Please. Think about it. Really think about it. You're in here quoting crap posted by supposed editors (whose veracity you can't judge since they cloak themselves in anonymity) as gospel and then twisting comments made by actual editors to fit the fantasy you've chosen to believe.
Editors, Categories, Checks and Balance's
- Thread starter timamie261
- Start date
>While I can ask editors to do this...
It is with no apology and no regret that I tell you, you may not ask editors to do this.
And the "social contract" tells you what you may reasonably expect. It is not what you think.
If you don't trust the editors to do what we say we'll do, why would you trust them to do the things you want done instead anyway?
It is with no apology and no regret that I tell you, you may not ask editors to do this.
And the "social contract" tells you what you may reasonably expect. It is not what you think.
If you don't trust the editors to do what we say we'll do, why would you trust them to do the things you want done instead anyway?
timamie261
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 572
cant I left out the t
timamie261
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 572
It is not fantasy it is called people, here is an example. " I get a call -- be at the port for a four day job Iam going to cover your fuel" the trusting fool I am I jump in my very large truck and drive 14 hours only to find out the job is one day long not the four I was told. Round trip 28 hours for a days pay on a lie. Please keep in mind if you turn down work in my feild you can go broke very quick.
Fact it is human nature in most areas. I know over there when people tell you something for the most part there word is there bond. I worked with several british, irish, and 4 russians in the caspian sea for months we had a great time once we got the political tripe out of the way.
Fantasy would actualy beleiving that lie I was told, I come to expect it here are some simpler ones you can understand.
Your doing a good job = Your making me look bad
I want you on every job from now on = I want you off my job and on another crew.
I will see you first thing at 5am = I am going out to the pub to get smashed and I will be late.
I am looking in to the errors on your pay check = I am holding up paying you as the company has not pay us and I spent to much at the pub.
Did you even look at the links I posted on that company life is not a fantasy in spite of there being a song "life is just a fantasy"
I do expect to see self preservation from people posting here it is only the human thing to do after all.
Back to the questions, I do consider question 4 answered truthfuly at least.
There is still questions 3 - 7 - 8 - 10 - 11.
I think the answer to number three is: the plant is growing in a different direction than the one you're looking at, and (with no knowledge of horticulture) you can't be expected to know how large a pot it needs.)
tim, let me put some questions to you, to see if you have grasped what you have been told already. It's obvious most of what has been said just hasn't sunk in.
So: you answer these questions, and we'll see what's left of your questions, OK?
(1) An editor's job is to:
(a) find, review, describe, and categorize good websites
(b) process site suggestions
(c) serve webmasters however they wish to be served.
(2) The editors' work is defined by:
(a) What they think is worth doing
(b) What webmasters want
(c) The number of sites on the web
(3) Each editor's priorities are defined by
(a) His own interests, abilities, and definition of "importance".
(b) What will make the most money.
(c) Arbitrary site ratings defined by the Galactic Overlord.
(4) If a website doesn't get reviewed today,
(a) It's OK.
(b) Its owner's inalienable right to a free ride from the universe has been violated,
(c) The ODP supervisors ought to descend on the hapless culpable editor and visit excruciating punishments on him.
(5) Site submittals are:
(a) at least 90% pure spam garbage,
(b) a way of demanding rightful service from editors,
(c) a way of exercising absolute control over what editors are permitted to do.
(6) Editor rejections of listable sites (whether by mistake or with malice) are:
(a) Very rare, too rare to worry about
(b) A mass conspiracy designed to deprive other people of their inalienable right to undreamt-of riches
(c) A very good thing to worry and obsess over, day and night.
(7) Site submittals are:
(a) an unreliable, biased, and often-abused way of supplementing editors' ways of finding sites,
(b) the only way editors could find sites,
(c) the only way editors should be permitted to find sites.
(8) Editors are responsible:
(a) to the community, to use the ODP privileges to do only work that helps build the directory.
(b) to webmasters, to provide free site promotion or site development consultation services for any site
(c) To anyone who wants to make up new ritual actions to be performed, and pointless rituals to be executed.
(9) The way to get a good grasp of how the ODP works is to:
(a) go to the "submittal status" forum, and review a few hundred websites, looking at the process and outcome of their review (and acceptance or rejection).
(b) look for people who show no indication of having ever been ODP editors except for their unsupported work, and believe whatever they say.
(c) try to imagine all the vile and malicious things you would do if you were an ODP editor.
(10) The best way to build a directory is to:
(a) develop efficient ways of finding good sites, and even more efficient ways of rejecting spam quickly.
(b) make sure that all spam receives personal handwritten responses giving away the editor's e-mail address to angry vicious spammers.
(c) spend a lot of valuable development time writing software so that you can spend a lot of valuable editing time making sure that editors aren't skimping on the personally handwritten letters to spammers.
(11) The solution to quality control is:
(a) let anyone report quality problems, and give editing privileges to people who care about quality.
(b) take all the editors off of editing, and put them to watching each other watch each other not edit?
(c) procedures, procedures, procedures: make sure that everyone who does anything files reports in triplicate, based on the sure faith that anyone who even thinks about doing something malicious would be stopped dead in their tracks by the necessity of lying about it afterward.
(12) Have you done the right thing on #9 yet? What were your conclusions?
(13) Have you made any suggestions that address the real concern in #10 yet? What are they?
(14) Have you made any contributions to ODP quality, in the form of information that editors could use to improve the ODP in any way whatsoever? What are they?
(15) Have you managed to avoid making suggestions that would cause editors to waste much more time with completely unproductive activities -- that is, activities that did nothing at all to contribute to the purpose of the ODP? If not, have you apologized and retracted your suggestions?
Post your answers to these questions, and then perhaps we can figure out what's still confusing you, and what you might do to help, and how you can avoid being a hindrance -- and whether you want to do that, and whether the community would profit by the help enough to tolerate the hindrance.
tim, let me put some questions to you, to see if you have grasped what you have been told already. It's obvious most of what has been said just hasn't sunk in.
So: you answer these questions, and we'll see what's left of your questions, OK?
(1) An editor's job is to:
(a) find, review, describe, and categorize good websites
(b) process site suggestions
(c) serve webmasters however they wish to be served.
(2) The editors' work is defined by:
(a) What they think is worth doing
(b) What webmasters want
(c) The number of sites on the web
(3) Each editor's priorities are defined by
(a) His own interests, abilities, and definition of "importance".
(b) What will make the most money.
(c) Arbitrary site ratings defined by the Galactic Overlord.
(4) If a website doesn't get reviewed today,
(a) It's OK.
(b) Its owner's inalienable right to a free ride from the universe has been violated,
(c) The ODP supervisors ought to descend on the hapless culpable editor and visit excruciating punishments on him.
(5) Site submittals are:
(a) at least 90% pure spam garbage,
(b) a way of demanding rightful service from editors,
(c) a way of exercising absolute control over what editors are permitted to do.
(6) Editor rejections of listable sites (whether by mistake or with malice) are:
(a) Very rare, too rare to worry about
(b) A mass conspiracy designed to deprive other people of their inalienable right to undreamt-of riches
(c) A very good thing to worry and obsess over, day and night.
(7) Site submittals are:
(a) an unreliable, biased, and often-abused way of supplementing editors' ways of finding sites,
(b) the only way editors could find sites,
(c) the only way editors should be permitted to find sites.
(8) Editors are responsible:
(a) to the community, to use the ODP privileges to do only work that helps build the directory.
(b) to webmasters, to provide free site promotion or site development consultation services for any site
(c) To anyone who wants to make up new ritual actions to be performed, and pointless rituals to be executed.
(9) The way to get a good grasp of how the ODP works is to:
(a) go to the "submittal status" forum, and review a few hundred websites, looking at the process and outcome of their review (and acceptance or rejection).
(b) look for people who show no indication of having ever been ODP editors except for their unsupported work, and believe whatever they say.
(c) try to imagine all the vile and malicious things you would do if you were an ODP editor.
(10) The best way to build a directory is to:
(a) develop efficient ways of finding good sites, and even more efficient ways of rejecting spam quickly.
(b) make sure that all spam receives personal handwritten responses giving away the editor's e-mail address to angry vicious spammers.
(c) spend a lot of valuable development time writing software so that you can spend a lot of valuable editing time making sure that editors aren't skimping on the personally handwritten letters to spammers.
(11) The solution to quality control is:
(a) let anyone report quality problems, and give editing privileges to people who care about quality.
(b) take all the editors off of editing, and put them to watching each other watch each other not edit?
(c) procedures, procedures, procedures: make sure that everyone who does anything files reports in triplicate, based on the sure faith that anyone who even thinks about doing something malicious would be stopped dead in their tracks by the necessity of lying about it afterward.
(12) Have you done the right thing on #9 yet? What were your conclusions?
(13) Have you made any suggestions that address the real concern in #10 yet? What are they?
(14) Have you made any contributions to ODP quality, in the form of information that editors could use to improve the ODP in any way whatsoever? What are they?
(15) Have you managed to avoid making suggestions that would cause editors to waste much more time with completely unproductive activities -- that is, activities that did nothing at all to contribute to the purpose of the ODP? If not, have you apologized and retracted your suggestions?
Post your answers to these questions, and then perhaps we can figure out what's still confusing you, and what you might do to help, and how you can avoid being a hindrance -- and whether you want to do that, and whether the community would profit by the help enough to tolerate the hindrance.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
I hope you will answer hutcheson's questions.
Maybe we should ask these questions to all people wanting to post at R-Z.
Maybe we should ask them to all people wanting to suggest a site.
From what I make from it.
1) Editors are all volunteers and are allowed to participate in every forum they want and are also allowed not to participate in any forum they don't want to. They are also allowed to write anything they want (except to copy material seen as private from internal DMOZ sources, zee http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/communication.html#privacy )
2) We know that like in any community some of our members don't act according to our standards and some are corrupt. We know this has happened in the past and we understand that this very probably will happen in the future, it even might be happening right now. The only thing we can (and will) do is fight these people. When discovered they will be removed and their wrong doing corrected. In this fight we appreciate any help from non-editors. That is why we have a possibility to file abuse reports.
In every category 'work' can be done by several 100 editors. (but nonone knows if they actualy will do some 'work' and when they will do it)
Only a few categories have an editor name listed at the bottom.
Please also read the FAQ (hmm, haven't we asked you before :angel: )
There's no editor for my category - will my submission ever get reviewed?
Every category can use the help offered. But no category needs help.
Categories only need editors if someone thinks (s)he can do some usefull work in that category.
from one of you other postings
Looking at situations like a webmaster is the wrong side.
Looking at situation from DMOZ perspective is the right side.
Webmaster: one site was rejected for wrong reasons -> DMOZ is doing a bad job
DMOZ: one site was rejected for wrong reasons but we listed several 100 other sites this day and we deleted several 100 other sites for good reasons -> DMOZ is doing a good job
DMOZ user: I can find many sites about the subject I am looking for -> DMOZ is doing a good job
Webmasters all think that their own site is the most important thing in the world (nothing wrong with that thought). But from the big DMOZ perspective it is just one of many possible sites to include in the directory.
If a suggested site was rejected for the wrong reasons and it is a realy good site we will find it through other sources and list it at that time.
DMOZ is not interested in individual sites or individual webmasters.
DMOZ is also not interested in any effect a listing will have on the site being listed.
DMOZ is only interested in building a good (preferably the best) directory.
Maybe we should ask these questions to all people wanting to post at R-Z.
Maybe we should ask them to all people wanting to suggest a site.
In the mean time I'll try to answer your questions (by rewriting them they make a lot more sense)timamie261 said:
Most probably because noone was interested in 'working' in that tree of categories.
I don't understand the question.
From what I make from it.
1) Editors are all volunteers and are allowed to participate in every forum they want and are also allowed not to participate in any forum they don't want to. They are also allowed to write anything they want (except to copy material seen as private from internal DMOZ sources, zee http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/communication.html#privacy )
2) We know that like in any community some of our members don't act according to our standards and some are corrupt. We know this has happened in the past and we understand that this very probably will happen in the future, it even might be happening right now. The only thing we can (and will) do is fight these people. When discovered they will be removed and their wrong doing corrected. In this fight we appreciate any help from non-editors. That is why we have a possibility to file abuse reports.
Doesn't matter. I forgot what I wanted to answer
This question has already been answerd many times.
In every category 'work' can be done by several 100 editors. (but nonone knows if they actualy will do some 'work' and when they will do it)
Only a few categories have an editor name listed at the bottom.
Please also read the FAQ (hmm, haven't we asked you before :angel: )
There's no editor for my category - will my submission ever get reviewed?
This is not how it works in DMOZ.
Every category can use the help offered. But no category needs help.
Categories only need editors if someone thinks (s)he can do some usefull work in that category.
from one of you other postings
Like all your questions you are looking at it form the wrong side.
Looking at situations like a webmaster is the wrong side.
Looking at situation from DMOZ perspective is the right side.
Webmaster: one site was rejected for wrong reasons -> DMOZ is doing a bad job
DMOZ: one site was rejected for wrong reasons but we listed several 100 other sites this day and we deleted several 100 other sites for good reasons -> DMOZ is doing a good job
DMOZ user: I can find many sites about the subject I am looking for -> DMOZ is doing a good job
Webmasters all think that their own site is the most important thing in the world (nothing wrong with that thought). But from the big DMOZ perspective it is just one of many possible sites to include in the directory.
If a suggested site was rejected for the wrong reasons and it is a realy good site we will find it through other sources and list it at that time.
DMOZ is not interested in individual sites or individual webmasters.
DMOZ is also not interested in any effect a listing will have on the site being listed.
DMOZ is only interested in building a good (preferably the best) directory.
timamie261
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 572
(1) An editor's job is to:
(a) find, review, describe, and categorize good websites
(b) process site suggestions when the site qualifies under the Dmoz guidelines.
Answers modified
(2) The editors' work is defined by:
(a) What they think is worth doing and what is dictated under the editor guidelines of responsibilities of Dmoz
(3) Each editor's priorities are defined by
(a) His own interests, abilities, and definition of "importance".
And that will promote the growth of the directory
(4) If a website doesn't get reviewed today,
(a) It's OK.
(5) Site submittals are:
(a) at least 90% pure spam garbage,
(6) Editor rejections of list able sites (whether by mistake or with malice) are:
(a) Very rare, too rare to worry about
I do not believe malice should ever come in to play with a listing, this should always be done objectively
6 seems to be a little unclear and this seems to be the best answer.
(7) Site submittals are:
(a) an unreliable, biased, and often-abused way of supplementing editors' ways of finding sites,
(8) Editors are responsible:
(a) to the community, to use the ODP privileges to do only work that helps build the directory.
(9) The way to get a good grasp of how the ODP works is to:
(a) go to the "submittal status" forum, and review a few hundred websites, looking at the process and outcome of their review (and acceptance or rejection).
I am working on this believe this or not I come in to hundreds of emails most being spam.
I have managed to reduce spam posting on my site through the use of a small piece of code , and a filter. Please do not get me wrong on this some still manages to get through
(10) The best way to build a directory is to:
(a) develop efficient ways of finding good sites, and even more efficient ways of rejecting spam quickly.
(11) The solution to quality control is:
(a) allow the reporting of quality problems, and give editing privileges to editors who care about quality with proven track records.
answer modified
(12) Have you done the right thing on #9 yet?
I have read part of that forum.
a) My site dose not reek of buy here like the ones that were rejected.
b) My site provides people ways of locating vehicles from other people and dreams that could never be reached, ie I wish I could afford that car I love that car.
c) My site provides ways of buyers and sellers to become informed of scams and become and informed seller and buyer.
d) My site provides a place for how to editorials to be submitted, clubs and events around the world.
e) My site does not contain spam.
f) My site is safe for everyone.
g) My site is SSL in all modes you choose.
h) My site is competitively submitted to the right category.
i) My site is international known around the world by many car people and I can see this in the systems logs I wish Lagos Nigeria did not know about it some times.
j) The most important "Does my site deserve a listing" this is up to the editor to make this decision, if there is one for the category I have submitted it under.
What were your conclusions?
My thought alot of the sites in question reek of just selling you something, and lack any supporting information other then a way to contact them to make a purchase.
There is no submittal status any more, I have not looked for one nor am I looking for one.
(13) Have you made any suggestions that address the real concern in #10 yet? I can not make a recommendation until all my answers are clear to me and I know more on some of these matters.
What are they?
I have a few ideas on the spam issues, they would probably be considered lecturing, or telling some how to do there job. I am trying to understand the Dmoz of today.
(14) Have you made any contributions to ODP quality, in the form of information that editors could use to improve the ODP in any way whatsoever? What are they?
In the past years, I did not waste my time or editors time submitting garbage sites. I made sure the sites met the guidelines. I will continue to submit sites of quality as any thing else would be a waste of your time and mine. If things change for me and I find a better safer way of making money, I would most certainly contribute a few hours of time daily to Editing categories and like I said before I would give a 100% effort to quality.
I would dump the obvious spam sites and run a script over them for the obvious trash, ie one pagers, scams and so on. I do believe that any one should be able to visit the results of the directory and that it should be content safe for everyone.
(15) Have you managed to avoid making suggestions that would cause editors to waste much more time with completely unproductive activities -- that is, activities that did nothing at all to contribute to the purpose of the ODP? If not, have you apologized and retracted your suggestions?
As for useless suggestions I don't believe I have made any, people ideas should always be considered, whether they are a good or not. They do not have to be implemented nor should they if they are bad ideas. Ideas are good and most humans have them, if your not making mistakes then your not learning of moving forward. On the other hand making fraudulent mistakes are not excepting by any standards.
If your looking for an apology or retraction here I am not going to make one. I do not believe I have wasted any time with the questions I have asked. And in fact since some of my posts I have noticed some subtle changes, I can not mention them here as I have been asked not to refer to the other thread.
I have removed what I believe to be sarcasm from some of your provided answers and have added to some that seemed to be incomplete.
(a) find, review, describe, and categorize good websites
(b) process site suggestions when the site qualifies under the Dmoz guidelines.
Answers modified
(2) The editors' work is defined by:
(a) What they think is worth doing and what is dictated under the editor guidelines of responsibilities of Dmoz
(3) Each editor's priorities are defined by
(a) His own interests, abilities, and definition of "importance".
And that will promote the growth of the directory
(4) If a website doesn't get reviewed today,
(a) It's OK.
(5) Site submittals are:
(a) at least 90% pure spam garbage,
(6) Editor rejections of list able sites (whether by mistake or with malice) are:
(a) Very rare, too rare to worry about
I do not believe malice should ever come in to play with a listing, this should always be done objectively
6 seems to be a little unclear and this seems to be the best answer.
(7) Site submittals are:
(a) an unreliable, biased, and often-abused way of supplementing editors' ways of finding sites,
(8) Editors are responsible:
(a) to the community, to use the ODP privileges to do only work that helps build the directory.
(9) The way to get a good grasp of how the ODP works is to:
(a) go to the "submittal status" forum, and review a few hundred websites, looking at the process and outcome of their review (and acceptance or rejection).
I am working on this believe this or not I come in to hundreds of emails most being spam.
I have managed to reduce spam posting on my site through the use of a small piece of code , and a filter. Please do not get me wrong on this some still manages to get through
(10) The best way to build a directory is to:
(a) develop efficient ways of finding good sites, and even more efficient ways of rejecting spam quickly.
(11) The solution to quality control is:
(a) allow the reporting of quality problems, and give editing privileges to editors who care about quality with proven track records.
answer modified
(12) Have you done the right thing on #9 yet?
I have read part of that forum.
a) My site dose not reek of buy here like the ones that were rejected.
b) My site provides people ways of locating vehicles from other people and dreams that could never be reached, ie I wish I could afford that car I love that car.
c) My site provides ways of buyers and sellers to become informed of scams and become and informed seller and buyer.
d) My site provides a place for how to editorials to be submitted, clubs and events around the world.
e) My site does not contain spam.
f) My site is safe for everyone.
g) My site is SSL in all modes you choose.
h) My site is competitively submitted to the right category.
i) My site is international known around the world by many car people and I can see this in the systems logs I wish Lagos Nigeria did not know about it some times.
j) The most important "Does my site deserve a listing" this is up to the editor to make this decision, if there is one for the category I have submitted it under.
What were your conclusions?
My thought alot of the sites in question reek of just selling you something, and lack any supporting information other then a way to contact them to make a purchase.
There is no submittal status any more, I have not looked for one nor am I looking for one.
(13) Have you made any suggestions that address the real concern in #10 yet? I can not make a recommendation until all my answers are clear to me and I know more on some of these matters.
What are they?
I have a few ideas on the spam issues, they would probably be considered lecturing, or telling some how to do there job. I am trying to understand the Dmoz of today.
(14) Have you made any contributions to ODP quality, in the form of information that editors could use to improve the ODP in any way whatsoever? What are they?
In the past years, I did not waste my time or editors time submitting garbage sites. I made sure the sites met the guidelines. I will continue to submit sites of quality as any thing else would be a waste of your time and mine. If things change for me and I find a better safer way of making money, I would most certainly contribute a few hours of time daily to Editing categories and like I said before I would give a 100% effort to quality.
I would dump the obvious spam sites and run a script over them for the obvious trash, ie one pagers, scams and so on. I do believe that any one should be able to visit the results of the directory and that it should be content safe for everyone.
(15) Have you managed to avoid making suggestions that would cause editors to waste much more time with completely unproductive activities -- that is, activities that did nothing at all to contribute to the purpose of the ODP? If not, have you apologized and retracted your suggestions?
As for useless suggestions I don't believe I have made any, people ideas should always be considered, whether they are a good or not. They do not have to be implemented nor should they if they are bad ideas. Ideas are good and most humans have them, if your not making mistakes then your not learning of moving forward. On the other hand making fraudulent mistakes are not excepting by any standards.
If your looking for an apology or retraction here I am not going to make one. I do not believe I have wasted any time with the questions I have asked. And in fact since some of my posts I have noticed some subtle changes, I can not mention them here as I have been asked not to refer to the other thread.
I have removed what I believe to be sarcasm from some of your provided answers and have added to some that seemed to be incomplete.
timamie261
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 572
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
Sorry, as it was back in schol, only one answer is allowed and only one of the answers is correct.timamie261 said:
"process site suggestion" isn't the right answer. The pool of suggested sites is only one of many ways to find good websites (and as such is part of (a)). Editors are not obliged to review the suggested site, but most of us do as it is still a good point to start if you want to find sites (except for a few spammagnet categories).
.. answers skipped by me were the correct answers ..
Although a lot of these points have no relevance in relation to a DMOZ listing they are worthwhile to have in a website. Based on the points given by you the site can be listed. But at the moment of review the site (and only the site) will have to prove it is listable.timamie261 said:
Seems to me that you are on the right waytimamie261 said:
Seems that you are doing the right things. We appriciate that. Thanks.timamie261 said:
>some of these sites really lack content and vaule as well.
This is partly true. Some sites that are listed really do not deserve to be listed by our current rules. If they were reviewed today, they would be removed or rejected.
Which raises two questions for editors: (1) how can we do a better job of picking which sites are likely to retain their value? and (2) how can we do a better job of finding listings that do not currently have value?
And ... this is partly false. You and I as website developers have our own standards. If our work doesn't live up to OUR standards, we ... fix it, or throw it away and start over. That is right and proper.
But the ODP is not a listing of sites that conform to your standards or my standards. It's a listing of sites that conform to the ODP standards. And a lot of things that matter -- a LOT -- to me, have no bearing at all on an ODP listing. You will find websites that you'd be ashamed of, and that is OK, so long as they meet the ODP criterion, which is "significant unique content." And any ODP editor has to be able to look at a site and say, "I'd be ashamed to publish that online" -- and still go ahead and list it, because it contains unique content.
>This is what kinda bothers me on some of this comparing my site to others.
Don't compare your site to the worst sites listed, unless you want to be on the way out, like they are. Compare your site to ALL the sites listed, and if it's not better than EACH ONE of them in some significant way(*), and better than nearly all of them in some particular way(*), then count on it not being listed.
(*) This way has nothing to do with the technology used, or the attractiveness of the package, or the popularity of the site, or its position in any kind of ranking, or the potential for user participationk, or even whether it manifests some particular kind of obnoxious advertising (although we do draw the line at serial window-poppers). The way has to do with unique content, information that can't be found anywhere else on the net.
This is partly true. Some sites that are listed really do not deserve to be listed by our current rules. If they were reviewed today, they would be removed or rejected.
Which raises two questions for editors: (1) how can we do a better job of picking which sites are likely to retain their value? and (2) how can we do a better job of finding listings that do not currently have value?
And ... this is partly false. You and I as website developers have our own standards. If our work doesn't live up to OUR standards, we ... fix it, or throw it away and start over. That is right and proper.
But the ODP is not a listing of sites that conform to your standards or my standards. It's a listing of sites that conform to the ODP standards. And a lot of things that matter -- a LOT -- to me, have no bearing at all on an ODP listing. You will find websites that you'd be ashamed of, and that is OK, so long as they meet the ODP criterion, which is "significant unique content." And any ODP editor has to be able to look at a site and say, "I'd be ashamed to publish that online" -- and still go ahead and list it, because it contains unique content.
>This is what kinda bothers me on some of this comparing my site to others.
Don't compare your site to the worst sites listed, unless you want to be on the way out, like they are. Compare your site to ALL the sites listed, and if it's not better than EACH ONE of them in some significant way(*), and better than nearly all of them in some particular way(*), then count on it not being listed.
(*) This way has nothing to do with the technology used, or the attractiveness of the package, or the popularity of the site, or its position in any kind of ranking, or the potential for user participationk, or even whether it manifests some particular kind of obnoxious advertising (although we do draw the line at serial window-poppers). The way has to do with unique content, information that can't be found anywhere else on the net.
timamie261
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 572
hutcheson said:
I use all the sites to compare my site, and I continue to make the site better each time.
timamie261 said:
I do have simple standards for providing links from my site to others, because my site carries a viewing safety standard. This is what I was refuring to.
And yes I am very hard on my site, it better be better, I dont like low qaulity.
This is why there are so many different things from cars to security of the user viewing the site. If I had more money and more time, I would put more into it.
After my last posting I was out side removing the plenum from a vehicle to test the central port injector. and could not get back till now, so I was not ignoring anyone. Now I have to go rip the fuel tank out and place a pump in the tub.
so Have a nice day I still have more questions there is still the matter of number 8.
You didn't actually ask a question for #8. You just made a couple of statements. Presumably, you want to know whether or not having mirrors will cause you trouble. The mere act of having mirrors isn't a problem as long as you're not suggesting them to the ODP.
timamie261
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 572
ok here is a thought I keep a list of all my submissions in excell
I know what and when I submit
This realy happened, not fanasty - I guy selling a car on my site thought the search engines were just to slow picking up the new ads and updates
You probably already know at this point what he did, and your right he submited his ads to yahoo, google, and msn.
He was honest about and told me thinking he had helped me 'NOT'
What if a helpful person comes along and submits my site to Dmoz on there own with out my permission as this has already happen in the other search engines. Mind you with there car ad link or some other lame thought they might have.
Oh and the gas tank is out on the ground. vehicale is running I will probable put it back in some time tonight or at first light. The vehicle did live.
I know what and when I submit
This realy happened, not fanasty - I guy selling a car on my site thought the search engines were just to slow picking up the new ads and updates
You probably already know at this point what he did, and your right he submited his ads to yahoo, google, and msn.
He was honest about and told me thinking he had helped me 'NOT'
What if a helpful person comes along and submits my site to Dmoz on there own with out my permission as this has already happen in the other search engines. Mind you with there car ad link or some other lame thought they might have.
Oh and the gas tank is out on the ground. vehicale is running I will probable put it back in some time tonight or at first light. The vehicle did live.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
This very, very rarely happens.
Without giving away any details, suffice to say we know how to handle it on the rare occasions when it does happen.
Without giving away any details, suffice to say we know how to handle it on the rare occasions when it does happen.
timamie261
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 572
message deleted