Directory Attitude - An Open Letter to DMOZ!
- Thread starter charlesleo
- Start date
Corrected
Yes, Pvgool, I see what you mean. "Submit URL" is not a request for inclusion, it is a suggestion, and the expectation should be guided by that phrasing as well.
Ok, maybe the frustration is not about process, it IS about expectations falsely arrived. I am guilty at expecting something not offered.
To Jean's point that 80% of the work is done by 20% of the editors. I agree that is often the case in many organizations, and it would make sense that suggestions may just bog those 20% editors who are using a more comprehensive categorization strategy.
I ASSUMED the open nature of DMOZ was recruiting the input of a much broader community (site owners included) and using processes designed for that purpose, and after seeing how wikipedia, and even e-bay employ peer review to improve results, I expected something similar. My mistake.
I must stand corrected, that it does appear DMOZ is operating consistent within it's own mission and policies, Hutcheson does a good job of communicating the concepts.
I am not quite convinced, although I would not know, that Spammers, casual and professional, should dictate the inner workings of DMOZ and that the interaction with some of us on the outside should not be more collaborative and accountable to avoid bad PR. But, that is certainly a strategy decision by ODP and not a gap in expected workings from policy and mission as well corrected by Hutcheson.
Sorry for just another vent. I have learned something, again. Oh, do I like to complain.
Cheers,
James
Yes, Pvgool, I see what you mean. "Submit URL" is not a request for inclusion, it is a suggestion, and the expectation should be guided by that phrasing as well.
Ok, maybe the frustration is not about process, it IS about expectations falsely arrived. I am guilty at expecting something not offered.
To Jean's point that 80% of the work is done by 20% of the editors. I agree that is often the case in many organizations, and it would make sense that suggestions may just bog those 20% editors who are using a more comprehensive categorization strategy.
I ASSUMED the open nature of DMOZ was recruiting the input of a much broader community (site owners included) and using processes designed for that purpose, and after seeing how wikipedia, and even e-bay employ peer review to improve results, I expected something similar. My mistake.
I must stand corrected, that it does appear DMOZ is operating consistent within it's own mission and policies, Hutcheson does a good job of communicating the concepts.
I am not quite convinced, although I would not know, that Spammers, casual and professional, should dictate the inner workings of DMOZ and that the interaction with some of us on the outside should not be more collaborative and accountable to avoid bad PR. But, that is certainly a strategy decision by ODP and not a gap in expected workings from policy and mission as well corrected by Hutcheson.
Sorry for just another vent. I have learned something, again. Oh, do I like to complain.
Cheers,
James
PR is what we call "corporate misdirection and deception." We'd be happy to do without it.
The ODP (and other truly collaborative projects) waste much less time on communication than hierarchical (whether fascist or corporate) structures. When the goal is to EMPOWER individuals to work more effectively, more efficiently, communication that doesn't contribute to that, is deprecated.
We have a name for outsiders who wish to demonstrate a sympathy with the ODP mission and are willing to put in a real effort towards quality control, based on our mission as opposed to some ulterior-motived SEO effort. We call them "editor applicants".
Those applicants whose demonstration of skill and motive is adequate (that is, whose application or "offer to help" is accepted) aren't outsiders any more. And those who can't or won't give adequate demonstration of THEIR goodwill and competance, are demonstrably no fit judges of OUR goodwill or competance.
I'm not sure what you mean by "using a more comprehensive categorization strategy." There is only one categorization, and all editors use it. A good editor is expected to use comprehensive SITE FINDING strategies, and -- this is the REALLY important part -- that means NOT relying on or giving priority to submittals. Instead, it means relying on the editor's own knowledge and judgment to decide HOW to look for sites (that is, what topics need more information and what topics are likely to have more good, findable information) and WHERE to look for sites (that is, what searches to make, what authority sites to review, what offline sources are highly reliable, who else's brains to pick.
Obviously, all of this can be done without looking at site suggestions at all. So why ever look at site suggestions? In a truly comprehensive scheme of site finding, they would be totally unnecessary. But nobody HAS a TRULY comprehensive scheme. So after all else has been done, site suggestions are a way of picking the minds of other people. Now those other people (site suggestors) haven't given any reason at all to be trusted, and therefore can't reasonably expect to be trusted. They are not accountable to anyone, and there is no way to hold them accountable. They do not collaborate with anyone, and there is no way to make them collaborate. They often have ulterior motives, into which we cannot and do not want to inquire.
But, nonetheless, editors will listen to those suggestions that (in editorial judgment) might lead to something useful. And we have agreed that we won't throw away suggestions without reasonable effort to see that those suggestions are meritless.
I think nobody could reasonably ask for more than that.
So everyone has a choice: to demonstrate their good faith and discuss collaboration, or to keep their motives hidden and make suggestions. There's no disgrace in either choice. No choice leads to any control of anyone else -- always, forever, each one does his own work to his best standard as well as to the community standard. No choice allows anyone to require accountability of anyone else -- accountability is through community consensus, and even outsiders have several ways of suggesting where the community might well TAKE account. No choice allows anyone to require anyone else to do anything in particular -- the editorial guidelines are very clear about this (if for any reason you are uncomfortable reviewing a site, or don't wish to review it, then you simply don't review it--no questions asked. If it's worth reviewing, someone else will take care of it.)
You can see how this whole process wouldn't work at all well for serving webmasters. You'd need some completely different process. But this process does a better job of finding unique informational content than any other.
So, we'll keep this process, and use it for what it does well. Those who wish to serve webmasters can set up their own processes, and run them on their own sites, and invite others to help. And those webmasters who wish to receive services, are welcome to take advantage of the thousands of sites who offer those services. We won't be offended.
And some editors may even be among the webmaster-servers, or webmasters-seeking-services, at those other sites. They won't be ostracized. (This certainly isn't the only site I visit.)
The trick to collaboration is simple: find someone who's doing what you want to do. And join them. But finding someone who's doing something ELSE, and hectoring them to do what you want instead, is a waste of spittle and froth.
The ODP (and other truly collaborative projects) waste much less time on communication than hierarchical (whether fascist or corporate) structures. When the goal is to EMPOWER individuals to work more effectively, more efficiently, communication that doesn't contribute to that, is deprecated.
We have a name for outsiders who wish to demonstrate a sympathy with the ODP mission and are willing to put in a real effort towards quality control, based on our mission as opposed to some ulterior-motived SEO effort. We call them "editor applicants".
Those applicants whose demonstration of skill and motive is adequate (that is, whose application or "offer to help" is accepted) aren't outsiders any more. And those who can't or won't give adequate demonstration of THEIR goodwill and competance, are demonstrably no fit judges of OUR goodwill or competance.
I'm not sure what you mean by "using a more comprehensive categorization strategy." There is only one categorization, and all editors use it. A good editor is expected to use comprehensive SITE FINDING strategies, and -- this is the REALLY important part -- that means NOT relying on or giving priority to submittals. Instead, it means relying on the editor's own knowledge and judgment to decide HOW to look for sites (that is, what topics need more information and what topics are likely to have more good, findable information) and WHERE to look for sites (that is, what searches to make, what authority sites to review, what offline sources are highly reliable, who else's brains to pick.
Obviously, all of this can be done without looking at site suggestions at all. So why ever look at site suggestions? In a truly comprehensive scheme of site finding, they would be totally unnecessary. But nobody HAS a TRULY comprehensive scheme. So after all else has been done, site suggestions are a way of picking the minds of other people. Now those other people (site suggestors) haven't given any reason at all to be trusted, and therefore can't reasonably expect to be trusted. They are not accountable to anyone, and there is no way to hold them accountable. They do not collaborate with anyone, and there is no way to make them collaborate. They often have ulterior motives, into which we cannot and do not want to inquire.
But, nonetheless, editors will listen to those suggestions that (in editorial judgment) might lead to something useful. And we have agreed that we won't throw away suggestions without reasonable effort to see that those suggestions are meritless.
I think nobody could reasonably ask for more than that.
So everyone has a choice: to demonstrate their good faith and discuss collaboration, or to keep their motives hidden and make suggestions. There's no disgrace in either choice. No choice leads to any control of anyone else -- always, forever, each one does his own work to his best standard as well as to the community standard. No choice allows anyone to require accountability of anyone else -- accountability is through community consensus, and even outsiders have several ways of suggesting where the community might well TAKE account. No choice allows anyone to require anyone else to do anything in particular -- the editorial guidelines are very clear about this (if for any reason you are uncomfortable reviewing a site, or don't wish to review it, then you simply don't review it--no questions asked. If it's worth reviewing, someone else will take care of it.)
You can see how this whole process wouldn't work at all well for serving webmasters. You'd need some completely different process. But this process does a better job of finding unique informational content than any other.
So, we'll keep this process, and use it for what it does well. Those who wish to serve webmasters can set up their own processes, and run them on their own sites, and invite others to help. And those webmasters who wish to receive services, are welcome to take advantage of the thousands of sites who offer those services. We won't be offended.
And some editors may even be among the webmaster-servers, or webmasters-seeking-services, at those other sites. They won't be ostracized. (This certainly isn't the only site I visit.)
The trick to collaboration is simple: find someone who's doing what you want to do. And join them. But finding someone who's doing something ELSE, and hectoring them to do what you want instead, is a waste of spittle and froth.
nea said:
On a serious note, if DMOZ doesnt want to influence SE's then what good is the ODP? I am not being sarcastic, I think it is pretty widely known that people do not really surf the ODP. Most of the traffic is editors and webmasters submitting their sites and watching their competition. I think your goal should be to have some effect on the big SE's... otherwise what are you doing all of this for? I wish I could convey tone here, I am asking an honest question.
It's not an either/or thing. Use for direct browsing and use by search engines are only two of the many possible ways our data can be used. See Uses of the Open Directory for some of the others.
Whatever effect we may or may not have on search engines seems to be of great concern to webmasters, probably with good reason, but it isn't our concern. We find and categorize websites. It's a hobby we enjoy, and we hope and believe that others find some value in the results we provide.
As a possibly interesting side note, I think it likely that if we were to focus on search engines then those very search engines would find our results much less useful.
Whatever effect we may or may not have on search engines seems to be of great concern to webmasters, probably with good reason, but it isn't our concern. We find and categorize websites. It's a hobby we enjoy, and we hope and believe that others find some value in the results we provide.
As a possibly interesting side note, I think it likely that if we were to focus on search engines then those very search engines would find our results much less useful.
brmehlman said:
That’s the part I guess I don’t get. It seems no one at the ODP is human? Your hobby controls the livelihood of a lot of people. I am college student that went from paying for my classes and books to not being able to afford my server bills to run my site because the ODP took my link out of the directory.
By adding quality sites you are in fact providing us all with a great service. BUT if quality sites go unchecked for years you are doing the same people a huge diservice.
With great power comes great responsibility. Responsibility that becoming more and more overwhelming for less and less editors.
Look. Newspapers also pick and choose the stories they print. Some of those stories also have a big impact on some people's lives and businesses. They don't print every story that happened. They don't print every story that was suggested.
Bombarding a newspaper with information about something they don't want to print, results in..... Can you see where we are going with this?
A newspaper also does not have enough people to write about every single thing that ever happens; they cover the best or most interesting or most unusual bits.
Bombarding a newspaper with information about something they don't want to print, results in..... Can you see where we are going with this?
A newspaper also does not have enough people to write about every single thing that ever happens; they cover the best or most interesting or most unusual bits.
Eric-the-Bun
Curlie Meta
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
I am afraid this shows you do not understand the harsh reality of the business world nor how the ODP works. Understanding both is necessary for you to have realistic expectations. The ODP has no obligation to businesses as businesses at all.
No, you failed to promote your business properly.
The reality of the business world is competition, no one does anyone any favours, it is not about charity etc. etc. In fact the reality of 'business' on the internet is that there are a lot of people trying to make money by offering 'get rich quick solutions'.
I can understand a business person checking to see that they were not going to spam the directory, locating the best category or clarifying their understanding and so on. I always find hard to fathom complaints of non-listing from people running businesses.
Someone who understands business, know they need every ounce of promotion out there to get their business going. When they submit, they would have looked into what they were getting for their effort. They know that, having submitted it to DMOZ, they can achieve better results by obtaining links elsewhere, improving their site etc rather than relying on the ODP.
If they have the insights etc to run a business, understanding the ODP scenario regarding listings should be straightforward.
regards
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,485
I fail to see what control I have over anyone but myself. This belief that the ODP is the magic wand that instantly makes a site successful (or not) just boggles my mind immensely. I never have understood how the removal of one little link causes 'great' (use that term loosely and in general) business sites to fold up and close down?? I am not forcing anyone not to promote their own business/site, nor am I holding anyone's hand and walking them through how to run their business so I have a total of ZERO control over anyone's success beyond my own.
If the loss of one link causes one to not be able to pay their bills, then hopefully they are nearly finished with a college degree and can soon begin a career outside the business world (requiring self promotion) so they have a chance to support themselves. It may not be what you want to hear, but it doesn't make me any less human than you. Editors cannot and will not act on emotion towards a site owner or that owners situation. Every poor webmaster seems to have some sad story about not being able to support themselves. Even if the editors were naive enough to believe 1/8 of them, it still doesn't effect the guidelines. Not to mention, many (many) of us support ourselves just fine on our own with no commercial websites.
Just my 2 pennies
bobrat
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
- Messages
- 11,061
To be blunt, anyone who thinks that ODP makes the difference between success and failure is failing to look at the inadequacy of their business. If you can barely pay your server bills, that's a very good reason we should not list your site. It's probably going to be dead sooner than you think and then we have another URL that has to be removed. That does the directory a disservice.
I also have had sites where the income hardly pays the server bills (even when listed in ODP). After a year I face reality, give up and go on to other things.
If a site is successful, ODP can possibly marginally increase it's business. ODP can not make a business a success, you have to look to other reasons.
I also have had sites where the income hardly pays the server bills (even when listed in ODP). After a year I face reality, give up and go on to other things.
If a site is successful, ODP can possibly marginally increase it's business. ODP can not make a business a success, you have to look to other reasons.
Look at the bright side, chaz. All that money you didn't get isn't lost. It's just going to someone else. Since we don't know anything about you OR the other people involved, we'll just assume all of you have equal rights to "personhood", and we'll just flat ignore the possibility of inhuman webmasters, OK? It's a non-issue.
On the other hand, we think of surfers as persons, to a degree that is completely alien to you.
I know working is hard, and finding a paying job can be even harder. (I worked to pay my way through college and graduate school.) But you're extremely lucky to have had time to learn valuable skills in college -- most of the world is not so fortunate. Ethically speaking, I believe I shouldn't -- see your self-serving website as any reason at all to give you any ADDITIONAL privilege.
Now if you had created a PUBLIC-service website, you'd have earned all kinds of respect and gratitude from other public-spirited persons who never knew you personally. But no stranger will EVER share your interest in your own self-interest.
On the other hand, we think of surfers as persons, to a degree that is completely alien to you.
I know working is hard, and finding a paying job can be even harder. (I worked to pay my way through college and graduate school.) But you're extremely lucky to have had time to learn valuable skills in college -- most of the world is not so fortunate. Ethically speaking, I believe I shouldn't -- see your self-serving website as any reason at all to give you any ADDITIONAL privilege.
Now if you had created a PUBLIC-service website, you'd have earned all kinds of respect and gratitude from other public-spirited persons who never knew you personally. But no stranger will EVER share your interest in your own self-interest.
>On a serious note, if DMOZ doesnt want to influence SE's then what good is the ODP?
If that is the only thing you're interested in, then the ODP may be of no good to you. And that's OK. Realistically, there are probably 10-20 million sites on the web, how many of them are ever going to be any use to you? Possibly, of the half-dozen sites to which I'VE made significant contributions to, NONE will ever be of use to you--and that's OK too. I doubt if your site will be of any use to me either.
But we're all persons, and we all have choices. You make your choices based on priorities -- that is your right as a person. And how about me and my rights as a person? Do I have the right to make my choices based on my priorities? Not, apparently, if my choices don't give you enough money....
WHO is treating WHOM as less than a person?
If that is the only thing you're interested in, then the ODP may be of no good to you. And that's OK. Realistically, there are probably 10-20 million sites on the web, how many of them are ever going to be any use to you? Possibly, of the half-dozen sites to which I'VE made significant contributions to, NONE will ever be of use to you--and that's OK too. I doubt if your site will be of any use to me either.
But we're all persons, and we all have choices. You make your choices based on priorities -- that is your right as a person. And how about me and my rights as a person? Do I have the right to make my choices based on my priorities? Not, apparently, if my choices don't give you enough money....
WHO is treating WHOM as less than a person?
Like I said before
By adding quality sites you are in fact providing us all with a great service. BUT if quality sites go unchecked for years you are doing the same people a huge diservice.
I see your points about not letting in bad news, and sending information to newspapers over and over again. I agree. BUT what if there is something news worthy and no one listens??? Then the newspaper becomes less valuable. Just like the ODP. Look at the graphs the indexed sites are rising to unmanageable hieghts while the active number of editors is dropping off.
By adding quality sites you are in fact providing us all with a great service. BUT if quality sites go unchecked for years you are doing the same people a huge diservice.
I see your points about not letting in bad news, and sending information to newspapers over and over again. I agree. BUT what if there is something news worthy and no one listens??? Then the newspaper becomes less valuable. Just like the ODP. Look at the graphs the indexed sites are rising to unmanageable hieghts while the active number of editors is dropping off.
hutcheson said:
I do not think I deserve anything special. I agree with you to an extent. It is when you give and then take away for no reason at all, that is what hurts. Never getting into the ODP because a site stinks is no problem. Its when you offer a quality service that is only full of unique content and digital goods that has been growing and regularly updated for 4 years and have your site listed only to one day see it disappear can really screw someone on a personal level.
I believe charlesleo came here with the simple intent of venting some steam over the tone of some editors' responses here. I would characterise that tone as abrasive meta-language, used to subtlely denounce the poster, his objections to the system, or his requests, often employing beautifully constructed parallel structure or rigorous line-addressed replies. There's also a sort of contrasting cheerfulness in the sigs or "party line." That said, charlesleo came here to comment on abrasive language, and guess what he got? Abrasive language.
My personal take on the DMOZ is that it's officious, based on uproars like the one in the following link:
http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30067
You see, DMOZ is like a seven layer coffee filter. You pour the sites in at the top, and to ensure maximum quality, wait four years. First, for an editor to event exist, he has to prove he's worthy by submitting an application. Then he's limited to small categories, or more specifically (judging by posts in the above link) the categories that need the most attention (i.e. the ones with the largest queues). Hence, too many categories have no editors listed, and seldom get updated. DMOZ cleverly blocks "inexperienced" users, choosing nothing over something, so to speak. Then sites have to go through the personal editorial process.
People have a big investment in their sites; they're tied to their interests, their businesses, and their lives. To paraphrase, the job of editors is believed to be building a directory, not 'monitoring submission queues.' This is expecting specific individuals to have vast storehouses of knowledge of the web which they can dump into the directory in the most finely tuned way possible. Maybe that worked when the WWW had 100 sites total or when Magellan was still a SE, but times have changed. This is all catty corner to the more _open style of sites like Wikipedia, which allow a successful and fast peer review process. More importantly, when websites and the investments in them clash with the idiosyncratic personas of anonymous editors who rule the roost, tempers flare. And then editors are unable to see why "your site may take up to 2 years, 3 years, 10 decades, forever to process" is excessively flippant.
Have you read the whole thread? I find it really odd that people have come here, resurrected a thread that charlesleo himself hasn't felt a need to post in in over a month, and are up in arms over his supposed treatment in this thread in a way that he himself hasn't even been.
It isn't expecting that at all. Some people do, many people don't. The fact that the suggestion pool isn't our priority doesn't mean it isn't there for people to use if they choose to.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
I am so very, very tired of this thread and wish it would just go away.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,485
I have a lot of respect for the original poster, he handled himself very well and am sure if he still has any questions, issues, or feels he was mis-treated he will have no problem coming back and posting about it himself, so I won't drag him back into this because it isn't fair to him.
Funny this part was began as an attack on the editors and was part of a complaint that editors don't respond polietly enough here.
The theory that there aren't enough editors in categories and that editors are joined to small and insignificant categories with no hope of expansion doesn't fly with me given my personal experiences. Sorry. I was joined a little over 2 years ago (July of 2004) to a category that was created based on my sample sites. With in 4 months I was editing in several medium size categories in a couple of branches, by 1.5 years I was a Cateditall working throughout Regional as well as several independent categories and now just beyond my 2nd anniversary in the ODP I can edit throughout 3 branches as well as several independent categories, I have logged well over 15K edits, have Catmod permissions in Regional (meaning I now have the pleasure of joining new editors to small, insignificant categories and helping them expand upward). I have seen new editors (many in these forums) join and struggle only to become great top level editors, editalls, and even a few Meta's.
I think this thread has outlived its usefulness, given that the original poster has moved on to other things and hasn't appeared to share the feelings of following posters.
JACSoft said:
Funny this part was began as an attack on the editors and was part of a complaint that editors don't respond polietly enough here.
The theory that there aren't enough editors in categories and that editors are joined to small and insignificant categories with no hope of expansion doesn't fly with me given my personal experiences. Sorry. I was joined a little over 2 years ago (July of 2004) to a category that was created based on my sample sites. With in 4 months I was editing in several medium size categories in a couple of branches, by 1.5 years I was a Cateditall working throughout Regional as well as several independent categories and now just beyond my 2nd anniversary in the ODP I can edit throughout 3 branches as well as several independent categories, I have logged well over 15K edits, have Catmod permissions in Regional (meaning I now have the pleasure of joining new editors to small, insignificant categories and helping them expand upward). I have seen new editors (many in these forums) join and struggle only to become great top level editors, editalls, and even a few Meta's.
I agree.spectregunner said:
I think this thread has outlived its usefulness, given that the original poster has moved on to other things and hasn't appeared to share the feelings of following posters.