DMOZ needs a Express submission service.
- Thread starter fed2000
- Start date
Ha ha ha! Talk about humor!bobrat said:
"Welcome to the NEW DMOZ-Google! Please note the following changes to the Google search technologies:
1) Your results will no longer be returned to you immediately. Search results can take between 2 minutes and 2 years (or more) to appear on your screen.
2) You results will no longer be ordered by PageRank, as DMOZ-Google has no interest in serving the evil webmasters. Instead, links will appear in no particular order, from the "pile" of results generated.
3) Search results have been hand-selected by our editors. As such, some keywords may produce only a few hits. Please do not contact our keyword editors to have your website listed. Instead, you may suggest your site by using our submission pages."
Nareau
ODP listing and site position
I am not convinced that an ODP listing will get you listed higher on Google. I searched the first five pages of my catigory on Google. Not one listing was pulled from ODP. The listings on page one were pulled from Jayde,Comcast,Bizrate,two from a forum And one from Google directory. The other five were submitted web sites. There was a time when an ODP listing got you higher position on search engines. I just don't think it's the case today.
I am not convinced that an ODP listing will get you listed higher on Google. I searched the first five pages of my catigory on Google. Not one listing was pulled from ODP. The listings on page one were pulled from Jayde,Comcast,Bizrate,two from a forum And one from Google directory. The other five were submitted web sites. There was a time when an ODP listing got you higher position on search engines. I just don't think it's the case today.
jgwright
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 256
Ha ha ha! Talk about humor!
* You dare query in the wrong category! Your query has been deleted and you've worn out your welcome here.
* You must provide a clickable link to your website, your affiliations, and the category you're most interested in.
* Don't dare query those keywords again until Apr 7th 2005.
* Please tell us why, in less than 150 words, you consider yourself fit to query here.
Haha!nareau said:
How about these possible changes to the interface:
* You dare query in the wrong category! Your query has been deleted and you've worn out your welcome here.
* You must provide a clickable link to your website, your affiliations, and the category you're most interested in.
* Don't dare query those keywords again until Apr 7th 2005.
* Please tell us why, in less than 150 words, you consider yourself fit to query here.
I dunno, it may not be a good fit. Google keeps finding the sites that we've been conspiring to suppress. And, of course, there are millions of them -- why, it already takes me over 20 hours a day not to review them! I can only imagine how much worse it would be if I had to simultaneously not review all those Google search results.
"Get Banned forever" for sending chocolates?
Quote:
Originally Posted by idleplay
Locate Category
Find Editor
Find Editor's Website
WHOIS Domain
Get Address
Send Chocolates & URL
Await Inclusion
09-30-2004, 11:58 PM by: pvgool
Not completely correct.
Most possible last action will be
"Get Banned forever"
__________________
The above is just the opinion of a volunteer editor, and not an official ODP statement.
------------------------------
This is exactly the sort of response that people fear. An emotion response from an emotional human.
I sadly read all the posts following this, and the emotional responses to the banter back and forth only serves to prove that…Whenever an "emotional" factor is added to an equation, the end results are always distorted and debased.
Those who suggest URLs are humans, and those who make the ultimate decision to list the URL are humans. Humans are emotional creatures. Opinions are emotional responses to other opinions made by other emotional humans.
The suggestor, usually the website owner, has an emotional tie to the site they are suggesting… and like it or not the Editor also has an emotional response to the suggested site. Perhaps it is as simple as the colors or fonts used, that may subconsciously alter an editors like or dislike of a site, or as in many cases, as I have read about in the forums; suggested to incorrect categories, or accidentally submitting more than once (again the human factor for error).
There seems that there is no forgiveness for error in this community. Whether the infringement or error be intentional or accidental.
I have been reading through these forums as an outsider looking in, and by taking in to account all the complaints about long wait times, unscrupulous editors blocking competitors, and blacklisting (to name a few), and umpteen posting from submitters literally begging for forgiveness, (which lands on deaf ears)., since the one and only editor of a category is God, judge and jury.
From looking at these postings, anyone is able to clearly see that it seems that there is a problem somewhere in the system.
Perhaps paid inclusion is not the way to go, but the present system does not seem to be working adequately either.
In civilized societies, when one has a complaint against another, we are permitted to stand before a jury of our peers to present our case. Perhaps instead of allowing a single emotional human to be judge and jury, a system of checks and double checks, with an opportunity to present a case, to a higher authority might be one alternative.
It does not seem fair that sending chocolates to an editor would be cause for blacklisting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this directory is about resources, not the "humans" . Like a telephone book it should list the business and community resources, without prejudice for or against the humans behind the resource, and not the human who decides if it is worthwhile for me to see it.
Perhaps it is because I am an American. I value my freedom. My freedom to make my own decisions and my own choices, based on "all" the information available. But, if I am only permitted to access limited information, how am I able to make an informed decision. Should I not patronize a business because the advertising agency made an error in an ad? Should I not read a news article because my next door neighbor does not like the journalist who wrote it?
Without going in to specifics, there are places where one person decides what will be shown on your Television, what will be read in your newspapers, and who is listed in your telephone directory. Perhaps that is why some people who do not understand Americans, dislike Americans. We are protective of our freedoms. Our freedom of choice, our freedom of expression and freedom of speech. The original poster of the comment, who I suppose will now be blacklisted, because he voiced an opinion, because he hails from a country also values those same freedoms. It is in our nature to voice our opinions.
Even editors make the little note:
The above is just the "opinion" of a volunteer editor, and not an official ODP statement.
Opinions are an "emotional" reaction. Opinions are an expression of freedom of speech. Opinions are emotional responses to other opinions made by other emotional humans. Opinions should not condemn those who voice them or the vehicle that presents them. But this freedom should be multi-directional. Should it be allowed that one side be allowed to voice an opinion without harm or repercussion to the hosting vehicle, but not be permitted by another.
Yes, it appears that there is room for improvement in this ODP system. It probably will not be solved with a single answer, or one swift move. But, like any country without it's basic freedoms, the powers that be must first admit that a problem exists. Then, they can look at the system, locate the corrupt and dishonorable human factors, and perhaps create a directory, free from prejudice and malice toward none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by idleplay
Locate Category
Find Editor
Find Editor's Website
WHOIS Domain
Get Address
Send Chocolates & URL
Await Inclusion
09-30-2004, 11:58 PM by: pvgool
Not completely correct.
Most possible last action will be
"Get Banned forever"
__________________
The above is just the opinion of a volunteer editor, and not an official ODP statement.
------------------------------
This is exactly the sort of response that people fear. An emotion response from an emotional human.
I sadly read all the posts following this, and the emotional responses to the banter back and forth only serves to prove that…Whenever an "emotional" factor is added to an equation, the end results are always distorted and debased.
Those who suggest URLs are humans, and those who make the ultimate decision to list the URL are humans. Humans are emotional creatures. Opinions are emotional responses to other opinions made by other emotional humans.
The suggestor, usually the website owner, has an emotional tie to the site they are suggesting… and like it or not the Editor also has an emotional response to the suggested site. Perhaps it is as simple as the colors or fonts used, that may subconsciously alter an editors like or dislike of a site, or as in many cases, as I have read about in the forums; suggested to incorrect categories, or accidentally submitting more than once (again the human factor for error).
There seems that there is no forgiveness for error in this community. Whether the infringement or error be intentional or accidental.
I have been reading through these forums as an outsider looking in, and by taking in to account all the complaints about long wait times, unscrupulous editors blocking competitors, and blacklisting (to name a few), and umpteen posting from submitters literally begging for forgiveness, (which lands on deaf ears)., since the one and only editor of a category is God, judge and jury.
From looking at these postings, anyone is able to clearly see that it seems that there is a problem somewhere in the system.
Perhaps paid inclusion is not the way to go, but the present system does not seem to be working adequately either.
In civilized societies, when one has a complaint against another, we are permitted to stand before a jury of our peers to present our case. Perhaps instead of allowing a single emotional human to be judge and jury, a system of checks and double checks, with an opportunity to present a case, to a higher authority might be one alternative.
It does not seem fair that sending chocolates to an editor would be cause for blacklisting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this directory is about resources, not the "humans" . Like a telephone book it should list the business and community resources, without prejudice for or against the humans behind the resource, and not the human who decides if it is worthwhile for me to see it.
Perhaps it is because I am an American. I value my freedom. My freedom to make my own decisions and my own choices, based on "all" the information available. But, if I am only permitted to access limited information, how am I able to make an informed decision. Should I not patronize a business because the advertising agency made an error in an ad? Should I not read a news article because my next door neighbor does not like the journalist who wrote it?
Without going in to specifics, there are places where one person decides what will be shown on your Television, what will be read in your newspapers, and who is listed in your telephone directory. Perhaps that is why some people who do not understand Americans, dislike Americans. We are protective of our freedoms. Our freedom of choice, our freedom of expression and freedom of speech. The original poster of the comment, who I suppose will now be blacklisted, because he voiced an opinion, because he hails from a country also values those same freedoms. It is in our nature to voice our opinions.
Even editors make the little note:
The above is just the "opinion" of a volunteer editor, and not an official ODP statement.
Opinions are an "emotional" reaction. Opinions are an expression of freedom of speech. Opinions are emotional responses to other opinions made by other emotional humans. Opinions should not condemn those who voice them or the vehicle that presents them. But this freedom should be multi-directional. Should it be allowed that one side be allowed to voice an opinion without harm or repercussion to the hosting vehicle, but not be permitted by another.
Yes, it appears that there is room for improvement in this ODP system. It probably will not be solved with a single answer, or one swift move. But, like any country without it's basic freedoms, the powers that be must first admit that a problem exists. Then, they can look at the system, locate the corrupt and dishonorable human factors, and perhaps create a directory, free from prejudice and malice toward none.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2003
- Messages
- 5,872
You are not quite fair, when you write an emotion-laden postig like that and expect us to respond to it without being biased by emotion (In particular, the implication that the nationality of the editors, submitters or users should be particularly important - we are proud of being a truly international community, and constantly strive to get editors from different parts of the worlds to be more active and feel welcome.) But that's all by the by. Let me try to be factual.
No, I'm afraid you have misunderstood the idea behind the ODP. We do not aim to be the phone book. The phone book does that better than we ever could! We DO try to be free from prejudice towards the humans behind the resources.
You should also be aware of the fact that this is not an offocial ODP forum. A poster may be banned from Resource-Zone because s/he cannot keep a civil tongue in their mouth, but that doesn't affect the listing of their site. A poster who talks about that are forbidden - like bribery - will be asked not to do so. If you look a little further down on the page you'll notice that that particular issue was explained and the poster realised why it's not a good idea to talk about it. If he can drop it, I think you should be able to do so, too.
I'm not quite sure what improvements it is you want to see. Inclusion of all suggested sites is never going to happen - that's not what we are here to do, and again there are others who do that. We don't do their thing, they don't do ours. Of course there are problems within the directory. You won't find anybody who denies that. But removing the humans, and thus the emotion, from the project just ain't gonna happen, for that's what the whole project is all about.
Sorry if this is disjointed, but I've kept scrolling up to re-read your posting. There's a lot there I haven't addressed, but I'm sure other people will do so.
(In particular, the implication that the nationality of the editors, submitters or users should be particularly important - we are proud of being a truly international community, and constantly strive to get editors from different parts of the worlds to be more active and feel welcome.) But that's all by the by. Let me try to be factual.No, I'm afraid you have misunderstood the idea behind the ODP. We do not aim to be the phone book. The phone book does that better than we ever could!
We DO try to be free from prejudice towards the humans behind the resources.You should also be aware of the fact that this is not an offocial ODP forum. A poster may be banned from Resource-Zone because s/he cannot keep a civil tongue in their mouth, but that doesn't affect the listing of their site. A poster who talks about that are forbidden - like bribery - will be asked not to do so. If you look a little further down on the page you'll notice that that particular issue was explained and the poster realised why it's not a good idea to talk about it. If he can drop it, I think you should be able to do so, too.
I'm not quite sure what improvements it is you want to see. Inclusion of all suggested sites is never going to happen - that's not what we are here to do, and again there are others who do that. We don't do their thing, they don't do ours. Of course there are problems within the directory. You won't find anybody who denies that. But removing the humans, and thus the emotion, from the project just ain't gonna happen, for that's what the whole project is all about.
Sorry if this is disjointed, but I've kept scrolling up to re-read your posting. There's a lot there I haven't addressed, but I'm sure other people will do so.
I find that most new members who come to the forum are a little more than uptight. Most of the time I find that the Mods, Editors, Amin responses here are seriously helpful in their responses but tend to interject a bit of humor within those responses. I don't pretend to know the reasons other than I know I would do the same to keep attitudes at check and to break up the mundane.
I'd have to class this as another "ming the morose, would-be emperor petite of the internet" post.
The same themes recur: the complainer has infinite freedom over HIS website, but the ODP has none; society must be reformed to make sure that no action taken by anyone else, or even any inaction not taken, can be allowed to be inimicable to HIS interests.
As a contributor to several websites, I do not give up my freedom when I edit at the ODP. I contribute what I choose, based on what I think is an important contribution.
But the freedom _I_ claim does not include the right to call a tribunal on any other website that accords me inadequate adulation.
I don't think it's "emotional" to be indifferent to the self-proclaimed self-worth of someone who's already set himself so far above anything that a human has a right to claim.
And to think these are the people that call ODP editors arrogant!
I
The same themes recur: the complainer has infinite freedom over HIS website, but the ODP has none; society must be reformed to make sure that no action taken by anyone else, or even any inaction not taken, can be allowed to be inimicable to HIS interests.
As a contributor to several websites, I do not give up my freedom when I edit at the ODP. I contribute what I choose, based on what I think is an important contribution.
But the freedom _I_ claim does not include the right to call a tribunal on any other website that accords me inadequate adulation.
I don't think it's "emotional" to be indifferent to the self-proclaimed self-worth of someone who's already set himself so far above anything that a human has a right to claim.
And to think these are the people that call ODP editors arrogant!
I
photofox said:
I have submitted our site (www.resumexposure.com) several times over the last couple years. The first few times it was auto-submitted as a function of MS's bCentral submit-it tool.
We've been in business since 1999 and have watched many resume distribution services (a concept of which we helped bring to the internet) come and go. Many services that are no longer doing business are still listed on the DMOZ.org site, yet we have been given no feedback on why our site has or hasn't been review. No feedback on things we may need to change to get listed. Our customers have less than a 1 in 500 chargeback rate - that is a HUGE satisfaction rate compared to our competitors. We have been a member of the BBB Online for the last several years and have a perfect record with them.
Like the dmoz.org directory, our recruiter database is human approved. Each recruiter subscribing is verified by a human on our staff to prove they are legit. We do no simply add random recruiter email addresses that we happened to find on the internet. Many of our competitors who are listed on this directory do not have our quality processes and yet they are listed and we are not.
We have great rankings on Google and Yahoo!. If dmoz.org is a service for users (not webmasters), then I can't imagine what would be better for users than to have our site as an option to compare with the other sites listed in the Resume Distribution (http://www.dmoz.org/Business/Employment/Resumes_and_Portfolios/Distribution/) category. When we launched our site there were only 2 other similar services - we were a pioneer in this service area. We'd like a fair shot at getting listed in a timely manner. It's been over 2 years since our original submission.
Please help!!!!!!!
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
I'm going to trust, from the manner in which you put together your post above, that you are a mature individual who can handle plain speaking without personalizing. I'f I'm mistaken, please read no further.
If you know of web sites that are still listed, and you know that they are out of business, and you've not told us about them, then you are a part of the problem, at least insofar as you've lost your right to complain about them being listed.
Imagine if I went to your website, used a feedback mechanism, and told you that a bunch of the recruiters you have are no longer in business, but did not offer a clue as to who I was talking about. Sure we have an automated link checker, and sure, we use our on Mark-20 eyeballs to check out as many sites as possible, but we are not to proud to take assistance. If you get a chance, take a look at the last 20 or so pages of postings and responses in the abuse forum located here. You'll see that our seniormost editors work this discussion thread and try to jump on issues as soon as we learn about them -- just as you would if someone gave you feedback that you had specific problems.
It is the empty "you guys have a bunch of bad sites" type complaint that drives us nuts, because there is nothing we can do about it.
p.s. don't tell anyone I said this, but getting an editor active in a cat, cleaning out problem sites, often results in all or part of the submission pool getting cleaned out at the same time. Human nature and all that.
Not our job, not our mission, not our goal in life, not our responsiblity. Our editing guildelines are public, and we voluntarily staff this forum to give status checks. No where in ODP or on this forum do se commit to feedback or analysis.
Will you come iron my shirt before my next interview? I didn't think so.
Those are good things, and they reflect well upon you and your company, but we simply do not factor them in when we consider a web site. We look at the content of the web site and try to identify the content that is found there and not elsewhere on the web. If it is hidden, we might not find it. If it is not there, we can't very well find it.
Imagine, if you would, how long it would take us to list a website if we had to check out a company's bonafides? We'd go from thousands of sites added daily to tens of sites added daily.
-----
One of the great challenges we face, particularly since the creation of this forum, is that a lot of people (some well meaning, some not so well meaning) think we should be something that we are not, or they try and steer us away from where we need to be focused: building a directory of websites with unique content that will serve our surfers and downstream data users.
Even this tread is based entirely on the fallacy that we need submissions/suggestions in order to build this directory. While it sounds harsh, and some people with think I am being mean, we could do very well without URL suggestions. That doesn't mean we don't accept them, and it doesn't mean that we won't look at them (eventually), but we don't stop what we are doing because some webmaster decides to submit her or her site. It goes into the pile and we will review it when we review it. No priority for who was here first, no priority for those with a gold card or a seating pass, no priority for those who claim to do good works, or those who kill others in the name of religion. We reach into the submission pool and pull out a few suggestions, work on some of them, and toss the rest back into the pool.
And while there is no way to formally influence the process, there are tricks of the trade to make an editor possibly want to pick a given site out of the submission pool:
-- Submit to the correct category. I spend hours every week sorting missubmitted sites. Do I sort them and list them? Almost never, I'm not going to reward people who create more work for me.
-- Write compliant titles. How are all the other site titles formatted? If every other real estate site used the format Joe Smith - Acme Realty and someone submits a title: Buffy the Realtor, serving everyplace on the planet! Call now for low commission rates!!!!!!!!!! Does that make me want to reach out and review the site?
-- Use the description to describe the site. Don't tell me your market position! "We're #1!!!!!!!!!!" Tell me what someone can find on your site, and the description (while it may very well get rewritten) may catch the editor's eye.
Yes, some sites are going to wait a very long time through no fault of their own. We have about 10,000 active editors at any given moment -- and a backlog of submissions that would give you hearburn. The sad thing is that robably half of our submission are bad - maliciously bad. But there is no magic want we can wave to sort the good from the bad, short of opening up our Mark-20 eyeball and checking each one out.
Hope this helps.
If you know of web sites that are still listed, and you know that they are out of business, and you've not told us about them, then you are a part of the problem, at least insofar as you've lost your right to complain about them being listed.
Imagine if I went to your website, used a feedback mechanism, and told you that a bunch of the recruiters you have are no longer in business, but did not offer a clue as to who I was talking about. Sure we have an automated link checker, and sure, we use our on Mark-20 eyeballs to check out as many sites as possible, but we are not to proud to take assistance. If you get a chance, take a look at the last 20 or so pages of postings and responses in the abuse forum located here. You'll see that our seniormost editors work this discussion thread and try to jump on issues as soon as we learn about them -- just as you would if someone gave you feedback that you had specific problems.
It is the empty "you guys have a bunch of bad sites" type complaint that drives us nuts, because there is nothing we can do about it.
p.s. don't tell anyone I said this, but getting an editor active in a cat, cleaning out problem sites, often results in all or part of the submission pool getting cleaned out at the same time. Human nature and all that.
Not our job, not our mission, not our goal in life, not our responsiblity. Our editing guildelines are public, and we voluntarily staff this forum to give status checks. No where in ODP or on this forum do se commit to feedback or analysis.
Will you come iron my shirt before my next interview? I didn't think so.
Those are good things, and they reflect well upon you and your company, but we simply do not factor them in when we consider a web site. We look at the content of the web site and try to identify the content that is found there and not elsewhere on the web. If it is hidden, we might not find it. If it is not there, we can't very well find it.
Imagine, if you would, how long it would take us to list a website if we had to check out a company's bonafides? We'd go from thousands of sites added daily to tens of sites added daily.
-----
One of the great challenges we face, particularly since the creation of this forum, is that a lot of people (some well meaning, some not so well meaning) think we should be something that we are not, or they try and steer us away from where we need to be focused: building a directory of websites with unique content that will serve our surfers and downstream data users.
Even this tread is based entirely on the fallacy that we need submissions/suggestions in order to build this directory. While it sounds harsh, and some people with think I am being mean, we could do very well without URL suggestions. That doesn't mean we don't accept them, and it doesn't mean that we won't look at them (eventually), but we don't stop what we are doing because some webmaster decides to submit her or her site. It goes into the pile and we will review it when we review it. No priority for who was here first, no priority for those with a gold card or a seating pass, no priority for those who claim to do good works, or those who kill others in the name of religion. We reach into the submission pool and pull out a few suggestions, work on some of them, and toss the rest back into the pool.
And while there is no way to formally influence the process, there are tricks of the trade to make an editor possibly want to pick a given site out of the submission pool:
-- Submit to the correct category. I spend hours every week sorting missubmitted sites. Do I sort them and list them? Almost never, I'm not going to reward people who create more work for me.
-- Write compliant titles. How are all the other site titles formatted? If every other real estate site used the format Joe Smith - Acme Realty and someone submits a title: Buffy the Realtor, serving everyplace on the planet! Call now for low commission rates!!!!!!!!!! Does that make me want to reach out and review the site?
-- Use the description to describe the site. Don't tell me your market position! "We're #1!!!!!!!!!!" Tell me what someone can find on your site, and the description (while it may very well get rewritten) may catch the editor's eye.
Yes, some sites are going to wait a very long time through no fault of their own. We have about 10,000 active editors at any given moment -- and a backlog of submissions that would give you hearburn. The sad thing is that robably half of our submission are bad - maliciously bad. But there is no magic want we can wave to sort the good from the bad, short of opening up our Mark-20 eyeball and checking each one out.
Hope this helps.
It would really help if you would keep discussion of resumexposure.com to your original thread.