Directory Attitude - An Open Letter to DMOZ!

Thank you lissa for taking the time to look into that for me. I really appreciate your help - kinda don't know what to say now. Thanks.

I'll look into this now.

Well for what it's worth, I can see valid points all around.

I sympathize with the moderators here. I've moderated a forum for a very popular rock band and it can be very rewarding and very frustrating at the same time. Dealing with large numbers of people who want something from you, whether it be a directory listing or a request that the band play at their wedding can be trying.

In my journey as a Netizen, I've learned that, for the most part, people don't read FAQ's. If I had a dollar for every backstage pass request or offer of a sexual favor in exchange, I could retire, with a smile on my face. Despite the fact my tag line clearly states I do not have the authority nor the power to grant those types of requests, I will continue to get them as long as I moderate.

In my first post here, old_crone responded with what some might consider a hint of an attitude. But I really wasn't concerned with that and I didn't take it that way. In fact, I really wasn't concerned with a response because there wasn't a question posed.

The point is, that's the way it is. If you volunteer your time at a public forum where the topic is something the general public values, then you are going to deal with a broad range of people. Some will be rude. Some will be polite. Many will ask the same mundane questions ten thousand others have asked before them because they didn't read the FAQ. Some have stated DMOZ is over-hyped and I have to disagree. There is an absolute value in getting listed here, especiall with Big G. A DMOZ listing could potentially propel a site from the third page in SERPS to the first. In Ecommerce, that's a BIG deal.

In closing, hats off to you guys and gals, editors and moderators and thank you for your time to keep the show running.

Yeah - you're always bound to get a 'few bad apples' when anything gets too big. But for the most part, I've been overwhelmed by the kind responses here.

You also imply that some people don't read the FAQs - I have, and believe the FAQs are sparse at best. I do think they could elaborate upon what's already written including some of the questions I have asked within this thread.

some have stated DMOZ is over-hyped and I have to disagree.

Click to expand...

Yes. Being listed on DMOZ puts you in over 300 search engines. Most of these search engines rank DMOZ listing higher - and also build on this directory. Backlinking/pagerank (U.S. Patent Application No. 20040122811, in part filed by Google co-founder Larry Page describes the implication of being listed. Google even recommends you try to get listed on DMOZ:

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34429&query=dmoz&topic=0&type=f

I've seen it mentioned elsewhere within Google with direct wording.

While some argue that reverse submission into DMOZ from search results (chicken or the egg argument), I think this may happen more frequently on obscure topics. There are also always a few websites that 'slip through the cracks.' I'm willing to bet that most people that have proposed this argument haven't thoroughly researched various Internet page-ranking algorithms or have any desire to do so.

I also understand that it's not DMOZ's responsibility or obligation to help anyone get listed - for whatever reasons even if it's self-promotional. But after two-three years of a category barely moving, you'd think they'd let someone who is actually interested/qualified in editing a speciic category to do so. No offense to anyone - but this (editing categories and topics) isn't rocket science...

I'll disagree with one point here. There ARE, I firmly believe, people who do over-hype the ODP. Not editors, no: but others.

As for it not being rocket science, I agree: it is really a kind of applied set theory. Some sixth-graders can eat it for lunch even without ketchup, while some college graduates never quite get it.

So there are really four aspects to an application:
(1) is he interested in editing? (as you say, that's a fairly low bar, and should be. About all you have to do is find three good sites not your own. You'd be surprised, though, how many people want to edit -- but DON'T want to find three sites first. D'OH, what do they think editing IS?)
(2) does he get the taxonomy? (this is a higher bar, and in my experience most applicants who don't get it, don't get it that they don't get it. In other words, while many have failed this hurdle, nobody ever did it in their own estimation.
(3) Can we trust him--based on what he said? (This is a hard one, and, face it, it comes down to a judgment call. If metas have time to monitor, they might take a chance on an iffy application. "I don't know enough about you to trust you yet." is a reason for a rejection, but it is not the same thing as saying "You aren't trustworthy." But it's fairly simple: just tell honestly what you do on the internet (and off, where relevant.)

[Aside: don't worry about confidentiality--because we do. Only a few dozen meta-editors can see that information, and we know you have the right not to tell the world in general or other editors any more than you feel like. In my day job, I can remember a couple of minor in-house confidentiality breaches in the past few months (my employer takes that very seriously, more so than competitors do--and no, I don't work for Price Waterhouse!) But I don't remember any confidentiality breaches in the meta-editor community. All the public will know is what you put in your profile; all that other editors will know is what you post in the internal forums.]

(4) Does he have basic linguistic proficiency? Can he write his own language to (semi-formal) style sheet specs? (Again, you'd think this would be a low barrier. It is surprisingly not. People fail in two ways. Some just don't have a handle on spelling and punctuation. Others don't have a handle on information versus hype. And again, surprisingly few people fail this in their own mind.)

---------------------

This stuff isn't national security, or even Apple Computer marketing plans. You can think about it while you're filling out the application--in fact, please do. Just remember, it's not enough to BE fluent, logical, trustworthy, and interested -- it's not even enough to TELL us you're all of the above and good-looking to boot. You have to SHOW it by what you do on the application.

On my last (and final) attempt to get my site listed in DMOZ about a month ago, I applied to become an editor after I submitted my site.

I assumed my application was bounced for the seemingly obvious reason that I was applying to become an editor in a sub-category of a cateogry I was submitting my site to, even though that sub-category is entirely too narrow to encompass my site.

Regardless, I could spare a few hours a week so I thought I'd give it a shot.

I assumed my application was bounced for the seemingly obvious reason that I was applying to become an editor in a sub-category of a cateogry I was submitting my site to

Click to expand...

Nope, that would not be a reason, in itself, to deny an application. We accept plenty of editors with affiliations in the category they apply for. (Why not, as long as they are able to edit fairly? And you can rest assured that they will have eyes on them to see that they do edit fairly.)

So please read the rejection message again. The reason will be there.

Perhaps semantics but:

but DON'T want to find three sites first

Click to expand...

In the application it asks for two or three sites.

just tell honestly what you do on the internet (and off, where relevant.)

Click to expand...

I've noticed a few edits on your part - I was responding a couple hours ago and then lost what I was writing. Anyhow. When you said 'honesty', I assume that you mean someone doesn't want to become an editor for a 'hidden agenda.'

When I originally applied for the category, I said that my motivation was to get my site listed, then secondly to help other people. I don't think you can be more honest than that - is that wrong?

Also, you had mentioned to include three sites 'not including your own.' Again this was edited and I don't see it there anymore. I did include my own site as it wasn't listed. No one ever said to 'not do that' when I applied.

charlesleo said:

Being listed on DMOZ puts you in over 300 search engines. Most of these search engines rank DMOZ listing higher.

Click to expand...

Search engines do tend to use the Open Directory to seed their indexes, but that doesn't mean that they rank ODP-listed sites any higher than those not listed. In fact I don't know of any proof that any SE does. What does seem to be true is that all the major engines use backlinks in some way in their algorithms. So if a site has no links to it and then is listed in the ODP, that is likely to have a noticeable effect on its rankings in the SEs. But you would see the same effect from a listing in Yahoo! and even more of an effect from a backlink from the front page of BBC News.

charlesleo said:

Backlinking/pagerank (U.S. Patent Application No. 20040122811, in part filed by Google co-founder Larry Page) describes the implication of being listed.

Click to expand...

The PageRank patent does not mention the ODP at all. What it does describe is the totally automated method of calculating a value for a page based on the number of incoming links and their value (where value = PR). Google representatives have repeated said that no site can have a PR set manually. They have also said in so many words that a link from the ODP is worth exactly the same as any other link.

charlesleo said:

Google even recommends you try to get listed on DMOZ.

Click to expand...

Google has always been upfront about its PageRank mechanism. It can't calculate PR without any inbound links. So it recommends that sites gain inbound links. Obviously it cannot list all the sites on the web that a site might get an inbound link from. So Google makes a couple of suggestions that will be possibilities for sites of a great range of types: Yahoo! and the ODP. They are both general directories - the largest on the Web. Yahoo! will be the best choice for commercial sites willing to pay for rapid listing.

nea said:

So please read the rejection message again. The reason will be there.

Click to expand...

Actually, there was no rejection message. I never received a reply at all.

charlesleo said:

When I originally applied for the category, I said that my motivation was to get my site listed, then secondly to help other people. I don't think you can be more honest than that - is that wrong?

Click to expand...

Just thinking out loud, I would surmise your application could be rejected not for lack of honesty, but because your motivation to become an editor is to get your site listed. That in and of itself may not be a cause for rejection, it's what you likely will do after your own site is listed.

I'm sure ODP has had many volunteer editors become one just for that purpose, then after their site is listed, they simply stop participating.

I would assume that, in addition to judging whether a candidate can make fair and balanced inclusion decisions, will they be around longer than a month lol.

if you never received a reply, then either the application did not go through or it is possible that it has not been evaluated yet.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, those are only two of the possibilities, not the only two possibilities.

Unfortunately, I am still a Most Evil wannabe (darn that reigning MEM!).

>In the application it asks for two or three sites.

That is true, it does.

And, if the application is accepted, what are you going to do then? "An editor only HAS to add TWO sites, and I've already found both of them?"

I'll tell you what _I_ did. I said something like, "I've been building a links page on this topic: I've found a couple dozen sites [here are three of them], and I think there are probably another dozen or three out there, still to be found."

See the difference between "do I HAVE to find three whole sites?" and "that was fun. I want to do it again!"

On an entirely unrelated topic, someone once suggested showing by ACTIONS how interested in editing you were. How could you you do that, you suppose?

And one other thing. "You want to help people." That is a worthy goal, and I do not want to denigrate it in any way.

But ... who do you want to help? What do you want to help them do? And how do you want to help them?

Suppose you're interviewing for a job at a bank. "You want to help people." When it turns out that you want to help people who need more money than they have in their accounts, what's going to happen? Or if your soup kitchen job is a way for you to help budding restauranteurs get into business by providing them with free food, what's going to happen?

Again, there's nothing at all wrong with wanting to help poor people or small businesses. The government spends bazillions of dollars on projects alleged (sometimes truly!) to do that, because society accepts those as worthy goals. But that fact isn't going to save YOUR job!

The ODP gives people trusted privileges, for specific purposes. The pay is ... um, below minimum wage. There are a whole population out there (unethical webmasters -- a tiny but VERY vociferous fraction of all webmasters) who are very very intent on having editors serve them and them alone.

Just to give you a measure of how deeply this "me webmaster, you serf" attitude is engrained in some quarters, there's actually a recurring proposal, which is actually popular in some SEO communities, that there "oughta be a law" -- editors shouldn't be ALLOWED to do anything but what SERP perps tell them to do! That rule should be ENFORCED! And if editors don't do what they're told, quickly enough, than ANYONE should be allowed to be an editor. (Anyone, that is, who will do whatever the SERP perp tells them.) For these folk, "suggest a site" is tantamount to "exercise my authority by giving peremptory orders." For them, anything that doesn't force the editor to be responsible to THEM, is called ... all manner of pejorative names.

An editor has to deal, one way or another, with this incessant pressure -- at best self-centered, at worst maliciously vindictive.

How do you deal with it?

There's only one way.

You have to have a clear idea of who the ODP is trying to help, and how it is trying to help them. You have to have a definite mission of your own, which would be helped by an ODP that is more effective at doing what IT does. (Your mission doesn't have to be the same as the ODP's -- for most people it isn't. It just has to be compatible, and you have to be willing to do at the ODP only what will accomplish the ODP mission, and do the rest of the work needed for your own mission elsewhere.)

And you have to have the courage and integrity to deal with as much of the vicious-webmaster pressure as you allow yourself contact with? (THIS can be done by avoiding webmaster contact -- including even suggestions if necessary. Or it can be done by being "as adamant against flint.")

Who do you want to help? And how do you want to help them? And how many webmasters are you willing not to help even when they accuse you of scraping jam from the bleeding lips of the worthy poor?

And then, being so determined, can you stand to work in a community to its standards, or do you need to do your work all by yourself, where you have complete control over all decisions about the mission and the standards?

Ask yourself all this first. And when you're sure of your answer, act on it -- if not on the ODP, then wherever you can. It will soon be very obvious whether you're giving ODP kind of help (or, to be less ODP-centric, whether the ODP contains your kind of help.)

Two final points, that really need to be internalized:

(1) Each of us can do whatever we wish, without the ODP. The ODP is a tool, but it does nothing you couldn't do yourself. (Some things, granted, it does more effectively. But as in many things, "you propose and fate disposes", you act but the effectiveness of your action is determined by other autonomous humans.) Ergo, if you want to do something, you'll do it on whoever's nickel you have.

(2) The ODP can do without any of us. Oh, some of us may help a little or a lot, but ... people who were more productive editors than you or I could ever be, have stopped editing at the ODP ... and it just kept growing. Ergo, the ODP doesn't NEED us.

So then, what's the point? If you want to give THIS kind of help, within THESE limits, ... the ODP will help you be more effective, and vice versa. And if not, there are other places, there are other kinds of help the world needs.

Search engines do tend to use the Open Directory to seed their indexes, but that doesn't mean that they rank ODP-listed sites any higher than those not listed. In fact I don't know of any proof that any SE does.

Click to expand...

Google isn't open about their '100 points of criteria' as to what ranks a website. But give than the top 100 websites in my field are all listed in the ODP (and even sites which are old with keyword spamming which often results in lowering PR), I would have to say this is more than likely the case. But yes - there is no direct evidence. Just Google telling you to get your site listed here.

The PageRank patent does not mention the ODP at all.

Click to expand...

You are correct. This in part explains their mechanisms without giving away all their secrets to competitors. I have several more research papers/links I won't bore you with. Google does specifically say they build their directory off of ODP. Being auto-listed on over 300 websites with auto-inclusion does wonders for a listing.

So Google makes a couple of suggestions that will be possibilities for sites of a great range of types: Yahoo! and the ODP.

Click to expand...

It never mentioned Yahoo Directory. My site is listed on the Yahoo directory. I pull up in the top 100 of their search results. I also pull up top 100 in MSN search. In Google, I am nowhere to be found.

See the difference between "do I HAVE to find three whole sites?" and "that was fun. I want to do it again!"

Click to expand...

I'm a very busy person who weighs what is necessary and unnecessary. Either make three a requirement or don't. Don't play games with me.

But... who do you want to help?

Click to expand...

Mostly myself. I'd have to say a good 95% of the people applying for ODP editorial positions want to do the same - and hence you get all these people screaming 'why isn't my site listed?!?' And out of that 95%, 94% will not tell you that this is their main motivation.

I don't believe in altruism - when you volunteer for something, there is always a level of gaining something for oneself. Anyone that tells you like-wise is deceiving themselves or not fully self-aware.

After waiting three years and watching the category NOT move, I don't mind pitching in a hand and putting in some very good websites up there as well (namely other people/sites who have been waiting in queue just as long as I have or longer.) So it is a 'give and take' relationship I'd try to foster.

Now you can judge me and part of my qualifications based upon what I've written - if I was 'smart and deceptive' about my 'reasons' like that other 94%, I wouldn't tell any of you this - and trust me, I second-guessed if I should be so forward. So you can pick and choose what company you'd feel safer with - that's also a reflection of your judgement on other people's character. I personally believe honesty is the best policy.

charlesleo said:

I don't believe in altruism - when you volunteer for something, there is always a level of gaining something for oneself.

Click to expand...

Yes, you gain fun by finding interesting websites and sharing them with others by adding them to a catalog. To be honoust, working through the proposals is sometimes less fun than finding the websites on own initiative.

>> But after two-three years of a category barely moving, you'd think they'd let someone who is actually interested/qualified in editing a speciic category to do so. <<

But any editor and any non-editor can apply at any time to edit any category, and several hundred editors (called Editall and Meta editors) can edit anywhere at any time without having to get any extra category permissions, so there is no "stopping" involved here at all.

>> Actually, there was no rejection message. I never received a reply at all. <<

There should have been an auto-response that you MUST reply to, to confirm the email address. If you did not receive that and respond to it, then the application didn't even get in to the queue.

If you did reply to the confirmation, then the application was put in the pile, and would have been reviewed some days or weeks later. There would have been a response: accept or reject, and it appears that your spam filters probably ate that response.

Several editors per month are accepted and then never login. It is assumed that their acceptance mail got lost somewhere on the way to them.

>give than the top 100 websites in my field are all listed in the ODP

Top 100 measured how?

I've never seen a Google search where all of the top 100 results were in the ODP. I've never even seen all of the top 10 results in the ODP. I've seen all the listable sites in the top 300 listed...but that wasn't more than a dozen or two sites even then.

And if you're measuring site importance on some other grounds, then ... all you're telling us is how GOOD the ODP is (how thoroughly the editors have screened that topic for the best sites).

Now that certainly implies an ethical judgment about how IMPORTANT the ODP SHOULD be. But unfortunately, it says nothing about how important it IS, which is what you seemed to be discussing.