Directory Attitude - An Open Letter to DMOZ!

charlesleo · May 4, 2006

I am not going to point fingers at anyone - but post more of a general concern and disappointment in the way some people carry themselves.

After subscribing to this forum, I feel like I have to tread very carefully around the moderators and editors of the DMOZ website for fear of having a website never listed. The more I read, the more I feel like I will be neglected (perhaps even banned) if I ask about the status of a website.

That being said.

I've read some of the comments and conduct of the editors through portions of this forum and I see signs of abuse. Whether it is verbal abuse in the form of condescension, or abuse in the sense that they 'know' they have some power over listings - as a self-respecting person, I find this difficult to accept.

Now, a typical response to this may be (and please excuse me for para-phrasing), "if you don't like it, go somewhere else."

And, another common remark, "We're all volunteers here so too bad."

Another reply I saw was, "try producing a quality website."

This is just a couple of examples - the list could go on. My point of this post is the following:

I think the members here should be courteous and somewhat professional in response to others - even if it's completely volunteer. There is no excuse to exercise one's own "power" and make someone else feel bad or under a perceived 'threat.' Volunteers shouldn't be exempt from having their privileges revoked based on how they conduct themselves. There are plenty of good people here willing to fill these shoes.

motsa · May 4, 2006

Yes, everyone should be courteous to everyone else, members and editors alike.

I feel like I have to tread very carefully around the moderators and editors of the DMOZ website for fear of having a website never listed.

Why? No editor here has ever rejected a listable site simply because its owner posted here. Very few editors even come here, let alone post here. We list sites -- if a site is listable, it's listable, regardless of whether the owner has annoyed us here.

The more I read, the more I feel like I will be neglected (perhaps even banned) if I ask about the status of a website.

Asking about the status of a website would get you a response pointing you to the announcement at the top of every forum here that says we no longer give status checks. It wouldn't get you banned, either as a member here or from being listed eventually in the ODP itself.

Now, a typical response to this may be (and please excuse me for para-phrasing), "if you don't like it, go somewhere else."

The way you've paraphrased (and obviously perceived) the responses is somewhat lobsided. The ODP functions the way it functions. Many of the changes that people want to see made to the way it functions are either just not going to happen or aren't considered a high priority at the moment. So, editors are really speaking a simple fact when they say something along the lines of your paraphrase. Sure, they could sugar coat it but it ultimately comes down to "If you don't like how a site is run, go to a different site."

And, another common remark, "We're all volunteers here so too bad."

Again, an unfortunate paraphrasing. We *are* all volunteers yet people expect us to devote ourselves to what they want us to do. That's not how the ODP functions. We're not going to force people to edit specific areas, or put in a minimum number of edits a week or be removed if they don't, or process suggested sites (in any particular order or even at all), or...

Another reply I saw was, "try producing a quality website."

Without knowing the context, I can't comment on that but it's not necessarily rude.

Volunteers shouldn't be exempt from having their privileges revoked based on how they conduct themselves. There are plenty of good people here willing to fill these shoes.

This is not an official ODP forum. An editor's conduct here does not (and should not) have an effect on their status as an editor at dmoz.org. And there isn't a finite limit to the number of editors we can have -- an editor is not taking up space, preventing another editor from being accepted.

hutcheson · May 4, 2006

When you want information, you ignore the tone of the message, and focus on the facts conveyed. When you want to cause contention, you do the opposite.

If you feel that you have received incorrect or misleading information, or even bad advice, then that would be a matter for real concern.

If you've gotten useless information or advice -- you should look carefully at the question you asked. It may have been the wrong question, or it may have been misunderstood. You might need to re-phrase the question.

And, if you feel there's an attitude to the answer, you REALLY ought to look at the attitude in the question. I think a lot of people ask questions without realizing what kind of assumptions -- incredibly arrogant, incredibly ignorant, or both -- are inextricably embedded in them. It may not be a deliberately insulting insinuation, it may be just thoughtlessness -- but that kind of thoughtlessness can reveal the most contemptible characteristics of a person -- in short, the kind of characteristics you definitely wouldn't want to show when you're hoping for a mannered response.

If you want a good reception in any kind of community, you show the corresponding side of your own personality. Among professionals, wear a carefully stuffed white shirt. Among academics, use long words even when they're not needed. Among volunteers, think about what would be considered credentials or expressions of public spirit and activity.

One of the most arrogant things a person can do is to go into a community, not only bearing the traditional community symbols but berating the community for not using different symbols instead. Go into a synagogue and propose they replace their menorah with a swastika. Go into an academic community and insult anyone who uses words of more than two syllables. Go into a ... volunteer community and expect them to talk like ... what?

It's a good approach, if you want to start a riot. There are no other conceivable effects.

Was that your purpose, or are you just that unfamiliar with volunteer communities?

You're welcome to stick around and learn something about volunteer communities in general, or the ODP in particular. But if you want to form a community with a different culture, then ... go somewhere else.

That's good advice.

charlesleo · May 4, 2006

Thanks for the response and clarification Motsa. I can see your point of view. Perhaps I am being somewhat lop-sided, but I did come across quite a few posts that went along those lines. I am a member of many different forums, and I don't see this conduct that often.

As you will all probably agree, being listed in the ODP is unfortunately very important. And the 'unfortunate' part is that listings are now taking a very long time. Back in 2000, my old website was listed within a couple days. My current site has taken over a year and it's still not up without any notice as to its status. Being a small business owner, this is almost a matter of life and death as I work largely over the Internet and have tried to use it as a source of obtaining new clients. Perhaps this melt-down in speed is a result of an aging system setup combined with bloat and exponential Internet growth.

It says right on the main DMOZ website, "72,384 editors" as if it is some number to be proud of. I am willing to be that "71,500" of those editors are dead, ineffectual weight. DMOZ lists "5,311,179" websites. Rounded off, the whole entire site would have left "73" website listings for each editor if they were to look at the entire directory all at once. I completely understand that this is not the case - but that this number is far less than what I have described.

Seeing that the timeline for listing is slow and semi-ineffectual (and we can argue all day about this being the case), perhaps the site owner(s) and people in charge need to reevalute the system as a whole.

Without seeing the interface when an editor receives a submitted site, I am assuming that alot of this unfortunately a manual process. I propose the following changes to expedite the editorial system:

1) Simple 'Accept' or 'Deny' submission radio buttons. Nothing more nothing less. Just a link to the category and a link to the website.

No reason has to be given but an auto-generated message is sent to the under-user. An editor has no responsibility to edit a user's postings or explain why something was not accepted. It's completely up to the user to formulate a grammatically-correct sentence.

Perhaps this system is two-phase so that another editor has to click to push "accept" or "deny" in order to push a posting through.

2) Remove editors that haven't done a single thing within a month's time. I'm not certain how the system works, but the "ocassional" hopping online to post a "friend's website" is unacceptable. There's no doubt that this happened and is primary reason why people apply to be editors in the first place. "72,384" editors tells me that this is bloated and ineffectual. DMOZ probably spends a ton of time accepting and denying editorial applications.

At such a high number, the sense of collaboration diminishes. It also leaves more room to police these people. Having an infinite number of editors can work against you in a myriad of different ways.

3) Simply remove editors and moderators that are rude or in some way demonstrate an abuse of "power." It's uncalled for no matter what time, place, or position. It shouldn't matter if it is volunteer or paid, or if it's here or the official DMOZ site. Since there are so many, losing editors should be 'a drop in the ocean.'

charlesleo · May 4, 2006

The purpose of my post is that I'm pretty upset it has taken so long to be listed and it doesn't look like im the minority. I've been waiting long. Very long. Extraordinarly long. With no end in sight except for "if you don't like it go somewhere else

." I know what it was like 6 years ago here. And I am complaining. You know as well as I do how important it is to get listed here. Please don't play ignorant with me. I also realize it's not DMOZ's "problem", but you do understand the gravity of a listing on this site nevertheless.

If you honestly think that things do not need to be fixed, that's fair. From my experience, I clearly see a largely broken and ineffectual system that needs to be readdressed.

A totally separate solution is to convince search engines to stop weighing so heavily towards DMOZ and come up with another solution. It's a great site in theory (and was a great site back in the day), but it seems like it has crawled to a turtle's pace. And you know as well as I do what it's like to have to go through bureaucracy and loads of red tape to get to the top. It's not going to happen any time soon unless the leaders go off in a completely direction.

You're welcome to stick around and learn something about volunteer communities in general, or the ODP in particular. But if you want to form a community with a different culture, then ... go somewhere else.

That's exactly what I expected. That may be true, but it's very rude. There's nothing wrong with going into a community and asking questions or shaking things up. If you don't like it, you have a choice not to answer it. If that person is being rude, simply warn them twice then ban them next time.

nea · May 4, 2006

charlesleo said:
As you will all probably agree, being listed in the ODP is unfortunately very important.

I have seen that point of view being argued -- and the opposite point of view as well. I think most of us will agree that there is an unfortunate perception among many webmasters and SEO people that a listing in the ODP is very important. Whether it is or not is a matter of perception.

charlesleo said:
And the 'unfortunate' part is that listings are now taking a very long time.

Not quite factually correct, if you'll pardon me saying so. Tens of thousands of sites are reviewed every week, thousands of them are listed. Many hundreds of them were never suggested to the directory at all. I often review sites that have been suggested to the directory only a week or two earlier. (I also come across a lot of suggestions from 2003 or earlier.)

charlesleo said:
It says right on the main DMOZ website, "72,384 editors" as if it is some number to be proud of. I am willing to be that "71,500" of those editors are dead, ineffectual weight.

The number of active editor accounts is usually around 9000, sometimes over 10000. The numer 72384 is the total number of editors since the ODP was begun.

charlesleo said:
Without seeing the interface when an editor receives a submitted site, I am assuming that alot of this unfortunately a manual process.

See, here our opinions differ completely. It is a GOOD thing that the review process is manual. That's what the ODP is all about.

charlesleo said:
1) Simple 'Accept' or 'Deny' submission radio buttons. Nothing more nothing less. Just a link to the category and a link to the website.

No reason has to be given but an auto-generated message is sent to the under-user. An editor has no responsibility to edit a user's postings or explain why something was not accepted. It's completely up to the user to formulate a grammatically-correct sentence.

An interesting suggestion. It would lead to a lower directory quality. An important part of the editor's job is to write the title and description of the site s/he lists in the directory. Your proposal to redefine the editing process is very far from our goals I'm afraid -- we're not looking for lower quality. (Forgive me for being so blunt, but that's what would happen.)

Or are you proposing that only those sites which are suggested with a title and description that complies to the guidelines should be accepted? Again, that would lead to a lower directory quality, since the thousands of listed sites every week would become perhaps a hundred. We really don't want the directory to stop growing.

charlesleo said:
Perhaps this system is two-phase so that another editor has to click to push "accept" or "deny" in order to push a posting through.

That would lead to the same work being done twice... which would not make the review process happen faster, and I think that's what you're after.

charlesleo][COLOR="darkorange" said:
2) Remove editors that haven't done a single thing within a month's time.[/COLOR]

There is such a system, except the grace period is longer than a month. (It's quite possible to be on holiday for five weeks and not look at a computer, you know!)

charlesleo said:
I'm not certain how the system works, but the "ocassional" hopping online to post a "friend's website" is unacceptable. There's no doubt that this happened and is primary reason why people apply to be editors in the first place.

How do you know this? If you know it for a fact, we are very anxious to know it, too, and to know your sources for it -- since the behaviour you describe is directly contrary to the editor guidelines.

Eric-the-Bun · May 4, 2006

I am afraid that you are covering well-trodden ground.

There is a lot more to reviewing and editing than just a simple accept/deny (see guidelines)

Editors do what they can - an editor making one edit a month means we gain 1 edit a month, removing them means we lose 1 edit a month.

There is a system in place to handle abuse of the directory.

I suggest you read the ODP report in the 'Inside the ODP' section. This will give you a better insight into what is going on.

Whilst we appreciate that businesses are doing what businessmen do to promote their businesses, this is not what the ODP is about.

Basing a critique of the ODP on the fact that your site has not been listed is not logical as we have not listed millions of sites.

regards

lmocr · May 4, 2006

The number of editors on the front page of www.dmoz.org is the total number accepted throughout the years, for current numbers please read the monthly reports.

The suggestions you've made have been discussed (almost) to death. Please search the forums and you'll find the discussions.

Editors are required to make at least one relevant edit every 4 months - the time frame allows editors to take a short break from editing (real life comes first) without having to go through the reinstatement process.

Assuming your motives are pure, you could always volunteer for a small category in a noncompetitive area to help out. Eventually, after you've learned from the inside, you could apply for the category where your site might be listed.

motsa · May 4, 2006

1) Simple 'Accept' or 'Deny' submission radio buttons. Nothing more nothing less. Just a link to the category and a link to the website.

No reason has to be given but an auto-generated message is sent to the under-user. An editor has no responsibility to edit a user's postings or explain why something was not accepted. It's completely up to the user to formulate a grammatically-correct sentence.

Perhaps this system is two-phase so that another editor has to click to push "accept" or "deny" in order to push a posting through.

The suggestion that we offer some kind of message to people who've suggested their sites has been made many times and been discussed (and rejected). I'm not saying it will never, ever happen but it's so far off the ODP radar that it isn't even a blip.

2) Remove editors that haven't done a single thing within a month's time. I'm not certain how the system works, but the "ocassional" hopping online to post a "friend's website" is unacceptable. There's no doubt that this happened and is primary reason why people apply to be editors in the first place. "72,384" editors tells me that this is bloated and ineffectual. DMOZ probably spends a ton of time accepting and denying editorial applications.

At such a high number, the sense of collaboration diminishes. It also leaves more room to police these people. Having an infinite number of editors can work against you in a myriad of different ways.

I will never understand why people think that removing an editor who is making only a couple of edits every now and then is beneficial. An editor is not taking up space, preventing someone else from becoming an editor. Therefore, an inactive editor is not a hinderance. Sure, we'd like editors to be more active but it's a volunteer position. We take what they can offer. If it's two edits every couple of months, that's still two more than we'd have otherwise. If you read the guidelines, you'll see that just editing sites you're affiliated with can be grounds for removal so I'm not talking about the people who just "hop online to post a friend's website". I'm talking about the person who edits their town's business category, adding a local business every now and then; or the hobbyist who logs in every few weeks to check for submissions to the category for his favourite obscure pasttime.

"72,384" is the number of editors who have ever edited over the past 8 years, not the current number of editors. I believe about 7000 are active at any given time and that number doesn't really change a whole lot from year to year.

3) Simply remove editors and moderators that are rude or in some way demonstrate an abuse of "power." It's uncalled for no matter what time, place, or position. It shouldn't matter if it is volunteer or paid, or if it's here or the official DMOZ site. Since there are so many, losing editors should be 'a drop in the ocean.'

Again, this is an unofficial forum. What an editor does here does not affect their status as an editor. We may or may not ever find ourselves in a position of having to demote someone here because of how they post here but that would only affect their status here at resource-zone.com, not at dmoz.org. While their status as an editor affects their status here, the reverse is (appropriately) not true.

[Added: I kept getting sidetracked -- no one had posted when I started this post.

]

charlesleo · May 4, 2006

Thank you everyone for your generous response and time.

"NEA" said:
Whether it is or not is a matter of perception.

It isn't a matter of perception. The fact is alot of these search engines use these sites. I've been looking into this, and pretty much any website that is in the top 30 of Google is also listed in DMOZ. There's several other major factors aside from this which come into play, but this is (rather unfortunately), a large determinent to higher ranking.

"NEA" said:
(I also come across a lot of suggestions from 2003 or earlier.)

That's pretty bad if you don't mind me saying so. Youd think those should be bumped up or new editors assigned to those sections.

"NEA" said:
It would lead to a lower directory quality.

I disagree. I think it's more efficient and forces people to write proper descriptions from the very beginning, reducing the time needed for the editorial process.

"NEA" said:
That would lead to the same work being done twice... which would not make the review process happen faster, and I think that's what you're after.

This is just a fail-safe step. If a simplified system was used, this could be more effectual in quickly weeding out various factors for inclusion.

"NEA" said:
There is such a system, except the grace period is longer than a month

With 9-10,000 "active" editors, I don't see how having stricter guidelines could hurt.

"NEA" said:
How do you know this? If you know it for a fact, we are very anxious to know it, too, and to know your sources for it -- since the behaviour you describe is directly contrary to the editor guidelines.

You and I know that this is difficult to prove, but probably more than likely happens - especially when one has 10,000 "active" editors to police. It's pure conjecture, but knowing human nature I would have to say that this is more than likely the case in many situations.

"Eric-the-Bun" said:
I suggest you read the ODP report in the 'Inside the ODP' section.

Thank you. I have already.

"Eric-the-Bun" said:
this is not what the ODP is about

First and foremost, I am an artist trying to make ends meet. You may 'perceive' me as a 'businessman,' but I am an ordinary person trying to live paycheck to paycheck with no apparent end in sight.

I understand that 'promotion' and 'advertising' is not what the directory is about. But cutting through all the wording, the ODP is simply a directory in which people list useful resources on the internet. The ironic part is that probably 99% of all people posting to it use it with this end in mind.

"Eric-the-Bun" said:
the fact that your site has not been listed is not logical as we have not listed millions of sites

Perhaps on the main submission page, there should be a warning in big red letters stating "it can take up to several years to be posted to this directory."

"lmocr" said:
for current numbers please read the monthly reports.

Thanks for the link. I'll look at it soon.

"lmocr" said:
Please search the forums and you'll find the discussions

Yep. I noticed it's all over the place. 90% of them should be deleted. Perhaps this is indicative that some of these typical responses should made more obvious to the general public.

"lmocr" said:
Editors are required to make at least one relevant edit every 4 months - the time frame allows editors to take a short break from editing (real life comes first)

That's seems too lenient.

"lmocr" said:
Assuming your motives are pure, you could always volunteer for a small category in a noncompetitive area to help out.

I have to the category I wanted to be listed in. My motives were:

1) To help expedite the system for others including myself
2) To get my website listed

I clearly put both of those in my reasons for applying. In no way is it to 'rub-out' competition. It's the brutal and honest truth. I was told that this section was too broad (which in this subset I disagree with) and am "welcome to reapply to different sections with less broad-ranging listings."

This section did not seem too broad for me. In fact, I am willing to bet it has not moved much (if at all) in the past year:

http://dmoz.org/Business/Construction_and_Maintenance/Design/Illustration_and_Rendering/

motsa · May 4, 2006

That's exactly what I expected. That may be true, but it's very rude. There's nothing wrong with going into a community and asking questions or shaking things up. If you don't like it, you have a choice not to answer it. If that person is being rude, simply warn them twice then ban them next time.

See, I don't consider what he wrote to be rude. Yes, it was blunt. But the idea behind the statement is critical. If people come here to this forum with ideas of remaking the ODP after their own ideas of how it should be run, even in the face of editors explaining (and explaining over again over the years that this forum has been here) why things are the way they are and why certain suggestions aren't going to be taken seriously, eventually someone has to be blunt.

I'm not saying we (here or at the ODP) don't have room to grow and improve. But the areas where you (and others) see critical need for change aren't always the same areas where we see a need for change; your priorities aren't ours. The growth rate of the directory has been fairly steady since I started as an editor 6 years ago. If it's taking longer now for listable suggested sites to be reviewed, blame it on the abuse perpetrated by the spammers of the world that overwhelms many categories, making them less enjoyable to edit (and thus more prone to neglect). But we're still here, slogging through the suggested sites when we feel it's useful or going out and hunting down sites on our own if it turns out that's more useful. The directory still grows, still expands, still refines itself. That net growth is what we are about. The plight of any specific site within that quest for growth can't be something we can focus on.

motsa · May 4, 2006

That's pretty bad if you don't mind me saying so. Youd think those should be bumped up...

There are a couple of key things you need to understand about the ODP: (1) The pool of suggested sites is just one tool that editors can use to build up a category; (2) editors may choose to review sites in the suggestion pool in any order that they want--FIFO is not forced on them. Many people can't accept those two points but they are critical to understanding how the ODP works and why editors tend to bristle when people want to fix what they don't think is broken.

...or new editors assigned to those sections.

We don't "assign" editors to anything. People choose where they would like to edit and what they would like to do when they do edit. I've done almost 50,000 logged edits in my time here -- if someone had forced me to edit specific areas where I didn't have an interest, I'd probably have quit long before now or at the very least would have spent less time editing than I do.

I disagree. I think it's more efficient and forces people to write proper descriptions from the very beginning, reducing the time needed for the editorial process.

Our goal is to grow the directory. Tossing out suggestions because someone didn't write a perfect title or description doesn't really help us to do that.

With 9-10,000 "active" editors, I don't see how having stricter guidelines could hurt.

More importantly, how could they help? The answer: they wouldn't. So why implement something that doesn't help?

This section did not seem too broad for me. In fact, I am willing to bet it has not moved much (if at all) in the past year:

The category you indicated is too large for a new editor. If you really want to help out by becoming an editor, you'll pick a smaller category to start out in.

lmocr · May 4, 2006

motsa said:
The category you indicated is too large for a new editor. If you really want to help out by becoming an editor, you'll pick a smaller category to start out in.

When I started, the category I chose had 12 sites in it - but I knew there were at least three times that many not listed. Now that category has 50 sites in it (and it's not a highly competitive category) and most of those weren't suggested.

charlesleo said:
It isn't a matter of perception. The fact is alot of these search engines use these sites. I've been looking into this, and pretty much any website that is in the top 30 of Google is also listed in DMOZ. There's several other major factors aside from this which come into play, but this is (rather unfortunately), a large determinent to higher ranking.

This can be a "chicken and egg" type of thing

. Building the category for Tenino, Washington (which had maybe 8 or 10 sites originally) - I went to Google and searched for Tenino, then added all the sites I found. Quite a few editors do this sort of thing. So did those sites get in the top 30 because of their listing in DMOZ? Or, did those sites get listed in DMOZ because of their top 30 position in Google?

dogbows · May 4, 2006

charlesleo said:
I've been looking into this, and pretty much any website that is in the top 30 of Google is also listed in DMOZ.

Charles, the editors here have pretty much covered your misconceptions of how dmoz works. I am only going to address this one. Perhaps you should turn this particular statement around to see the real truth. Editors use numerous methods to find and review sites other than the submission pool. Google searches are used at times by almost every editor to find quality sites to list. All this statement tells me is that editors have used that key phase to find the top sites in Google on that particular subject and then listed them, not the other way around.

As a former editor, I once suggested 19 sites to one very small category that I found in the top pages of a Google search. If you used the same phrase now that I did then, you would find that they are listed in the directory, but the fact is that someone found them in a Google search before they were listed in the directory.

Sorry, lmocr was faster.

Eric-the-Bun · May 4, 2006

But cutting through all the wording, the ODP is simply a directory in which people list useful resources on the internet.

You have it in a nutshell!

The problem the ODP has with the public is in the perception of what is a useful resource which is where the frustrations creep in.

I added a category on Dutch folkdancing because I am interested in the subject. 99.999999999999% of people (including ODP editors) would perhaps feel that another subject might be more useful. However it is a good example of what the ODP is - the category exists as a by-product of my enjoying my hobby - not because the webmasters of the sites wanted to be promoted or someone said 'Let There Be A Category On This Subject!'. Each editor works in the areas they want to (and also in areas they would rather not but somebody has to

) and this means the 'coverage' throughout the directory is variable.

One area of frustration on our side is where the 'hobby' aspect of the ODP gets ignored. Webmasters often say that they place the responsibility for their livelihoods in our hands. Personally I resent that.

First and foremost, I am an artist trying to make ends meet. You may 'perceive' me as a 'businessman,' but I am an ordinary person trying to live paycheck to paycheck with no apparent end in sight.

And are editors any different? I have a day-time job, I struggle to make ends meet, I have a family etc. etc. and I want a hobby that allows me to enjoy myself. Is that too much to ask?

regards

charlesleo · May 4, 2006

"lmocr" said:
So did those sites get in the top 30 because of their listing in DMOZ? Or, did those sites get listed in DMOZ because of their top 30 position in Google?

What you are saying is that did the chicken or the egg come first. Also you are stating that some editors manually fill out the directory based on the initial search results in an engine such as Google.

Well, many search engines (including Google) ask you to submit your site to DMOZ or wait for other spiders to dig through links to find you. Google is not the only place which suggests a DMOZ submission.

I understand that it's not DMOZ's responsibility for what actions other search engine choose to do or not do. But to deny a listing here has an impact on search rankings would be ignorance. Google as well as many other sites partially operate on the principal that ranking is partially determined by the amount of sites linking to other ones.

So speculation as to a search engine 'level' of what a listing here places you is pure conjecture, but it definitely has some impact whether or not it is a chicken or the egg.

I've been going through top 30 websites for many different categories, and more than likely those top 30 at anyone time have a listing in DMOZ. I can't judge chicken or egg - but it is what it is.

"dogbows" said:
this statement tells me is that editors have used that key phase to find the top sites in Google on that particular subject and then listed them, not the other way around.

So what I'm coming to understand is that it really is up to the editors discretion here whether or not they want to follow 'queue' order. Does this happen more often than not? Also, how can you determine how many editors are interested in the categories a person is submitting to? And how do you see the frequency of updates by them within a particular section? Like I stated before, I waited over a year - I think maybe even two.

At any point in time an editor can just spark up a search engine search and start adding items they may find? I would think actual submissions would take precedence over completely random inclusions.

charlesleo · May 4, 2006

"Eric-the-Bun" said:
Dutch folkdancing

Wow. That topic never ever crossed my mind. I'm kinda left speechless on that one lol.

I guess the system allows for variety and pretty 'unusual' inclusions that may otherwise be left ignored. This approach in this regards is an excellent thing.

"Eric-the-Bun" said:
Webmasters often say that they place the responsibility for their livelihoods in our hands. Personally I resent that.

Completely understandable. No one should expect this from any of the volunteers here.

Without knowing how in the inner-editorial process is organized, this probably causes alot of resentment on the end of submitters - many of us whom wrongly feel neglected. I feel bad for you guys/gals if this is how you interpret people's reactions. Alot of it is due to operational misunderstanding.
But then again you always have a couple jerks out there that ruin a good thing for everybody. I'm sorry you have gotten such a bad repetoire these past few years as a search engines best friend. It was a different world when I submitted my first website to here 7 years ago.

So DMOZ is not a first come first serve basis - it is to a very remote degree depending on whether or not you get lucky an editor is actively engaged in a subsection. So my post could technically be sitting in some 'dark storage closet' for some editor to ocassionally pop-in once every 4 months to update 1 or 2 other posts. In my case I'm going on a very long long time here.

As I mentioned before, inclusion to the directory has some sort of impact - on what level most of us will never ever really know.

Is there a queue of posts that are so old that they should really be pushed out the door? I was hoping to be in it. Unfortunately, I resubmitted so I'm probably at the bottom of another 2+ years again...

Sachti · May 4, 2006

charlesleo said:
At any point in time an editor can just spark up a search engine search and start adding items they may find? I would think actual submissions would take precedence over completely random inclusions.

Actually editors are encouraged to do so. It is up to the editor which source s/he is using to add unique content to the directory. What you call a "submission" is actually a suggestion, not more.

pvgool · May 4, 2006

charlesleo said:
What you are saying is that did the chicken or the egg come first. Also you are stating that some editors manually fill out the directory based on the initial search results in an engine such as Google.

Yes, they do. Or they use any other good source for new sites to list, like local newspapers.

charlesleo said:
I understand that it's not DMOZ's responsibility for what actions other search engine choose to do or not do. But to deny a listing here has an impact on search rankings would be ignorance.

Sites are only denied a listing if they violate DMOZ guidelines.
And to be honest most DMOZ editors (at least the ones I know) don't care at all about the effect a listing in DMOZ has or doesn't have on search rankings.

charlesleo said:
Google as well as many other sites partially operate on the principal that ranking is partially determined by the amount of sites linking to other ones.

Yes, and as with all other sites that link to yours DMOZ is only 1 link.

charlesleo said:
So what I'm coming to understand is that it really is up to the editors discretion here whether or not they want to follow 'queue' order. Does this happen more often than not?

Yes, I think this happens all the time. Editors have several ways to order suggested sites. On date of suggestion is only one of them, and one I personaly have never used in all the years I am an editor.

charlesleo said:
Also, how can you determine how many editors are interested in the categories a person is submitting to? And how do you see the frequency of updates by them within a particular section?

Editors can not determine what other editors are likely to do. So I'm sure non-editors also can't.

charlesleo said:
Like I stated before, I waited over a year - I think maybe even two.

Why have you been waiting. Didn't you have anything better to do in all this time. A DMOZ listing will not make your site a succes. It is either a succes without DMOZ or it will never have succes. You don't need a listing at all. If you get one just see it as a bonus.

charlesleo said:
At any point in time an editor can just spark up a search engine search and start adding items they may find? I would think actual submissions would take precedence over completely random inclusions.

No they don't. And in a lot of categories the quality of suggested sites is so low that it isn't worth looking for the one listable site amongst the hunderds or thousands of suggested sites.

motsa · May 4, 2006

Google is not the only place which suggests a DMOZ submission.

Suggesting a submission is not the same thing as requiring a submission. The only thing Google requires an ODP submission for is their directory...because it's a copy of the ODP.

So what I'm coming to understand is that it really is up to the editors discretion here whether or not they want to follow 'queue' order.

Correct.

Does this happen more often than not?

Any given editor can really only tell you what they themselves do; anything further is speculation. Of the editors whose general process I know, none follow a FIFO order. For me personally, I never follow a FIFO order. The "queue" (or "pool" as we generally call it now) can be sorted by a number of fields including date submitted - using FIFO is no more valid than going through it alphabetically. I suspect most editors use a process that on the surface would appear random, hunting and pecking at submissions in an order bearing no resemblance to any sort field.

Also, how can you determine how many editors are interested in the categories a person is submitting to?

You can't. You can tell who has the ability to edit any particular category (i.e. anyone editing parent categories up to the top level of the section, cateditalls and catmods for that section, all editalls, all metas, and all admins) but you can't determine which of them might feel like editing the category you're interested in at any given point.

And how do you see the frequency of updates by them within a particular section? Like I stated before, I waited over a year - I think maybe even two.

Editors can. How likely someone is to review the suggested sites in a particular category depends on a number of things such as their current activity level, interest level, what editing activities they're concentrating on, whether they're even looking at the suggestion pool even if they're active in the category, and so on.

At any point in time an editor can just spark up a search engine search and start adding items they may find? I would think actual submissions would take precedence over completely random inclusions.

Not only can editors use search engines but many of us have gathered URLs from non-Web sources such as TV ads, truck side panels, brochures, and newspapers. If there's one thing you take away from this discussion, it should be the idea that the suggestion pool is just one tool (and not the primary one at that) that editors can use to build a category. It's not our priority.

Directory Attitude - An Open Letter to DMOZ!

charlesleo

Member

motsa

hutcheson

charlesleo

Member

charlesleo

Member

nea

Meta & kMeta

Eric-the-Bun

lmocr

Member

motsa

charlesleo

Member

motsa

motsa

lmocr

Member

dogbows

Member

Eric-the-Bun

charlesleo

Member

charlesleo

Member

Sachti

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

motsa