DMOZ needs a Express submission service.

hutcheson said:

>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.

Click to expand...

You are right there are stupid and sleezy webmasters who will try that..but dont you believe that a good editor can detect that. Second it doesnt have to be one of their websites. It could be a total random website that they know and like.

I know of several websites in my industry that should be included into ODP but are not. Whether they have been submitted I have no idea. My suggestion is based on 3 possible facts. 1. It would allow editors to review 2 websites at once if they had the time. 2. It would enable the editor if you happen to have one of those sleezy webmasters trying to manipulate the system to get caught because of their greed. 3. If time is an issue it could free up other editors that may want to spend time listing websites instead of removing those sleezy webmaster sites that somehow bypass the ODP guidelines.



I am not an editor so I can only look at this problem from an outside viewpoint and make a suggetion based on some of the things I see in my industry pertaining to ODP. In my industry there are a lot of doorway sites listed in ODP Miror sites and of course one you mentioned and that is a website broke into 2 seperate websites.

Why must you be on the offense with my suggestion. I understand that the people who edit for ODP are under a lot of pressure by people like myself to get their websites included..BUT not everyone is trying to pull your chain..try to remember that. Have you become so jaded that you feel everyone is out to scam you?

This is one reason I could not do your job. If I do something volunteer I should enjoy it and never feel as if I am being pressured. I do understand however.

Just food for thought ...not all of us that post here and make suggestions no matter how stupid they may seem are trying to pull the wool over an editors eyes.

My

I can't believe this thread hasn't been locked. There will never be an express submission service no matter how many threads get started about it or what they say.

Whether they have been submitted I have no idea.

Click to expand...

There is nothing that precludes you from suggesting them.

Mr-Question, don't you see what you're doing?

Joe Schmoe has a good website to suggest -- and the fact is (as I've mentioned often enough in the forums) most submitters are good Joes. He wants to submit this website. But you tell him, "no, you can't submit this website unless you jump through my hoop." Every hoop added costs us good websites! And it's also petty tyranny, insinuating insultingly that we don't trust him -- again, a good way to lose submitters with good intentions. No, if someone has one good site, we want to hear about it, as expeditiously as possible!

But take this same silly rule. The vicious spammer (and a large minority of our submitters are them) sees the limitation, snickers at our stupid credulity, and makes his second submittal (1) another one of his clones or fraternal mirrors, (2) a dead link, (3) a totally irrelevant site. None of those options are going to slow HIM down any, huh? We don't like spam, huh? He'll give us TWICE the spam for the same price!

See, when you think about how people actually act -- people with their own motivations and distractions and personalities ready to be engaged or repelled -- rather than speculating about what might happen in a world of robots, see how different things look?

Now, I didn't go through that analysis originally for this proposal, because I've done it for so many likeminded ones. And the common pattern is: the petty thief sneers at the petty tyrant; the honest man turns away from any appearance of either. We want to attract the honest folk, and ... we don't have any way of telling beforehand which of you are among them. So we focus on efficiency for all parties, rather than random inefficiencies that invariably and inevitably harm only the helpful folk but cannot ever impose any barrier to the professional spammers.

No reply to site submission status request either.

You know what really bothers me about this entire system.....

I can't even get a reply to my Properly Formatted submission status request!!

Zip, zero replies to my inquiry. I have no idea if my original submission is alive, dead, or was never born.

I understand the slow nature of this system, but common courtesy by dmoz would be appropriate.

We try to get all of them, but some slip through the cracks. If it goes more than three or four days without a response, bump the thread back to the first page.

It is always well, when you are asking a favor of others, not to start out by attributing discourtesy when there might be other explanations. As you can see by reading the forums, even the rudest requests get answered, but ... in fact, throughout life you'll save yourself a lot of incipient paranoia by never assuming a motive for a non-action. Save your speculations about motives for things that actually happened, eh?

But why would you assume you should get a reply, we never have given replies, and nothing in the submission guidelines says we will.

If you search through this forum, we say again and again we are not going to give replies, and the reasons why that will not happen.

We do give status checks though.

It's just sometimes we get so many requests that some get pushed down to a second or third page before we answer them, and they get missed.

(Well, I suppose there may be other reasons, but that would be the main one.)

Yeah, I thought he was talking about a status check too -- which we answer except in the most extreme cases (I don't know if I can remember even three exceptions.)

But anyway, whichever the question was, it got answered.

He *was* talking about a status request -- and it only waited a day. It happens.

hutcheson said:

Mr-Question, don't you see what you're doing?

Joe Schmoe has a good website to suggest -- and the fact is (as I've mentioned often enough in the forums) most submitters are good Joes. He wants to submit this website. But you tell him, "no, you can't submit this website unless you jump through my hoop." Every hoop added costs us good websites! And it's also petty tyranny, insinuating insultingly that we don't trust him -- again, a good way to lose submitters with good intentions. No, if someone has one good site, we want to hear about it, as expeditiously as possible!

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. People when they submit to ODP are already jumping through hoops with the way they have to submit already and the time frames they have to wait to be included, not to mention the fact that people who submit are harassing editors on a daily bases. Lets be honest here for a sec. What do you think is the primary reason people want to be included into the ODP?

IMHO..to be included into the google directory and the weight that the backlink is having with google results. Its not the traffic the ODP directory will drive to their websites..at least not in my industry.

I personally feel that if you told people to stand on their head ..sing God Bless America while submitting lol..that is what they would do. LOL at least the american submitters ...hahahaha

I do agree with you however that editors must put up with a lot of unethical submitters. Whether it is true or false..everyone believes for the most part that a ODP listing will get them ranked higher in google or help more so than any other directory listing.

we want to hear about it, as expeditiously as possible!

Lets also not forget the possible politics of submitting to ODP. You mentioned you want to hear about unique websites to include in the ODP. Well I have one website I know over 15 months ago was submitted to ODP of mine and it hasnt been listed yet.

IMHO it is a very good website with unique content, well coded and very user friendly..but no listing.

We know that within certain directories in ODP, competitors are editors of those directories and it is only human nature to want to delay some of those listing to be included....since this could move a competitor past them in the results. Another example would be..lets say someone came in here and really bad mouthed you and then ask you to put them into the directory...your emotions are most likely will take over and do you think you would include them? We are all human.

Well I think I have moved off the orginal topic and must return to it. I will say with any system there can be improvement..even this one. My suggestion was just that a way I felt this might improve your system..ODP will always have unethical webmasters trying to skate by your guidelines. This is something that only time and will be able to solve.

>ODP will always have unethical webmasters trying to skate by your guidelines.

This is true. And this is one important point.

>People when they submit to ODP are already jumping through hoops with the way they have to submit already and the time frames they have to wait to be included

The former only requires the minimum information that would be helpful; the latter is not a hoop to be jumped at all -- you can slide through it sleeping.

There are no _arbitrary_ requirements there -- no "type the number in the box", no personal identification or registration or even e-mail demanded.

That's as large as the hoop can be made -- or is it?

Proposals that would make submittal EASIER for CASUAL users (but not at the same time open the door wider for spambots -- which are a recurrent problem) would probably be of interest to us.

ODP are already jumping through hoops with the way they have to submit already

Click to expand...

Based on the descriptions I get with 99.9% of submissions, nobody is jumping that high.

Let's make the submission guidelines really simple:

1. choose one category to submit to

2. read the description for that category

3. write a site description that is not loaded with keywords

Bet you the majority of people cannot even follow those three rules.

But you have, I think, touched on an issue that is relevant. The majority of site submissions are made by those that want to get a better Google rating, and could care less about the ODP, and that attitude shows in the care made in making site submissions.

hutcheson said:

>ODP will always have unethical webmasters trying to skate by your guidelines.

This is true. And this is one important point.

>People when they submit to ODP are already jumping through hoops with the way they have to submit already and the time frames they have to wait to be included

The former only requires the minimum information that would be helpful; the latter is not a hoop to be jumped at all -- you can slide through it sleeping.

There are no _arbitrary_ requirements there -- no "type the number in the box", no personal identification or registration or even e-mail demanded.

That's as large as the hoop can be made -- or is it?

Proposals that would make submittal EASIER for CASUAL users (but not at the same time open the door wider for spambots -- which are a recurrent problem) would probably be of interest to us.

Click to expand...

you can slide through it sleeping.

Well I am sure there has been many a submission that has gone unattented because the submission wasnt submitted properly. Even my own site I mentioned in the last post. The submission isnt the that easy. I am sure there are people that have problems with it because there have even been post on this forum pertaining to the process. IMHO from reading the forum there seem to be a lot of people that have trouble with the process..hince so many questions on the forum about it.

It seems to me those of us that are ethical are having to pay for the so called spambots. I have noticed that some are only interested in circumventing the process..but what I consider brainstorming is one sure way to beat them at there own game. Open threads like this help you the editors and us the consumers who are really trying hard to understand the best way to have our websites included.

bobrat said:

Based on the descriptions I get with 99.9% of submissions, nobody is jumping that high.

Let's make the submission guidelines really simple:

1. choose one category to submit to

2. read the description for that category

3. write a site description that is not loaded with keywords

Bet you the majority of people cannot even follow those three rules.

But you have, I think, touched on an issue that is relevant. The majority of site submissions are made by those that want to get a better Google rating, and could care less about the ODP, and that attitude shows in the care made in making site submissions.

Click to expand...

I dont know if its they dont care or truly understand the process. I for one 2 years ago would have had a very hard time trying to submit myself. Over the last 2 years I have learned a lot about the web and this directory.

I know even myself. A listing in ODP is only going to help my google rating. I am not looking for any magic bullet for this directory to bring me a lot of extra visits..other then people looking for link partners out of this directory.

I do not try to hide the fact that the only benefit I see of being listed is three fold. 1. Better rating with google. 2. A sense of accomplishment being listed. 3. A chance of aquiring new relant link partners.

Others may have many other reasons but I feel these are probably the most common.

Mr Question said:

you can slide through it sleeping.
Open threads like this help you the editors and us the consumers who are really trying hard to understand the best way to have our websites included.

Click to expand...

Although it is nice that we have this forum, I do not believe that the ODP views webmasters as consumers as much as they do the end user of the Directory itself. I only point this out since this is where the 2 drastically diverge in motivation and purpose leading to misconceptions and frustrations for webmasters.

Mr Question said:

I do not try to hide the fact that the only benefit I see of being listed is three fold. 1. Better rating with google. 2. A sense of accomplishment being listed. 3. A chance of aquiring new relant link partners.

Others may have many other reasons but I feel these are probably the most common.

Click to expand...

And hence the goal of the ODP and the webmaster will probably never be the same.

A small fee may be the way to go

Below is a letter I sent to Google, I think this might take some of the pressure off of DMOZ, I hope you all support it.

Dear Google Management,

I am aware that DMOZ has been under the fire of criticism. In reviewing this criticism, understanding the plight of the volunteers and also being frustrated with sites sitting in queues for close to two years, I have become aware of one fact. The fact is that DMOZ is under fire because Google places so much emphasis in page rank on the directory.

Since DMOZ, although a noble organization with noble intentions, is having problems keeping up with some categories, much less emphasis should be placed on the DMOZ directory in the Google algorithm. This would take the pressure off of DMOZ volunteers.

Another suggestion is that DMOZ move to a paid submission system for certain spammy categories. This would decrease the spam. If the submission cost were kept low, such as $5, then it would still be affordable to the multitude of start-up businesses in the struggling world economy.

>> Another suggestion is that DMOZ move to a paid submission system for certain spammy categories. This would decrease the spam. If the submission cost were kept low, such as $5, then it would still be affordable to the multitude of start-up businesses in the struggling world economy.

You do realize that Google has no control over that and the ODP's social contract itself prohibits charging for submissions?

Since DMOZ, although a noble organization with noble intentions

Click to expand...

And we've got jimnoble.

much less emphasis should be placed on the DMOZ directory in the Google algorithm.

Click to expand...

This would in effect mean placing a special "downgrading" on DMOZ because as far as I can see the algorithm doesn't place any special emphasis on DMOZ listing. I don't want to start a discussion on this mind you.

I'm sure Google will also appreciate the depth of knowledge and amount of thought that went into that proposal.