers to people\'s genuine concerns.

Any editor who reads this and wants to answer at great length simply proves the point that he/she is more interested in self-aggrandizement than actually helping others and building a great directory. Just because the policy doesn\'t say that you have to help webmasters and people doesn\'t mean ODP editors have to succumb to boorish behavior. For those editors who actually help submitters, please help spread the word to those editors who continually don\'t.

There really is no substitute for excellent customer service.

Curiouslax, you seem to have overlooked the fundamental fact that webmasters aren't our customers?

The forum here is for telling people about the ODP. You shouldn't be surprised if you find people using it for that.

But if anyone reads your whole post, I trust they'll try to be more charitable than you -- they'll NOT assume you're expressing self-aggrandizement through interminable posting.

Somehow the whole concept that this forum, and the ODP itself, is a hobby for editors who volunteer their time as interests them seems to completely escape so many people who expect the ODP to be something it is not.

For example, I'm reading and posting here right now while I'm eating my dinner because I've had a long day and wanted a mental diversion. I am not in the mood to review sites, and if I weren't posting here, I would be doing something else other than editing. In other words, time I spend here doesn't take away from time I spend editing.

I'll let the more verbosely inclined pick apart the rest of your post.

I fear you have grossly misunderstood the purpose of DMOZ and the purpose of this forum. DMOZ does not offer customer service for those who choose to suggest sites or who wish to have thir own sites listed - you may have confused us with a directory such as Yahoo.

And this is not an official ODP forum, it's a voluntary effort by a small number of editors who choose to participate. If I choose to make 1000 posts here, and during that same period only review one site - that is my choice - that's how the directory runs - there is no direction or rules on how I spend my time - that may offend many, but it works well that way.

hutcheson, you are making me a smarter person. Every time I read one of your posts I have to bust out the dictionary.

I think there should be more editors but contrary to public opinion, they shouldn’t be expected to spend all of their free time in life reviewing sites.

One need only scan the posts in this forum to get a feel for the level of discontent with the way the ODP works. Once again you gate keepers follow the predictable pattern: someone has a genuine concern; editors respond with justifications, rebuttals, dreadful explanations about who we don\'t serve, and oh-so-cute twists on the original poster\'s message. The pattern through all these threads is the same and nothing is done to fix the fundamental problem the poster raises.

There is a character trait common to gate keepers that the ODP feeds. Gate keepers love being volunteer editors because it gives them the power they crave. Sadly, gate keeping volunteers are put in charge of making decisions that affect the lives of others and gate keepers are also put in charge of answering questions that they have no training, inclination or ability to answer.

The theme remains the same in post after post. Real people with real websites are unable to get their websites looked at and then can\'t get answers. This is a recipe for the conlict manifest in this forum. The editors that are helpful don\'t have to worry about posts like this, they probably go look at sites and try to solve problems. Only the gate keepers need worry about posts like this.

It is like the person at the DMV that makes you go to the end of the line because you forgot to fill in one blank, will not let you fill it out in front of them, and then insults you about how stupid you are and magnanimously explains that the policy is to fill in all the blanks.

Come on gate keepers. Do something to help people for a change and help DMOZ in the process.

I am sorry but I don't really understand the point of this thread.

Nobody would deny that the ODP does not meet the expectations of people, everyone (including the ODP) would like to see an improvement but the problem, as far as we are concerned, is one of resources.

Your solution (and correct me if I am wrong) seems to be prohibiting editors from following certain activities and ordering them to edit selected sites instead?

I would be interested in knowing not 'what people should be doing' but the practical ins-and-outs of your solution.

Thank you

lax, you have a concern. It may be legitimate or it may be not, but whatever -- it is one of a million concerns that the ODP was not designed to address.

That's OK, there are a million other websites that will address your concern, better than I could (even if I cared, which you have certainly given me no reason to!) Go there, and be concerned. Be their customer. (You can't be the ODP's customer, because you aren't buying what it offers!)

And ... you seem to think there's any experienced editor who DOESN'T know how much dissatisfaction there is. Spammers hate us. Spammers really hate us. Affiliate marketers either despise us (because we aren't in it for the money) or desparage us (because they think we are.)

And that's OK.

Now: there are no gatekeepers here. The ODP is an unlimited-access highway to a growing number of informative destinations. That is what we do: and there is no comparable tollbooth-free highway system anywhere on the internet. You don't build something like that by being a gatekeeper!

If I placed my hopes, dreams and commercial interests in an ODP listing I would be living in a cardboard box. Therefore, I use other tools of the internet to accomplish my interests.

In all fairness, there only seems to be thirty or so unpaid editors or moderators who respond to posts in this forum. For the most part questions are kindly and sufficiently answered.

Luckily, I have no interest in any website nor have I submitted a website to you guys so I only speak as a person who became interested in this forum after reading posts. It\'s really evident from the outside that the posts follow a predictable pattern and certain editors adhere to certain rote answers.

I think the problems arise because there is no mechanism in place to address concerns. The very fact that DMOZ generates such frustration is manifest evidence of problems that exist and are real to people.

Perhaps you guys should take a solution-based paradigm into consideration rather than the existing one where volunteer editors get to make decisions that feed their egos and quest for power. The fact remains that the sheer amount of frustration regarding DMOZ is a strong indicator that things could be managed in a better fashion.

Also, it\'s disingenuous to state that DMOZ is not important since it is my understanding that it is a key factor in getting listed on Google. Is Google not the most important search engine right now? To say webmasters don\'t need to be listed in Google is like pretending that you don\'t need your legs to walk, after all, you can walk using other parts of your body.

Maybe if the gate keeper editors would spend less time gate keeping and more time helping you wouldn\'t have to respond to webmasters\' angry inquiries. There just appears to be no mechanism to resolve problems on the most important directory that feeds the most important search engine. No wonder it frustrates people.

There are no gatekeepers here. So if you have something to say to gatekeepers, take it to someone who keeps a gate.

If you "need" to be listed in Google, -- then that is an issue you will need to work out with Google. It is simply not an issue with the ODP nor its editors. But it IS abuse to try to make it one.

It is a simple fact, also, that the vast majority of suggested-but-not-listed sites are from spammers. No amount of editor work will remove the amount of anger that the spammers have. And ... in our experience, every one of the obsessively-angry forum posters eventually turn out to be webmasters with neither unique content nor any way of making it.

In the face of these facts, your concern is simply misplaced. The problem can be solved only by redirecting your concern, and we'd be happy to help with that in any way we can.

You shouldn't be surprised that people consistently give the same answers to the same questions. It's called "telling the truth."

>> In bureaucracies like DMOZ... <<

There is no bureaucracy. Editors log in and edit categories. No one issues edicts as to what to add, or where, or by whom. Editors edit whatever they want to at their own speed. And with 8000 editors doing that, a diverse set of things, in a diverse range of categories happens every single day.

Some of it involves adding sites. Some of it involves re-reviewing sites. Some involving re-organising category structures. Some involves helping new editors. Some involves reviewing applications for new editors. Some involves reviewing applications of existing editors to edit in extra categories. Some involves finding sites that are no longer listable and no longer listing them. Some involves finding new URLs for websites that have moved. Some involves deleting entries that no longer work. Some involves fixing typos that were made in entries; they do happen from time to time. Some involves identifying patterns of spam and then dealing with all of the related suggestions such that no editor has to trawl through that mire again. Some invloves helping on internal or external forums. And each editor chooses what they want to do, and when....


>> offending an editor lest he/she exercise his petty power to penalize the site <<

Even if one editor was offended and chose to ignore your site suggestion, there are hundreds of other editors that could process it any time they wanted. Additionally, most editors don't even read this forum, so would be unaware of what had been said here. Finally, even for editors participating in this thread there is nothing to connect you as a poster with any sites that you may have suggested, or which you may own and which someone else suggested. So, there is no editor power, only your paranoia.


>> DMOZ should be more about helping people access information and web sites <<

Thousands of sites are added every week. See the reports. They speak for themselves. Oh; and several editors helped compile that information, and several dozen editors discussed what to present and how to present it before anything was even done. Yet another editor activity that doesn't involve "listing sites".


>> Any editor who reads this and wants to answer at great length simply proves the point that he/she is more interested in self-aggrandizement than actually helping others and building a great directory. <<

So, I should reply: "You're wrong. You have no clue. Get over it"? - at least that is short and to the point. Unfortunately your post shows that you really do not get it. At all. And, you have no right to specify who should reply to this post, or what they should be doing instead of replying.

I could ask you why you did not go out and buy a pile of food and take it to the homeless people in your area tonight, or why you didn't do some other activity, but you do with your life what you want and other people will do with theirs what they want to, right?


>> There really is no substitute for excellent customer service. <<

Ask the surfers who use our data to find stuff. Those are our customers, and they are very happy. We list 6 million sites in 600 000 categories, and you can click through the folder structure very quickly to find a bunch of sites on just about any topic you care to think of. The ODP is the largest directory of its kind. Yahoo does something different to us, and they are welcome to that. JoeAnt, etc do what the ODP does but on a much smaller scale, and Zeal, well, they will not exist after next week...


>> One need only scan the posts in this forum to get a feel for the level of discontent with the way the ODP works. <<

Yes there is discontentment -- from people who want a service that the ODP does not provide. When you suggest a site to a category it goes in a list, one list per category, of sites that people suggested. There is no tag to say the owner submitted it, or the webmaster, or a marketing firm, or some interested surfer, or a kid who found it when looking for stuff to do their homework and wants to make us aware of a cool resource - and we don't care where that suggestion came from either. If it is a site that is listable, then thanks for suggesting it.

Additionally, there is no editor crouched behind the facade waiting to "process" that suggestion. There is, however, a pool of editors that take interest in diverse topics and access various categories to work on them. When they do so, they may choose to tidy existing listings, move sites to better categories, delete stuff that isn't listable or does not work, or add more sites. Those sites to add may be already compiled by an editor when they were browsing interesting sites earlier, or may have been noticed in print advertising, seen on a billboard or store front, or whatever.

Alternatively, an editor might decide to look at the suggested sites list and then "process" a few of them. Whether that involves throwing out all the spammy ones first, picking the most likely listable ones by looking at the suggested title and description, or reviewing all those that have an R in the title, or were suggested on a Tuesday, is down to that editor, and that editor alone. But with 8 000 editors all doing different things, every part of the directory is covered by someone at some point. If I don't think that a particular category is worth my time, there are many other people that think it is worth their time and effort. If none of the current editors believe it is worth their time then that category will not be touched until someone who does believe it merits their time and energy comes along and gets on with whatever it is that they feel needs doing. Notice "NOT what the ODP feels needs doing; the ODP has no specific need at all; and certainly NOT what a site owner wants doing with their site, that just does not happen".

So, just as some people choose to play football on a Sunday, others go fishing, some go to the pub, and others sleep off the previous nights excesses, you have no right to tell the guy down the street that today he must forfit that and go cut his grass instead. Even leaving your lawnmower in the middle of his garden, and finding the grass uncut by sunset still gives you no rights to expect someone else to cut that grass because you think it needs doing. And I hope you see that analogy with any single site suggestion and its non-relationship with any editorial activity.


>> Sadly, gate keeping volunteers are put in charge of making decisions that affect the lives of others <<

Sadly for you, we are just making a directory of useful sites, any notion of "power" just doesn't come into it. You have more power over your own website than all the editors put together. We can't change your content. We can't take you offline. We can't do anything really. We might choose to list some sites and not others, just as a newspaper might write about one football match in great detail, and only devote one small paragraph to another, and ignore dozens of others that were played the same day.


>> The theme remains the same in post after post. <<

Maybe that is because the editors, who come from more than 100 different countries, and speak almost as many different languages (people who had never met before they volunteered to become editors of a topic that they were each interested in), are pretty much in agreement as to what the ODP is, and what it is not, what it does, and what it does not do, and how it should be done. Editors speak with one voice not because they have been told what to say, but because they have studied all the options (and they have been presented hundreds of times before this thread) and made their own mind up as to their opinion on these matters.


>> Real people with real websites are unable to get their websites looked at and then can\'t get answers. <<

Correct. You can't get a website "looked at". That isn't a service that the ODP offers. If I offered to "look" at your site, then tomorrow I would have 10 requests, and the day after that 20 requests, and by the end of the year probably 1000 requests per day. So, such requests are ignored. There is already a pile of suggestions. They are their own signpost. We don't need people to tell us about suggestions that are already suggested. Any editor that can edit a category is already able to access that list.

It would be like having a roadsign that says "New York 20 miles" and next to it a sign that says "See next sign for directions to New York" and next to it a sign that says "See next roadsign for a roadsign that points to a roadsign that has the directions for New York on it".

Clearly there is a need for some redundancies to be made in the Department for Redundancies, Redundancy Department.

>> It is like the person at the DMV that makes you go to the end of the line because you forgot to fill in one blank, will not let you fill it out in front of them <<

Yeah, because the time it takes for you to fill that out, you are delaying everyone else by that amount of time. Everyone behind you is thinking "dumb selfish b'stard, fill the damn form out before you get in line". To the clerk, he just wants to get rid of the line of people, and you are now an obstacle to completing that task. So, next in line gets to step up, and you lost your chance. You see, if everyone in line takes an extra 2 minutes, then the person at the back of the queue of 30 people has to wait an extra hour to get seen. The clerk is taking the most efficient way to process that line. But such an anology does not square very well with the ODP because for site suggestions there is no line, just a pile of suggestions sorted by their suggested category which any editor can take an interest in and attack at any time.

Actually, one part of this does resonate with the ODP, and that is simply those people who submit their "under construction" or "domain registered, come back soon" non-websites, hoping that by the time an editor gets to look at it they will have added some content. When an editor looks at a site like that, then the suggestion is deleted. Editors are not going to go back and check whether you have added content yet. They toss out that junk and move on: the policies do say "do not submit substantially incomplete, or under construction websites".

I deleted just such a site last week; it having been submitted just three days previously. The suggester wanted me to review a website with nothing on it!!! The day before that I had deleted another suggestion for a different "under construction" website that had been submitted some three years ago - the webmaster had taken three years to not add any content to that site. In the bitbucket it went. Is that holding some power over webmasters, or is that editors just deleting worthless junk that is submitted all day every day?


>> Do something to help people for a change and help DMOZ in the process. <<

Thousands of new sites are added every week. That is doing what the ODP promised to do. Processing particular suggestions, in any particular timescale, was not; and it says so in multiple places.


>> I think the problems arise because there is no mechanism in place to address concerns. <<

What concerns? If a site isn't listed in the directory, there is a mechanism to suggest it. If a site listing has an error there is a mechanism to suggest an update. If some quality control issue is spotted, there is a thread in this forum (with several thousand entries of concerns that have been raised, and fixed) for doing just that. If a pattern of abuse is spotted there is an abuse form that can be filled in and the matter looked into. If there is a bug in the software there is a sub-forum to address that. If a potential editor hasn't had feedback on their editor application there is a sub-forum to address that too.

If someone who suggested a site wants to know why their site hasn't been listed there is no mechanism for that, because there is usually nothing useful we could tell that person about their site that they didn't already know; and there are some 10 000 previous threads in this forum where we tried just such an experiment for a couple of years and found that it did not work.


>> Perhaps you guys should take a solution-based paradigm into consideration rather than the existing one where volunteer editors get to make decisions that feed their egos and quest for power. <<

Paradigm? Egos? Quest for Power? Give me a break.

Editors build categories of useful sites using stuff they find, and stuff they got sent. That's it really.


>> The fact remains that the sheer amount of frustration regarding DMOZ is a strong indicator that things could be managed in a better fashion. <<

I am frustrated that my site isn't #1 in Google. I have no way to get someone at Google to make it so. I am annoyed that I don't get a free advert on the front of the newspaper. There is no way to get one. The ODP collectively resists all attempts to influence listings because once you do it for one person, you will then have to do it for 100 million people. So that policy starts at the zero'th request. We already have their suggestions on file. We'll use the ones that we want to (I say "we" but each individual editor makes their own decision) and ignore / delete the ones that we don't want. What one editor does not use, another may decide to list. We don't need a spokesperson to speak on behalf of the site suggestion. The site suggestion alreadys speaks on behalf of the website, but at the end of the day, the ONLY thing that is important, and the only thing that is taken into consideration when deciding to list a website in the directory, is what the website ITSELF has to say.

You know how you feel when you ask for the Manager, and you realise that the person that appears is the clerk to the under-secretary of the deputy assistant manager? That's how we feel about anything other than what the website has to say.


>> it is my understanding that it is a key factor in getting listed on Google <<

We care NOT what Google or any of the other couple of thousand downstream users of our data do with it. But, ODP lists only 6 Million. Google lists more then 12 Billion pages. Are you saying that only that 6 million can ever do well? That's hokum.


While I was writing this post, I could have spent the time watching television, drinking down the pub, going for a walk, feeding the cat, or many other things; but I didn't.

curiouslax said:

Luckily, I have no interest in any website nor have I submitted a website to you guys so I only speak as a person who became interested in this forum after reading posts. It\'s really evident from the outside that the posts follow a predictable pattern and certain editors adhere to certain rote answers.

Click to expand...

Those "certain rote answers" appear predictable because they are to questions asked repeatedly and the answer will always be the same even if the author is different.

curiouslax said:

Also, it\'s disingenuous to state that DMOZ is not important since it is my understanding that it is a key factor in getting listed on Google. Is Google not the most important search engine right now? To say webmasters don\'t need to be listed in Google is like pretending that you don\'t need your legs to walk, after all, you can walk using other parts of your body.

Click to expand...

This is a problem with Google (and everyone else that uses ODP data that is freely accessible) not a problem with the ODP. The users of the data view it as a reliable resource for their own needs. It is their decision on how they choose to weigh that data, it is not our responsibility to act upon how someone chooses to display their results, nor will it effect how the directory or its editors build the index. Your understanding is that it is a key factor in getting listed in google, you have more of an understanding than I do. I have absolutely no idea how their results are formulated, nor does that bother me that I don't. I have no need to care or a desire to know. If I did feel it was unfair or was a problem, then I know who I would complain to and it isnt those who provide some of the data to them.