>Submitters could check status of account ( recieved, under review, denied, etc.
Welcome to the forum. For the past two years or so, we've experimented with your proposal to provide status of submittals; so that with no speculation at all we can confidently say we know exactly how well it would work.
Based on that thoroughly confirmed knowledge, the forum administrators chose a different way to "eliminate 99.9% of the posts." That choice is not likely to be reconsidered soon.
>To ME this is an important issue.
Understood, no doubt. And, as a human being, you have the right to select issues of importance to you, to act on those issues, and to use your website as an expression of your opinion on those issues. Please do not take anything said in this forum as disputing that.
But you absolutely MUST understand that ODP editors have exactly the same freedoms you do, even though they might have different priorities. This forum may not be used as a way to impose your priorities on anyone else. In practice, that means don't tell people what to do; and don't tell people how much difference their action makes to you. But suggestions in the form "they might consider how this suggested action would better accomplish THEIR purposes" are welcomed, particularly if accompanied by some experience that would lend credence to what would otherwise be wild speculation by an unknown person.
If you read a few dozen threads in the archived submittal status review, you'll probably find a few cases where polite suggestions about site changes were made (by editors, of course.) Those take the form: "it's your website, and you can do whatever you want with it, but we think it would be more effective if you did thus-and-so, an approach that we've seen work well on other sites (such as example.com." That is, I think, in the best spirit of "putting yourself in the place of the person you are talking to." And it is much more polite than "change what YOU'RE doing because I WANNA!"
>The idea of ODP is great, but is it living up to promise if it takes years for review?
Yes. Because the time to review is always completely irrelevant, because the date of submittal is completely irrelevant.
Whenever a surfer can find what he is looking for, the promise is fulfilled. We still work to make it fulfilled more often -- and clearly, more work is needed. But "time to review" is not a measured statistic, because it bears no relation to directory quality.
>Is it really "open" if submissions happen in some imaginary limbo with no feeback to submitters?
Yes. It's "open" because the results of ODP editor activities are publicly published, and given away freely for free re-use. This is true even though many irrelevant production details, such as who spotted and canned a particular spammy submittal was spotted (and when), are considered confidential information.
>guidelines for submission can seem ambiguous to submitters.
I don't find the submittal guidelines that difficult. If you think of it like "things I learned in kindergarten" -- take your turn, don't hog the sandbox, don't be a crybaby, don't argue with the playground monitor, when you're helping don't do anything that makes things worse -- then you'll 99.9% of the guidelines will be obvious.
And even if someone steps over an "ambiguous" part of the line, there won't be any penalty unless there is also strong evidence of deception in the submittal.
Or .... you could use the forum to ask about aspects of the guidelines that confuse you. Such questions are the best indication we can get as to which parts of the guidelines are confusing. Just asserting that "something in the Pentateuch is confusing me" is no contribution to biblical scholarship!
Finally, anyone who finds the ODP concepts or taxonomy or guidelines or concept difficult to understand, should feel no obligation to help build it. There are many good things you could do with your time, and there will be no ethical condemnation of someone who doesn't think the ODP is important enough to comprehend or help. That gets back to your basic human rights (and mine.)
People, even people like you, are always free to comment. And people (even ODP editors like me) are always free to ask, "how does this comment mesh with MY beliefs and goals?" But editors are OBLIGATED to ask first, "how does this suggestion mesh with the ODP goals and community?"
>If the real world changes ... it will decay, become less meaningful, and eventually obsolete.
An interesting speculation. Do you have any experience in managing large taxonomies or maintaining large databases or participating in large volunteer communities, that might shed light on the reasons that you'd make such a prediction? And what changes are you expecting the real world to make, that would invalidate an interest in indexing the sum of human culture on the web? Are you anticipating a new wave of mongol barbarianism or neo-marxist thought-control? And if that happens, you think we can protect ourselves from it simply by providing status reports to spammers (among others)?
>You guys tell us to get our site reviewed by 4th graders.
I don't remember saying that, but it seems like a good idea. Do you mind if I repeat it?
