DMOZ - Flaws in system!

Hello,
I've been viewing your forum for a while. It seems to me that the DMOZ makes a lot of individuals unhappy! Have you guys ever considered some sort of testing (with the final test scores disclosed) to help you determine editors for the project? In addition, instead of rejecting a web site, why not tell a web master exactly what he or she needs to do to improve to get a listing? Imagine how the internet experience could improve if that was the case. I understand that people get mad when they here negatives about their web site. That is mainly because they have no direction.

Those ideas have all been considered.

Have you guys ever considered some sort of testing (with the final test scores disclosed) to help you determine editors for the project?

Click to expand...

New Editors do fill a "test" with a lot of fields when applying. We don't have an automated scoring, but do this by hand. I don't see where a scoring algo could work better than human mind.

instead of rejecting a web site, why not tell a web master exactly what he or she needs to do to improve to get a listing?

Click to expand...

We have our guidelines for everyone to read, so whoever wants to can read about it. Apart from that, we tell it to everyone who wants to hear in every forum we write in: Unique content. That is the only thing we care about.

You have two contradictory desires. You want more information, and you want to feel good. But in reality, the truth often hurts.

If you want to learn how to be creative, this is not the place. If you want to learn how to design a website, this is not the place. If you want to repurpose the ODP, this is not the place.

If you want to learn how the ODP works, you've come to the right place. And if it can't work for you because your goal is something other than providing information, then our best service is to let you know immediately.

And if that hurts, then the guicker you start getting over it, the quicker you can move on to something constructive yourself.

Hutcheson

I think you need to take an anger management class Hutchenson! Take a look at some of the forums out there and you will understand the disappointment with the DMOZ system. By the way, success is a journey not a destination. The editors should be open to suggestions and comments wouldn't you agree?

The editors are open to suggestions but only if they also further our goals, for our directory.

Many suggestions that we receive are only intent on furthering the goals of the webmaster without regard for the editors, the directory, or the end users of our data.

I understand that webmasters make suggestions for their own benefit. That's only natural. The truth of the matter is that webmasters supply the DMOZ with web sites and many volunteer their services. The DMOZ is all about providing the end user with a better experience and improving the internet. The current system makes many individuals very unhappy and could definitely use improvement. I don't know how to improve it! All I can do is make suggestions on YOUR forum. The simple fact of the matter is all of this unhappiness is not a good thing! This is not about one person being happy or feeling good. It's a shame to say that many seem to be unhappy! Why? We all know that you can't make everyone happy. We also know that if less than the majority are happy there is a problem! Spend five minutes surfing this forum and you can see that most of the people that deal with the DMOZ are unhappy. Is it because of an editor jumpimg down their throat when they ask a question or make a suggestion? Partially. Is it because the system could be improved? Definitely.

helper said:

It's a shame to say that many seem to be unhappy! Why?

Click to expand...

Nobody said everybody was happy with DMOZ.

helper said:

We also know that if less than the majority are happy there is a problem! Spend five minutes surfing this forum and you can see that most of the people that deal with the DMOZ are unhappy.

Click to expand...

Ah, but that's were your reasoning is flawed. Not every DMOZ user (or even submitter) posts in this forum. And who are those who don't post here? Those who are happy, of course. Did you ever see happy customers calling the Help Desk to tell them how glad they are? It happens, but it's a rare event.
So please stop telling us that we're making *a majority* unhappy. You have no idea (and neither do I) whether unhappy campers posting here are 90, 60, 30, or 0.001% of submitters (who BTW are *not* our customers; those are the *surfers*, not the SEOs, and not the webmasters).

The ODP lists three or four thousand sites per day. I don't see any of the happy people posting here.

However much less than 30 unhappy people post here per day. That is much less than 1% then.


Of course webmasters make sites, and they can make whatever sort of site they want to. That doesn't mean that we will be interested in listing those sites in our directory.

The ODP is making a directory, and the guidelines state what sort of directory that is, and what can be included in it. The guidelines also state what sort of sites will not be listed in the directory.

If people submit sites that we don't list, then we won't list them. Any amount of arguing about that is pointless.

So basically this forum exists for unhappy people? You guys can't see how the system could be better! This isn't personal! This isn't something bad about the editors! I'm sure you know who I am and I am not concerned one bit! I am not talking about the unhappiness that's apparent in this forum. It's in many forums. I can't give you an exact percentage! You approve three to four thousand sites a day! Great, I'm sure you reject more! The DMOZ can use some help and improvement. The system could be way better for everyone. That includes editors! Reputation goes a long way doesn't it? And I would think that being bad mouthed on the internet is not good for anyone!

You are labouring under the misapprehension that we are overly worried about this so-called "bad reputation". We aren't. Everyone else seems to be but we aren't.

And you're missing the point made in the very beginning by cleaner, that the suggestions you made in your first post have been considered before (you can follow that comment a little beyond what's written to the implication that the ideas, since they were obviously not put into play, were rejected).

* Yes, this forum does exist for unhappy people. It was put in place to try to explain to people why things are the way they are, not to make them happy. I few people listen to what we say and sometimes understand, most don't.

* There isn't anything in this world that couldn't be made better. And there are many things that are being improved at the ODP all the time, from the internal system to recruiting and training editors. However, very few of the suggestions for improvement that are implemented come from outside, simply because the webmasters who suggest them are approaching the directory from the wrong angle. The suggestion we implement rarely make webmasters happy. They weren't meant to. They are meant to benefit the directory.

* Keeping in mind that the purpose of editors is to build categories, not to process submissions, it would be fully impossible to implement a program of informing webmasters how to improve their sites enough to get listed. There are far too many sites with far too many possible reasons for volunteer manpower to handle that. Plus, the majority of what gets rejected is spam, usually put together by webmasters who know very well what they're doing, and who are trying to slip inappropriate sites past us. We do not plan to help them do that in any way.

* Never once have I heard of a data user complaining about flaws in the system.

* I'm sure there are users who are unhappy also. If we someday make everyone happy, we will have done the impossible. Perhaps a subject they need information about isn't well represented in ODP yet. Since our 1st priority is fixing problems like that, we're doing everything we can in that area. We still have far more information listed than any other directory out there. Perhaps there are users who are unhappy about our search function, which doesn't work very well. There's nothing we can do about that, because accurate searching is not a part of our goals.

* About the only thing we can do, when someone is unhappy, is explain our philosophy, and hope they get it enough to at least understand why.

The truth of the matter is that webmasters supply the DMOZ with web sites

Click to expand...

There's a comment I've seen many times before. I'm not sure I understand the point though. Is the implication that if we don't consider the webmaster's point of view, they will stop providing us with websites to link to? I'm pretty certain we don't have the power to stop all growth on the Internet.

You may not be worried about your reputation! I am not talking about (your) reputation I'm talking about YOUR directories reputation! If you are not worrying about the DMOZ's reputation then there is definitely a problem! Listen to the way you people have responded to a suggestion. You represent the DMOZ, it is not yours! You are just a small piece of the puzzle. The bottom line is YOUR directory can be improved a lot and you know it. You should also learn to talk to people with respect here at the forum. The way you talk gives you zero credibility. Who cares about that though?

The system is working very well, as you can tell by reading the anguished cries of the spammers in the SEO forums. They can't get their spam in; we keep rejecting it. It is a waste of time for both of us, but only they can stop the insanity -- we review every site that is submitted. We, however, can at least tell people to stop. If they don't listen, if they reject the message, if they can't handle reality, if they get all hurt and angry at the truth, that's -- another reality on a planet where rampant selfishness isn't a capital offense.

Our mission here at the FORUM is to educate people in the futility of trying to manipulate "the system", and the equal futility of trying to change the system to one that can be more easily manipulated. The problem is not the system, it is, as always, the people. Each person can choose whether to implement, impede, or ignore the ODP ideal.

The ODP system, therefore, includes features that have historically been found highly effective in harnessing fallible humans to implement a worthy ideal in the face of significant conflicting motives. And we avoid features that have historically been found ineffective or harmful.

Tests? As you may discover by reading the relevant research, the tests you desribe, used by many corporate personnel department, have been proven to do significantly WORSE than random at predicting job performance. They are valuable for protecting incompetant managers from the results of their own idiocy, and provide income for consultants -- but we have no interest in either of those goals, and our humans can demonstrably do better than that.

Communicating with webmasters? Many of us (including myself) occasionally do, in spite of the solemn injunction against doing so. Anyone who has communicated with more than a few dozen webmasters will know from bitter experience why it is usually a mistake. There is nothing we know more angry and vindictive than a rejected spammer. Even in these forums where people know editors moderate, we have vindictive personal attacks. Outside the forums, editors have even been physically stalked. We know very well why the system strongly discourages contact between editors and any webmasters. And, of course, the people most important to avoid are those who are spamming us (that is, the ones who are submitting sites that do not conform to the public guidelines.)

And another aspect of reality (if you are able to face it without hurt feelings) is the vast majority of rejected sites are very blatant violations of the guidelines. They obviously exist only to drive commercial traffic to some other website, and contain no unique content whatsoever. What can you tell people who submit such sites? "You are a spammer. You have demonstrated no ability whatsoever to create unique content, and without that you simply cannot create websites that the ODP would want to list. Please do not submit any more websites." Nothing else you say would be both true and relevant. But how many spammers would take that advice? (which, of course, would be what mattered to us). And (if it mattered at all, which it doesn't to us) in your professional psychological opinion, would that generally make them feel better?

Hutcheson

So you are calling everyone who has been rejected by the DMOZ a spammer? I find that hard to believe! I was just suggesting that the DMOZ could use some improvement! It is very hard to believe the way that you respond to constuctive critisism and suggestions! Your forum could be used to help and give constuctive advice also! Definitely flawed!

Hutcheson

By the way its a shame my one little opinion doesn't matter! The real shame is that yours does! I have seen you verbally attack many in this forum. I think you are a control freak, this is America my friend! You should take a look at your system. Many improvements are necessary! Who is at the top of the food chain for the DMOZ?

This is pretty much just trolling at this point, you know.

Every company, organization, and club has rules and standards. Ours are publicly available. They clearly state that not all sites will ever merit an ODP listing. We're not a promotional service for webmasters, automatically listing anyone who requests it. An ODP listing is an individually awarded prize for a site one of our editors has judged to have quality content that cannot be found anywhere else. Obviously, there are plenty of successful, attractive, and otherwise well-done sites that won't meet these standards and will never be included in our directory. You may think it would be an "improvement" if we changed this, but we don't.

I'm sorry the nature of the ODP is frustrating to designers of sites that are not built around original content; but you wouldn't try to list an online shoe store in a directory of fan fiction sites, would you? This doesn't mean the fan fiction directory is being mean or needs 'improvement', it means the shoe salesman is looking in the wrong place from the get-go.

Your opinion doesn't matter because you're asking for something unreasonable, in other words. Go send McDonald's a letter explaining why you think it's unfair that they don't sell cold medication at their stores, seeing as how that would be convenient for you. See if they actually start doing this. (-: Until you understand what the ODP is actually trying to do, asking us to change to something radically different is pointless indeed.

McDonalds is smart enough to survey people and listen to thier opinions! I am not telling the DMOZ what to do! I simply made some suggestions. I am not expecting you to say O.K. Tom (my real name) we'll start those tests tommorow!

We are listening to your opinion. Just because we don't implement your ideas does not mean you weren't listened to. Do you realize that the meta editors, volunteers, who receive no pay for what they do pay for this forum to exist. The bandwidth in which you broadcast your complaints is sponsored by them. Your argument is flawed in many ways.

The reason why we do not tell webmasters how to fix there sites so they can be in dmoz.org is because those webmasters are the ones spamming us and I will be damned if I am going to tell them how to trick me. Not going to happen.

Please do not construe anything I said to you in this post as a personal attack. I have absolutely nothing against your or your ideas. So please do not come back saying that I was rude to your or go off on another forum and do so, as many have, and try to misrepresent what was said here.

I have read all the posts in this thread and not ONE has attacked you. I pretty much think we have been very nice. Just because we do not accept your suggestions does not mean we flamed you. You have not been banned. Your thread has not been locked yet. You got your American right of free speech here even though it does not even apply here (I am American but a large part of the editor community isn't). This forum is not a publically funded deal. It is operated by the meta editors and it is open for people like you to come and have your say.

With all that said, I still hope you have a great day!

If we didn't think the ODP could use improvement, we wouldn't (collectively) spend thousands of hours working on it. So if that's all you have to say, you're preaching to the choir. And that's hardly "constructive" by any definition.

So far as the notion of "testing" for editors, we are satisfied that our approach is much more effective at picking good editors -- not to mention being horribly susceptible to manipulation by lying spammers (which is to say, most of them). We do a pretty good job of weeding out the technically challenged; we do a fair job of spotting spammers who lie through their teeth to slip in and sabotage the system -- which is our worst but not our most frequent problem. If you have suggestions about better ways of spotting spammers, you can PM any of the moderators. If you notice categories that seem poorly edited, then you can report them in the "Abuse" forum.

So far as communicating with spammers, it's futile and dangerous. I say so from personal experience, but appreciate your citations of additional lines of evidence that this is so.

So far as spammers being unhappy with us, we see that as evidence that the system is working well. Nobody but a spammer could possibly have a problem with that: everyone else will appreciate it.

So far as legitimate submitters are frustrated with slow listings, the problem is not us but the spammers. And until you understand that, you won't understand the problem well enough to propose a solution.

So far as calling us liars in the forum: that I regard as a strange notion of constructive criticism.

I have an idea: why don't you go to the disappointed spammers and promote anger management courses? After all, if you are correct, they're the angry ones.