DMOZ needs a Express submission service.
- Thread starter fed2000
- Start date
jgwright
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 256
Agreed
I like your way of putting it. I have to qualify my "agreement" though. If a site is good enough to list today in a certain category, and it's been submitted, and it doesn't get added for two years then you have to wonder what's wrong with that editor. Correct? Well not exactly, there are many editors. The editor who finally adds it may have just seen the submission, and the site, for the very first time. Some editors have a policy, rightly or wrongly, of treating the submission pile as low priority. (BTW I don't.) Definitely some categories need "help" - but that's a rather redundant statement - there's no way an organism like ODP is going to run at optimum efficiency.
Forget business models for a start. The title of the thread is DMOZ and what it needs. DMOZ is not a business.
Foundation for a better system? Maybe. Presumably the fee would be paid *on listing*. ODP must, above all, reserve the right to not list a site. The most important thing is building a directory and listing *good* resources. Doing it quickly, as you rightly point out, is important too. No in point today's best resources not being listed until 2006 when people might have put the Internet in the cupboard and moved onto hula hoops or skateboards.
What does DMOZ do with the money? They need the juice for a couple of servers and a few man-hours per week. Benefactors (would) have no problem providing for that out of their loose change. Paying editors? No way. Arrange parties and get-togethers for editors maybe? Difficult to spread the $$$ evenly. $$$ corrpupts.
Does DMOZ need this service or is it a particular area? Shopping maybe? There could be some milage gained in splitting off and giving this area a slight "rebranding" in order to distinguish it and give it what it "needs". But anybody is free to do this using the DMOZ data as a starting point (I think???). The fact that they haven't, or the fact that people are still hanging on DMOZ, must mean that DMOZ is doing alright thank you.
The status quo is where it's at mate.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2003
- Messages
- 5,872
fed2000, we're not joking when we say this has been discussed many MANY times before. Why don't you take a moment to search for some of the old threads and read them? Thing is, it gets really old and repetitive to re-hash the same arguments - that's why you are getting curt responses. If you read what editors have replied to the same questions before, you will find that there are actually a lot of reasons why a system with paid listings isn't ever going to be implemented. You may not agree with our reasons, but they are what they are.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2003
- Messages
- 5,872
Oh, and regarding the sensitivity of the subject of bribes - I do realise that you two are joking, but what you don't know is that editors have been harrassed, had themselves and their families threatened and their lives generally made thoroughly miserable by webmasters who wanted a listing at any price. It doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen, and that's why the joke turns sour. So you'll have to forgive and accept our lack of humour - on this particular subject.
nea]fed2000 said:
Ok, I see that this will never be a option.
Paid listing listings or not the fact remains that the current system can use a overhaul.
You guys like to stress the point that the DMOZ directory is molded towards the surfers needs.
Fresher content being deployed Benefits the web surfer.. at the same time it benifits the webmasters who are the backbone of any directory
Like I said earlier.. this place is far from a perfectly carved gem.
This theard was a attempt to focus on ways in general to make DOMZ more effective, be it by paid inclusion or not.
>Fresher content being deployed Benefits the web surfer.. at the same time it benifits the webmasters who are the backbone of any directory
What you are overlooking (perhaps deliberatedly) is that the content WOULDN'T BE FRESHER, but quite the reverse!
The decreased efficiency would cause site listings on average to be DELAYED. And, on the average, that will hurt surfers.
But it is not that which would hurt surfers most, but the bias.
Currently, the ODP's bias toward commercial sites is smaller than that of most other web resources. The ODP's interface supports extremely efficient handling of submitted sites, but generally less efficient inclusion of other, more important, more valuable sources of links.
This results in an overemphasis on submitted sites, which we have not figured out how to correct.
Constructive suggestions to correct this bias would be welcomed. But .... suggestions on ways to REINFORCE it simply don't interest us.
What we are interested is not ways of getting SUBMITTED sites processed faster, but ways of getting UNSUBMITTED sites processed just as fast as submitted sites. We're a LONG way from that, and it is a BIG problem. We'd be happy to delay submitted sites MUCH more and even to tolerate more inefficiency, to correct the bias we already have, and to give those unsubmitted sites a fair shot at a review.
What you are overlooking (perhaps deliberatedly) is that the content WOULDN'T BE FRESHER, but quite the reverse!
The decreased efficiency would cause site listings on average to be DELAYED. And, on the average, that will hurt surfers.
But it is not that which would hurt surfers most, but the bias.
Currently, the ODP's bias toward commercial sites is smaller than that of most other web resources. The ODP's interface supports extremely efficient handling of submitted sites, but generally less efficient inclusion of other, more important, more valuable sources of links.
This results in an overemphasis on submitted sites, which we have not figured out how to correct.
Constructive suggestions to correct this bias would be welcomed. But .... suggestions on ways to REINFORCE it simply don't interest us.
What we are interested is not ways of getting SUBMITTED sites processed faster, but ways of getting UNSUBMITTED sites processed just as fast as submitted sites. We're a LONG way from that, and it is a BIG problem. We'd be happy to delay submitted sites MUCH more and even to tolerate more inefficiency, to correct the bias we already have, and to give those unsubmitted sites a fair shot at a review.
It does occur to me that someone who knows the ins-and-outs of DMOZ could make a pretty penny by charging people for a "pre-review". They could be a (well-paid) front-line ally to DMOZ by charging affiliate websites $25 to tell them that they'll never be listed, and exactly why. Heck, they could even do a *good* job finding the right category, writing descriptions, submitting sites, asking for status requests per the guidelines.
I'm not suggesting that they would be affiliated with DMOZ in any way. Just knowledgeable about it.
I don't know if it would work, but I bet it would. In fact, I bet a lot of people already do it. Huh.
Nareau
I'm not suggesting that they would be affiliated with DMOZ in any way. Just knowledgeable about it.
I don't know if it would work, but I bet it would. In fact, I bet a lot of people already do it. Huh.
Nareau
I'm surprised no one posted a link to the social contract yet. In particular:
We've actually suggested this idea before. Try searching on "not-in-dmoz" (or something). We like resources of good sites. If someone had a directory all set up following the ODP category structure, with good sites listed with compliant titles and descriptions, we'd mine that thing constantly. For some reason, no one has yet taken up this idea.
longcall911
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2004
- Messages
- 106
It's a huge task with all of the same inherent issues that you face day in, and day out. . . sorting through the junk to find likely ODP candidates.lissa said:For some reason, no one has yet taken up this idea.
From a business perpective, startup costs would be high, and my guess is that you'd have to go out a few years before reaching break-even. Then, if at any point, Google decides to lessen the importance of inbound links, very few commercial webmasters will care if they are ODP listed and so sales would likely halt.
It's just too risky a proposition.
Mr Question
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2004
- Messages
- 16
hutcheson said:
I would offer the suggestion of having a person who is submitting a request to be included into the ODP to suggest another website within their industry and market to be reviewed and make it mandatory.
This would allow the editor to view 2 possible websites instead of just one. I know you are probably saying well a webmaster will suggest 2 of his or hers clients in that market or a website owner will suggest 2 of their own sites.
This is really not a bad thing because if one website deserves to be included then the second one should as well if the site owner or webmaster has followed the same guidelines for creating the second site. Plus this would prevent people later from submitting sites that they are hoping will by pass certain guidelines that must be met in order to have 2 such listings in ODP.
This could save time and allow the editors who are having to remove a lot of second websites from the ODP for such things as miror sites doorway pages and so on. This will save valuable time and energy for editors that have to go in and remove some sites for violating guidelines and maybe open more editors up to process submissions. Also you get to view 2 websites instead of one with every possible submission.
>This is really not a bad thing because if one website deserves to be included then the second one should as well ...
Here's something worth stomping on, hard. A lot of really really stupid webmasters (or really really sleazy webmasters, or both) think that if one listing is good, two would be better, so they break their one site into two sites and submit both of them.
You think this isn't bad. I tell you that we think this is the worst thing a submitter can possibly do, as you can tell from reading our submittal policies -- because this is the ONLY submitter action mentioned that will result in ALL sites from that webmaster being removed!
If one site is worth listing, the other is absolutely for 100.0000000% certain NOT worth listing.
The logic is simple here. If it were at all worth listing, the webmaster who CREATED the site would link to it from his other site! If even HE won't link to it, how totally worthless it must be -- the mind boggles.
Whereas if the webmaster DOES link to it from his other site, then ... logically it is a part of that other site, and should not be listed at all.
Now, that total lack of sympathy for the ODP method is serious enough that your proposal simply cannot be considered practical. But that is a minor, an almost insignificant thing beside the more fundamental problem.
Our fundamental attitude towards volunteers (and towards ourselves) is, "do whatever good you will, and do no harm."
That's not very restrictive, do you notice? Oh, we have more rules, about what we (in our experience) have found "good", and what causes "harm," but the fundamental principle remains -- whatever good you do is rewarded. That's the way you coordinate free people. You don't RULE them, you don't BOSS them, you don't MANAGE them -- you give them the best tools you can make, and then you get the catenation-of-deleted-expletives out of the way!
Now go back and look at your proposal. Does it offer better tools? more inspiration? higher goals? improved methods?
Or ... is it just petty tyranny -- arbitrary rules designed to outlaw GOOD good things that volunteers might otherwise do?
And ... is it firmly based on rigorous analysis of tens of thousands of submittals representing samples of all kinds of sites? Or is it a specious and speculative justification totally unrelated to any actual pattern of submittals that ever occurred in the known universe?
Look, I can't blame you for not basing your suggestion on facts, because I know you don't know any. But I do blame you for not knowing that you don't know anything about the relevant facts. And I do blame you for being so quick to set yourself up as a dictator, when we don't have and don't need and don't want any such thing.
See, the problem is that we have such efficient methods for handling suggested URLs. And you are saying, "well, make those methods LESS efficient." No, what we always want and always will want is to make them yet MORE efficient. And when, as a result, there is a problem with bias (like now), the real solution is to make processing OTHER sources of links much more efficient.
This is worth pouncing on, really really hard, because so many outside suggestions fit this form: MORE RULES! LESS RESULTS! LEGISLATE, DEMOTIVATE, DEVASTATE! And the root problem with all of those is that you guys aren't Davros and you don't have an army of robot enforcers. And even if you were and you did, our first duty to society would cease to be the ODP and begin to be Dalek-killing.
In the meantime, we constantly remind editors that just because submitted sites are EASY to find doesn't mean they are IMPORTANT, or that they should be a PRIORITY. We remind our volunteers that doing a really good job involves using all kinds of tools. And ... people tend to forget, but our volunteers like doing a really good job -- as you may easily see by comparing any of our noncommercial categories with the Yahoo equivalent.
That's the environment in which any plausible and practicable solution must function.
Here's something worth stomping on, hard. A lot of really really stupid webmasters (or really really sleazy webmasters, or both) think that if one listing is good, two would be better, so they break their one site into two sites and submit both of them.
You think this isn't bad. I tell you that we think this is the worst thing a submitter can possibly do, as you can tell from reading our submittal policies -- because this is the ONLY submitter action mentioned that will result in ALL sites from that webmaster being removed!
If one site is worth listing, the other is absolutely for 100.0000000% certain NOT worth listing.
The logic is simple here. If it were at all worth listing, the webmaster who CREATED the site would link to it from his other site! If even HE won't link to it, how totally worthless it must be -- the mind boggles.
Whereas if the webmaster DOES link to it from his other site, then ... logically it is a part of that other site, and should not be listed at all.
Now, that total lack of sympathy for the ODP method is serious enough that your proposal simply cannot be considered practical. But that is a minor, an almost insignificant thing beside the more fundamental problem.
Our fundamental attitude towards volunteers (and towards ourselves) is, "do whatever good you will, and do no harm."
That's not very restrictive, do you notice? Oh, we have more rules, about what we (in our experience) have found "good", and what causes "harm," but the fundamental principle remains -- whatever good you do is rewarded. That's the way you coordinate free people. You don't RULE them, you don't BOSS them, you don't MANAGE them -- you give them the best tools you can make, and then you get the catenation-of-deleted-expletives out of the way!
Now go back and look at your proposal. Does it offer better tools? more inspiration? higher goals? improved methods?
Or ... is it just petty tyranny -- arbitrary rules designed to outlaw GOOD good things that volunteers might otherwise do?
And ... is it firmly based on rigorous analysis of tens of thousands of submittals representing samples of all kinds of sites? Or is it a specious and speculative justification totally unrelated to any actual pattern of submittals that ever occurred in the known universe?
Look, I can't blame you for not basing your suggestion on facts, because I know you don't know any. But I do blame you for not knowing that you don't know anything about the relevant facts. And I do blame you for being so quick to set yourself up as a dictator, when we don't have and don't need and don't want any such thing.
See, the problem is that we have such efficient methods for handling suggested URLs. And you are saying, "well, make those methods LESS efficient." No, what we always want and always will want is to make them yet MORE efficient. And when, as a result, there is a problem with bias (like now), the real solution is to make processing OTHER sources of links much more efficient.
This is worth pouncing on, really really hard, because so many outside suggestions fit this form: MORE RULES! LESS RESULTS! LEGISLATE, DEMOTIVATE, DEVASTATE! And the root problem with all of those is that you guys aren't Davros and you don't have an army of robot enforcers. And even if you were and you did, our first duty to society would cease to be the ODP and begin to be Dalek-killing.
In the meantime, we constantly remind editors that just because submitted sites are EASY to find doesn't mean they are IMPORTANT, or that they should be a PRIORITY. We remind our volunteers that doing a really good job involves using all kinds of tools. And ... people tend to forget, but our volunteers like doing a really good job -- as you may easily see by comparing any of our noncommercial categories with the Yahoo equivalent.
That's the environment in which any plausible and practicable solution must function.
Thank you for a concrete suggestion.
I think the difficulty is that the sites that aren't being submitted are in completely different areas and of completely different "types" than the ones that do get submitted. Asking a submitter to suggest more of the same thing they are submitting isn't likely to solve the problem. Although there would probably be some good extra suggestions, I'd guess that the volume of extra junk would go up far faster.So of course it's fine for them to wish WE would take on the idea, even though it is against out social contract...
I can always mine links faster than I can list them. Maybe instead of trying not to add things to unreviewed, we should change focus internally and add as much as we can find that belongs but isn't being submitted. Although this would greatly increase the unreviewed, there would be a better balance of sites waiting for review and a higher percentage of quality sites. Hmmmm - maybe good fodder for an internal discussion...
jgwright
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 256
Sounds like a good idea. You'd have to have a thick skin though; as you'd get flack when the site still wasn't listed six months later. Re "status requests per the guidelines.", they'd probably set themselves up as insiders so no need to do this I guess...nareau said:
hi,
according to me dmoz is on right path. Thousands of website is posted every day, out of them only few are listed, others have to rebuilt their sites, or add more information or they have improve.
Paid will encourage the big bull guys, and will be very easy to spam. But ofcourse real good & imp web-sites are still to be get listed.
go4vij
according to me dmoz is on right path. Thousands of website is posted every day, out of them only few are listed, others have to rebuilt their sites, or add more information or they have improve.
Paid will encourage the big bull guys, and will be very easy to spam. But ofcourse real good & imp web-sites are still to be get listed.
go4vij