DMOZ needs ideas and assistance

Craig Lucas said:

The most alarming comment you make which I believe humbly does not accurately reflect the original intention of the DMOZ.

"It is for DMOZ. We are not here to list specific sites. We are here to build a directory"

That is arrogance - can you imagine a humble writer of the Oxford dictionary saying he is not there to include english language words. But rather is there to create a dictionary. It is absurd. A Dictionary is a listing of words. - I am glad that Dmoz uses the example of the Oxford Dictionary as it is a listing of ALL words....See below

"The policy of OED is to attempt to record all known uses and variants of a word in all varieties of English, worldwide, past and present. To quote the 1933 Preface:

The aim of this Dictionary is to present in alphabetical series the words that have formed the English vocabulary from the time of the earliest records down to the present day"

Thus by friend you may wish to re think your improper view of this directory - it was created to be a directory or web sites. And the obligation of an editor is to review and include these websites not for DMOZ but for the general public.

Click to expand...

I think pvgool's view is a proper one and far from "arrogance". The obligatino of an editor is to enjoy their hobby and build the directory that DMOZ wants not what SEO's want. The directory's goal is to be the most useful directory it can be to our users. Our submission instructions which must be acknowledged as read before suggesting a site state very clearly:

Submission Instructions said:

We care a great deal about the quality of the ODP. We aren't a search engine and pride ourselves on being highly selective. We don't accept all sites, so please don't take it personally should your site not be accepted. Our goal is to make the directory as useful as possible for our users, not to have the directory include all (or even most) of the sites that could possibly be listed or serve as a promotional tool for the entities listed.

Click to expand...

We (as editors) are under no obligation to review any suggested sites, often times the sites suggested are not listable and it is far more productive to seek out the ones that are on our own without ever looking in that reviewed pile.
We don't accept all sites and that is where much of the confusion stems. These SEO types have promised their customers a service. They use whatever means they have to suggest sites to dmoz, often times resulting in spamming the directory. Their customers start wondering why they aren't seeing the statistic numbers they were promised. THe SEO response is "The editor at dmoz that is reviewing the submissions is a competitor keeping your site out" and whala all editors are corrupt and dmoz needs to close up and go home.
The reality is that:

1. In any community there are going to be some corrupt members. That doesn't mean that the whole community is corrupt and needs fixed.
2. The ODP works very hard to find and remove any corrupt editors and to correct the problems they create.
3. I am not ANYONE's competitor. At least not until my brother has kids and designs a website for them.
4. In my nearly two years as an editor, I have never worked with any editor whom I suspected of being corrupt. Everyone I have worked with have worked very hard in their own capacity to add quality to the areas they edited.
5. Most editors that I know are editing in areas that are of interest to them personally, but that they have little direct connection (i.e no websites to be listed) with.
6. I have deleted nearly 2000 sites most of which were merely removing duplicates suggested to the same or several categories and leaving one copy for review in the right place. This doesn't make me corrupt.
7. Much of an editors time is spent doing nothing but moving mis-suggested sites and deleting multiple suggeseted sites from the unreviewed pool.

Craig Lucas said:

I think what people see is posts like the one by PGOOL where he clearly says the review is only for DMOZ. And in cases like ours where we have tried for many months to be listed but have no idea why we are not, and we see our competitors there with numerous listings under numerous headings and all in very short order.

Click to expand...

dmoz is not a listing service. You cannot try to be listed, all you can do is suggest that the site might be what DMOZ is looking for. It may be and it might not be but you have made the suggestion and that is all you need to do. If your site is what dmoz is looking for it will eventually show up in the directory, if it isn't then it won't. Not being listed doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the site, just that it wasn't what dmoz was looking for. What you do with your site going forward shouldn't hinge on being listed in any directory, let alone dmoz.org.

Submit and move on to your other promotional strategies. That is all you can/need to do.

Just my

Craig Lucas said:

Perfect response - Ok so if I was to request that our employees do this then they could work on some of these boxes that are not often reviewed. This is exactly what I was wondering about. Do you have any ideas of what areas of expertise this would be?

Click to expand...

You don't get it.
An editor only 'works' where he/she wants to.
No category needs help but all categories can use help.
Or as someone (I believe hutcheson once wrote): a category only needs help if someone decides to help the category.

If any person wants to help build the directory they are welcome to apply as an editor in the category they personaly decide.
There are a few guidelines:
- pick a small category ( < 50 is preferable , > 100 is almost always a nogo)
- pick a category that can be expanded and improved by you
- be honest in your application
- provide 3 new sites that fit exactly in that category, and provide guidelines compliant titles and descriptions

Sorry gentlemen - I believe that your idea of DMOZ is not inline with what was orriginally intended. Yes it is understandable that due to human error and lack of assistance the directory would by dynamic and suffer in some areas but exceed in others.

However it seems a large amount of self evaluation has taken place where editors defend the directory and never step back to reaccess what was orriginally intended or how it could best suit the public. A tragic flaw of most Open source is that the one basic check and balance is not there to ensure that the system works well for the end users. Basically DMOZ has fallen into this category as well. People think that because what they are doing is free they are thus right. They think that because their intention is good they are right.

This is often not the case with software and obviously is not the case with this directory - which as discussed is not a true directory.

Happily projects such as Mozilla and Open Office have had stronger founders who have kept the projects inline with original intent

if DMOZ has changed and now the editors have decided to create a directory of convenience where areas can go on edited for months and sites receive preferential treatment then this is not what was originally intended.

Click to expand...

If you're suggesting abusive practices in certain categories, then I would recommend that you submit an abuse report, though I will warn you that most cases of reported abuse are just simple neglect, categories that no one has wanted to edit in awhile or categories with continual spam.

Sorry gentlemen - I believe that your idea of DMOZ is not inline with what was orriginally intended. Yes it is understandable that due to human error and lack of assistance the directory would by dynamic and suffer in some areas but exceed in others.

Click to expand...

Why would dynamic change in the directory necessarily be the result of human error or lack of assistance? Some of the dynamic change is a result of active work on the part of editors as a group, e.g. certain types of sites becoming unlistable or only being acceptable into certains areas of the directory.

You must know that you're not the first person to come in here with suggestions for how the directory should change. We'd be the first to agree that the directory isn't perfect but most of the changes that are continually suggested here are not changes that we have considered or are considering. Suggestions like lowering new editor acceptance standards so there are more editors or forcing editors to edit in specific categories or charging for listings just aren't going to fly.

Craig Lucas said:

to ensure that the system works well for the end users.

Click to expand...

I can't remember ever have seen a complaint of any of our users.
Or do you mean website-owners / website-manager / webdeveloper / seo-person with end user. In that case I have to end your dream. These are not our users, never have been and never will be.

Craig Lucas said:

Sorry gentlemen - I believe that your idea of DMOZ is not inline with what was orriginally intended.

Click to expand...

Thats ok, you are in titled to your opinion. I disagree with it whole heartedly and having seen the good things that editors do every day, I am confident in my opinion that the directory is working to accomplish the goals it has always followed.

Craig lucas said:

A tragic flaw of most Open source is that the one basic check and balance is not there to ensure that the system works well for the end users. Basically DMOZ has fallen into this category as well. People think that because what they are doing is free they are thus right. They think that because their intention is good they are right.

Click to expand...

The system does work very well imo for the end users, it is just sometimes that the opinions of who the end users are differ. SEO and website owners think they are the end users and that they have some "right" to dictate what editors can and cannot do. Editors on the other hand look to put the best sites available into an organized directory that a surfer can find what they are looking for as quickly and efficiently as possible. And choose collectively to do so they way they feel best follows the guidelines outlined by dmoz.

Editors of dmoz often interpret the guidelines differently. They often debate what is best and always attempt to reach a community concensus as to how to tackle new projects. Editors wouldn't attempt to dictate to any organization how to organize or run their own website and by the same token will not accept anyone trying to dictate the way editors organize or run their directory. dmoz.org is "Open Source" in the context that anyone following the license agreement can freely use the data in any manner they choose and doesn't imply that anyone is guaranteed listing or granted any "right" to dictate how its editors build their categories. This is a great community of which I am proud to be a member. No I don't always agree with all decisions reached and will ademently dispute things that I disagree with. Being able to disagree but still reach a concensus isn't a flaw it is what keeps the directory growing.

You don't agree with our views. That is fine, we are used to it, we aren't forcing anyone to be interested in the ODP. That is the beauty of it, if it isn't what you are looking for then you are free to ignore it. The directory and its editors won't be offended. We understand and accept that, but on the other hand don't expect us to change our view to conform with the views of others that aren't interested in the project because we won't.

There are some parts of this conversation that are, to me, quite scary:

I am interested in having some of our editorial team / tech team join and requesting that they spend 1-2 hours per week on this as part of their employment.

how some of the people here at our company could help with the work load. I need to approve all community service work and I want to ensure that they are working on something that is worthwhile.

If we as a company do donate it would be by having our tech and editorial staff work on the directory as part of the community service work they perform. We pay our staff to do community service work 1 - 2 hours per week. We believe that this creates well rounded employees

I would not allow them to edit our site or partner sites.

Ok so if I was to request that our employees do this then they could work on some of these boxes that are not often reviewed.

Click to expand...

What I see here (assuming the best of intentions) is setting up a situation where by someone outside of the Directory is trying to direct the work flow of a controlled subset of editors.

It would be impossible for this "work director" to know what areas of the directory might be in need of work without some editor in his employ sharing information the size of the queue, or allowing him to "look over his/her shoulder, while editing.

The applications would be suspect because they would rpboably be a collaborative effort.

And if one of these employees has a question on editing guidelines or style, or current thought -- do they go to the internal fourm and their peers, or to the person who pays their check?

Who wins in the "work director" wants one thing done while editor/meta concensus is to get something else done?

And, does this outiside work director get to unduly influence the internal concensus process becuase he is able to marshall his "team" to all take the same position.

Frankly, in my personal opinion, what is being proposed is a dangerous corruption of the system of volunteerism that has made this directory great. This is also one of the great problems that arise when well-meaning people, who really don't know how the directory works, try to get in and micromanage operations.

I, for one, would probably leave if this proposal came to pass.

We have over 100 employees at RenovationExperts.com and all employees are expected to do some basic volunteer work. We would not be looking over anyones shoulder. We would not be telling them how to the job. I clearly have indicated our intention, our name, and my name not hiding behind any fake identity. However after posting here for the day - I have decided that this is not an effective area for any of our employees to spend volunteer time on which is sponsored by Renex Corp.

As it is clear that their is little consensus as to the goals, development, and policy of the directory. Actually after reading the posts I re-read the site extensively and believe now that their is a clear mandate for the site - however very few have decided to follow that original mandate. I was an editor at one time in the early days. It is sad to see how things have progressed so poorly. I wish all those who continue to uphold the original virtues of a Human based directory the very best.

Thank you all for your time.

Craig Lucas

Craig, I think you mean well with this proposal of semi-hired help, but ... I also think you don't appreciate the fundamental fact, which spectregunner has illustrated: there are three braids to the ODP rope: structure, goal, community. The conceived goal and conceived community defined the structure. The structure and goal attracted the community; the community and structure refine what goal is achievable.

This is not the only admirable goal; it is not the only practical structure; this is not the only public-spirited community. But it is the only goal that this structure can demonstrably achieve with this community; it is the only structure that could harness this community to achieve this goal; it is the only community where we can work together this way for this purpose.

So if you have another goal in mind, or another structure -- go ahead, build a community to work THAT way for THAT purpose. Ideally, you'd focus on a purpose that is not currently well served by either commercial or volunteer efforts: that is, you'd cooperate with all the current projects by avoiding unnecessary reduplication of effort. Some of us might well help -- certainly there are ODP editors on all the community projects I know anything about! But the ODP has the limitations as well as the strengths of its components.

And one of those limitations is that the main attraction of the project to volunteers is the idealized goal: so members of the community expect the process to remain faithful to that ideal. Anything that smacks of "paid editors", no matter how subliminally, is not going to fly.

This community distrust is not mere idealistic fervor. We've had similar "smackings" in the past, and we have experienced a variety of ways in which they can turn very nasty. And, because I'm convinced you're NOT thinking nasty-suspicious thoughts, I'll just mention one: employee pressured to turn editor login over to employer. Employer assigns editor login to new employee. Employer pressures employee to acquire extra logins for later use. And ... away it goes. (Yeah, I said, I don't think you'd even thought of that! And it's not just commercial entities: the same problem has arisen in academic situations, and the potential has stymied all the ideas I've had about getting, say, scout troops involved.)

Ironically, the very characteristic that your SERP perp friends decry as proving ODP corruption, is seen in the community as fundamental to ODP integrity: in order to be fair to sites that AREN'T being professionally promoted, the editor has to be free NOT to be influenced in any way by outside pressures -- and, do not miss this -- the outside pressures are (in reality and in plain sight) far more driven by ulterior motives than any potential within the community.

For instance, an editor who had pressed the claims of his own site (in the internal forums) as hard as you've pressed the claims of yours -- and, yes, I know, that was very mild, compared to typical forum posts! -- would probably have already "crashed and burned" (we call it "ODP suicide syndrome") under the community reaction. That kind of self-serving, no matter how mild, just isn't socially acceptable.

I appreciate the desire to find other ways of harnessing effort, I really do. (I wouldn't have put hundreds of hours into the ODP if I didn't think it was worth the effort!) But ... I think we need to recognize our own limitations. And one of them is -- not only to BE faithful to the ideals, but not even to SEEM unfaithful, in the sight of the people who share those ideals.

And if the cost of THAT kind of integrity is that some OTHER community thinks our main activity is midnight meetings to drink the blood of newborn babies, that's OK. That's really OK.

Perhaps they should try a paid service - I am sure SEO companies and others would be more than happy to pay a fee of $100 to have your site reviewed and to be placed properly in this directory.

Click to expand...

There have been several previous suggestions about exactly how someone could do that. Simply set up a quality directory that contains only sites that are not in DMOZ; and explicitly permit/invite DMOZ editors to graze your Directory.

If the idea worked, it would quickly become a source for new ideas that was several hundred times more productive for everyone that the current suggested URL pools.

Suggested here by an ODP editor: (msg 33)
http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15887&page=3

Discussed on an SEO forum here (may need registration, depends on your browser)
webmasterworld.com/forum17/1822.htm

Qoute from Hutcheson

Ironically, the very characteristic that your SERP perp friends decry as proving ODP corruption, is seen in the community as fundamental to ODP integrity: in order to be fair to sites that AREN'T being professionally promoted, the editor has to be free NOT to be influenced in any way by outside pressures -- and, do not miss this -- the outside pressures are (in reality and in plain sight) far more driven by ulterior motives than any potential within the community.

Click to expand...

There is a topic in the Cleaning Community Associations about this that fundamentally lead to re-organizing the whole Janitorial Organizations in the US. The small business owners recently cried foul over Marketing strategies of On-line refferal services. A major setback was driving down the market price drastically by making each individual owner compete for a house cleaning worth a penny. It used to be a nice service for the industry but after a while SEO perps working for Refferal Services flooded the web with cloacked and redirect sites making it impossible for legitimate sites of businesses to be found since they have no idea on how to build. Most of the Refferal Services are interactively connected to each other and vice-versa. Take the presence of the Yellow Pages.Com. Every refferal service is listed under the site even in banners. A web listing for a whole state is being offered for the amount of $800.00 a month. Imagine a region banner listing of the cost. Who suffers then would be the Small Businesses. Of course the basic principle is how to be reimbursed for the amount invested. Charges for a House Cleaning nowadays is $45 less company expense and gas would take away a mere $ 20 off the hat and take away the Leads Fee of $7-9 per lead cost. They even named most refferal services as MMM's( Do I need to elaborate the meaning as published by individual business owners?). But that is the beauty of free enterprise everybody gets a piece of the pie. The only sorry ones are the Un-proffesional webmasters who might be starting to build their business and know nothing about promoting and advertising. But this will be taken up in a convention this coming Spring somewhere in the US and not the janitors alone it includes Maintenance Services as a whole. Dont get me wrong I only read what is published publicly out there. So far, according to the Cleaning Associations, Dilla's Maids have been very nice to offer their services to the Maintenance Industry for free with their web popularity and most services are listed in their site.( Just 1 example )

Your competitors are listed in the Directory but dont worry about it because consumers and cleaning associations know your web presence. Service Magic ; Respond ; Contractors.com and many more pay for leads site. So let it be known that ODP editors are not sleeping and we are aware of what is happening out there and beside the submissions, we look for sites in individual categories. There is no need to educate the editors of every individual site. So to speak about goals, you have yours, they have goals, industries have theirs and the directory has its own.

Note: I am not an editor in your category. I just found what is written out there through search.