Far to be perfect ...

vorxio · Dec 28, 2005

Hi,
As MANY other users I'm waiting my site to be listed in the ODP ... 10 months (or longer),

As MANY other users I don't know (and there is no way to know) if my site has been rejected or not,

As MANY other users I know that ODP editors are volunteers, but know - as well - that IMPORTANT search engines use ODP and being included in the ODP CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE.

Just some suggestions:

* make an automatic "site status page" where one can search the status of his site (I think that the SUPER-SIMPLE information: QUEUED - REJECTED - APPROVED can be enough)

* if a site is queued, and one resubmit it, simply forbid resubmission, do not change its position on the queue (the trick to move it to the botton of the queue is a "secret sect like" behaviour)

* add a code verification number to the submission page (a distorted image) to avoid automatic submissions by SEO tools

* the "core members" of the ODP (that probably are not volunteers) should try to be funded (free contribution) by the major commercial search engines that use ODP data

Best regards,
Vor

vorxio · Dec 28, 2005

Another suggestion ... this is really a harder task

* why not to allow "cross-cataloguing" of sites: a site may fit well in two (or more) different categories ...

Bye

nea · Dec 28, 2005

vorxio said:
Hi,
* make an automatic "site status page" where one can search the status of his site (I think that the SUPER-SIMPLE information: QUEUED - REJECTED - APPROVED can be enough)

We tried having that. Not automated, but we provided the information in this forum for a few years. As it turned out, the information we are able to provide didn't help the people who suggested sites any, so we stopped providing that service.

There are many threads here suggesting an automated system. The reasons why it is a bad idea have been repeated many times and I won't insult you by repeating them again when you can find the information easily for yourself

* if a site is queued, and one resubmit it, simply forbid resubmission, do not change its position on the queue (the trick to move it to the botton of the queue is a "secret sect like" behaviour)

There is no queue, so there is no bottom to go down to. It's as simple as that.

* add a code verification number to the submission page (a distorted image) to avoid automatic submissions by SEO tools

It's possible that something like that might be implemented, however I believe that's been discusssed internally and there are reasons why it isn't a good idea. I am not sure why, off the top of my head.

* the "core members" of the ODP (that probably are not volunteers) should try to be funded (free contribution) by the major commercial search engines that use ODP data

You lost me here. All who work for the ODP are volunteers, apart from a handful of people (less than half a dozen) who are employed by AOL. Who are the core members you refer to?

Having search engines fund us - either as an organisation or as individuals - would go against the principles of the directory, and it's not going to happen.

hutcheson · Dec 28, 2005

>add a code verification number to the submission page (a distorted image) to avoid automatic submissions by SEO tools

What grounds do you have for supposing that "automatic submissions" is a current problem that the ODP hasn't been able to solve?

>if a site is queued, and one resubmit it, simply forbid resubmission, do not change its position on the queue (the trick to move it to the botton of the queue is a "secret sect like" behaviour)

If that were so (which, as has been pointed out, it ain't), it would be the worst-kept secret in the world--any idiot can read thousands of posts (here and in other forums) on how the ODP databases work, and how editors use it to keep track of unreviewed sites. If it were so, it would be simply a means -- one of many -- of punishing rude jerks who wouldn't follow the submittal instructions. If it were so, it wouldn't be a problem, it would be a perfect solution to the problems caused by one group of spammers.

>make an automatic "site status page"

This is worse than the last suggestion: there isn't even a theoretical problem this would solve. And, in any case, it's not feasible with the current database design -- that information flat isn't available without exhaustive search.

vorxio · Dec 28, 2005

nea said:
We tried having that. Not automated, but we provided the information in this forum for a few years. As it turned out, the information we are able to provide didn't help the people who suggested sites any, so we stopped providing that service.

There are many threads here suggesting an automated system. The reasons why it is a bad idea have been repeated many times and I won't insult you by repeating them again when you can find the information easily for yourself

In the FAQ the reasons are (well???) explained ... but I'm still convinced that a simple FULLY AUTOMATED semaphore is not so hard to realize and would make things clearer to everyone. Perhaps 50% of messages in this forum will disappear and people like you will not waste his time in answering to me, but will spend his time reviewing my sites (or having fun elsewhere

)!

nea said:
There is no queue, so there is no bottom to go down to. It's as simple as that.

Sorry but I found in some posts that if you resubmit your site the it will probably take longer to be reviewed. I deduced that sites are (or can be) queued according to their submission date AND IF YOU RESUBMIT IT THE SUBMISSION DATE CHANGE ... I think this should be avoided.

nea said:
It's possible that something like that might be implemented, however I believe that's been discusssed internally and there are reasons why it isn't a good idea. I am not sure why, off the top of my head.

Uhm ... I think that keeping all those free submission bots out of the scene is not a bad idea.

nea said:
You lost me here. All who work for the ODP are volunteers, apart from a handful of people (less than half a dozen) who are employed by AOL. Who are the core members you refer to?

Those half dozen (plus the system administrators if not included)

One final note (of a simple user that followed "ODP events" in the past 2 weeks, tried to submit his site, tried to become an editor and tried to give some suggestions):

the feeling (*** I remark "FEELING" ***) is that ODP is becoming a little bit closed ... i.e. moving towards Closed Directory Project

Perhaps other users have other sensations.

Best regards and good work,
Vor

pvgool · Dec 28, 2005

vorxio said:
the feeling (*** I remark "FEELING" ***) is that ODP is becoming a little bit closed ... i.e. moving towards Closed Directory Project

That is probably because you don't understand what the Open in ODP means.
My advice is to read the ODP Social Contract

motsa · Dec 28, 2005

Sorry but I found in some posts that if you resubmit your site the it will probably take longer to be reviewed. I deduced that sites are (or can be) queued according to their submission date AND IF YOU RESUBMIT IT THE SUBMISSION DATE CHANGE ... I think this should be avoided.

It could but, since very few editors edit absolutely and solely by the date a site was suggested, the date a site was suggested is generally irrelevant.

Those half dozen (plus the system administrators if not included)

As nea already noted, finding funding outside of AOL for the ODP would be against our social contract.

the feeling (*** I remark "FEELING" ***) is that ODP is becoming a little bit closed ... i.e. moving towards Closed Directory Project

It can seem that way when you read threads by people suggesting that we change the way the ODP works in order to meet their idea of how we should work.

hutcheson · Dec 28, 2005

It's funny how often the suggested solution to the imaginary problem of a "closed" directory is to ... close down more options for both editors and submitters.

I mentioned this before, but I underestimated how truly bad an idea it is:

>if a site is queued, and one resubmit it, simply forbid resubmission, do not change its position on the queue

Anyone could have read, in hundreds of posts, how there is no queue to be a position in. But underneath that obvious misunderstanding there is a much more basic and dangerous misunderstanding.

Let's suppose you suggest a site. Then, six months later, the site has changed radically. You suggest the site again. Now, what's happening? Is there "one site that has a status?" Nobody with a clue about databases would suppose it! No, there are two separate "suggestions" -- which happen to be for the same site. And THEY have a status, but the site has no status at all. (The SITE has a "history", but that is a different concept altogether!)

Now, suppose we have these two submittals, each of which has the same URL, but they have different dates and descriptions. THIS is absolutely a no-brainer question, you don't have to have a clue about databases to answer it! Which, WHICH of these suggestions should be kept? The more out-of-date one? or the more up-to-date one? Which?

If you're really having trouble figuring out why the right answer is right, think about this: for years, we've been telling people: if you really mess up a suggestion, then you can repair the problem by making another one of the same URL to the same category. That's a valuable feature!

oneeye · Dec 28, 2005

finding funding outside of AOL for the ODP would be against our social contract

The social contract can be amended and AOL is a major player in the field of commercial Internet services and AOL can be bought and sold as can the ODP (it happened once it can happen again). I don't personally think that attracting finance from other commercial sponsorship should be dismissed provided there are safeguards on editorial independence. Having all the eggs in one corporate basket carries a risk - you can't dump AOL and its influence should it wish to exert it. IMO it would be a better project with multiple sponsorship deals doing the funding and not one corporate financier with the ability to do what they like when they like with no reference to editors. Plus you'll note that Google now owns 5% of AOL and, therefore, 5% of the ODP so a search engine does fund the project in part, fact. The old arm's distance - Google is just a data user and there is no influence either way - argument is obsolete. Sooner or later when Google get their feet under the table and start to review what they have bought and how much they can influence that with a 5% stake things might start to change more dramatically. Time will tell.

motsa · Dec 28, 2005

Good old oneeye, ever ready to stir the pot.

vorxio · Dec 28, 2005

pvgool said:
That is probably because you don't understand what the Open in ODP means.

With "closed", I meant "closed towards improvements".

hutcheson said:
Let's suppose you suggest a site. Then, six months later, the site has changed radically

??? how many serious sites change radically in 6 months ???

I think that 99% of resubmission are caused by SEO tools or users that don't know the status of their submission and are waiting too long, so they decide to resubmit to another category (or the same category with another description) and roll the dice again.

Don't confuse uncertainty and desperate attempts to be listed, with less freedom for users and editors.

These are my opinions, perhaps your statistics tell other things.

However I don't want to bore you anymore, my doubts and my "feelings" are well (and better) expressed in other threads by other users.

Your service is free so you are free to accept/reject user suggestions (even if they come from Information Retrieval or HCI experts) and do whatever you want with ODP.

Bye,
Vor

spectregunner · Dec 28, 2005

Your service is free so you are free to accept/reject user suggestions (even if they come from Information Retrieval or HCI experts) and do whatever you want with ODP.

We always welcome fresh ideas -- regardless of the background and experience of the person making the suggestion.

We do tend to get impatient when the same ideas are presented over and over again as fresh. I guess that is human nature. Many of these ideas have been rehashed to death in previous threads, and very often it is a matter of policy versus technical capability. Wemasters was feedback -- we simply have no plans to provide it. That is a policy decision, not a capabilities decision. You've made suggestions to deal with automated submissions -- that is not perceived by us as a major problem at this time. Tomorrow? Maybe!

We also see a vast difference between suggestions that would improve our ability to build the directory versus idea that would have us pander/cater to the webmasters and submitters. The ODP is not now, nor will it ever by, a submission service for webmasters, and ideas that make the editorial community more accountable to webmasters are simply going to be non-starters. There is no softer/nicer way to put it.

Honest suggestion son how to improve our ability to build the directory are often hindered by a lack of understanding of how our internal processes work -- so the best suggestions usually come from within the editor community. still, there have been ideas presented in these fora that have been brought inside for internal discussion. There are virtually no circumstances where a suggestion made here would be instantly implemented without going through the internal discussion process first.

So I understand that you feel frustrated because you see your suggestions falling on what appear to be deaf ears. But to be candid, there is nothing new or original here -- and everything you brought up has been descussed extensively. So what you see as an unwillingness to listen is, in reality, an unwillingness to reopen discussion on something that has been discussed to death, and upon which there is broad concensus within the editor community.

I'm sorry if we appread to be rude or disinterested in the process.

oneeye · Dec 28, 2005

Good old oneeye, ever ready to stir the pot

Moi?

I still have the trophy for Most Evil of All Editors 2005 and I ain't handing it back

irate:

hutcheson · Dec 28, 2005

>??? how many serious sites change radically in 6 months ???

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "serious". I don't think it matters, though: as you could see by reading our archived "site status" forum, the situation occurs fairly often for SUBMITTED sites, which is all that matters. Another similar case: a submitter creates a really really bad submittal, and wants to improve it. This happens occasionally. Most often, it's simply a form of "doing the same thing over and over again" -- in which case anything that happens to the submitter, up to and including a dope-slap with sharpened clue-stick, is just fine and non-problematic, so long as it doesn't take editor time. And the current mechanism falls within this range.

>I think that 99% of resubmission are caused by SEO tools or users that don't know the status of their submission and are waiting too long, so they decide to resubmit to another category (or the same category with another description) and roll the dice again.

You're almost right. Resubmission is caused by impatient jerks. The part I believe you're flat wrong about, is in the assumption that informed impatient jerks are less trouble for us than ignorant impatient jerks.

>Don't confuse uncertainty and desperate attempts to be listed, with less freedom for users and editors.

No likelihood of that! Ignorance and desperation are mental states. Freedom is a choice.

This forum is about curing ignorance. We can't do anything about desperation, except to indicate that any "desperate act" at the ODP is counterproductive. And, if information can cure desperation, that will do it.

For desperate jerks who are determined to remain ignorant in the face of being given the RELEVANT information -- what's the point of giving them IRRELEVANT information? None, of course, and (as you can determine perfectly well for yourself) submittal status is irrelevant.

Suppose you know a site is rejected? You need to promote it somewhere else. Suppose you know a site is not yet reviewed? You need to promote it somewhere else, in case it gets rejected. Suppose you know a site is accepted? Well, in THAT case you need to promote it somewhere else, in order to compete with all the listed sites.

So. I'll tell you right now: ONE of those conditions apply. It doesn't matter which one. Now, what do YOU need to be doing? And WHERE do you need to be doing it?

This is not rocket science. This is first-semester logic.

vorxio · Dec 28, 2005

hutcheson said:
Suppose you know a site is rejected? You need to promote it somewhere else.

... if I get a note on the reason for which it was rejected (i.e. rejected by one of the most important directories on the web ... not rejected by the next-door-web-kid) I try to improve it and/or correct it ...

hutcheson said:
Suppose you know a site is not yet reviewed? You need to promote it somewhere else, in case it gets rejected.

... yes, but I don't spend time wondering about the status of my site on one of the most important directories on the web. And YOU don't spend time answering to me.

hutcheson said:
Suppose you know a site is accepted?
Well, in THAT case you need to promote it somewhere else, in order to compete with all the listed sites.

Right, even if I think that for many non-commercial sites a DMOZ entry can be enough ...

Another note: if you claim "... The Open Directory was founded in the spirit of the Open Source movement ..." and "... the Open Directory provides the opportunity for everyone to contribute ..." then, when an editor application is rejected, you should give a small note with the SPECIFIC reasons of the refusal.

At the end of the story:

* I leave DMOZ with the ***OPINION*** that your submission handling procedure can be improved, and that some serious webmasters will hit their heads against the wall

* You stay on DMOZ and will spend MANY hours of your time in these threads answering to silly/ignorant/desperate people like me.

However thank you for your answers.

Best regards (and HAPPY NEW YEAR),
Vor

hutcheson · Dec 28, 2005

>if I get a note on the reason for which it was rejected (i.e. rejected by one of the most important directories on the web ... not rejected by the next-door-web-kid) I try to improve it and/or correct it ...

The reason for listing a site is "unique content". So the reason for rejecting is "not enough unique content." But ... what makes you think editors have any way of KNOWING what unique content you have stashed away: and, since you haven't published it already, why would we think you wanted to publish it anyway?

So, turn this around. Don't ask the EDITOR to tell YOU what YOU know and can do. Tell US what you're going to do. And then we can know whether it's worth while waiting for you to do it.

Really, this WOULD work and occasionally DOES work. In those cases where a webmaster creates a site, then gives a little bit of unique content, and also lists the unique content he plans to add "in the near future" -- many editors (including me) will leave the site for a few months to see if any of those plans come to fruition. Sometimes they do, and the site gets listed. More often, they don't, and it doesn't. But ... we have the information we need, and we don't have to try to second-guess what unique content you have.

lmocr · Dec 28, 2005

If there is a minor problem with a site, that can be easily corrected, but is preventing the site being listed in a specific category - then an editor will probably contact the suggestor. I had this happen this very weekend - someone suggested a brand new site to a category that requires a method of contact - but even with a friend proofreading the site, both of them overlooked this important detail. The site is now listed, with the contact information, a location, a price, and a few more details - and they were very thankful. BUT - that site could have been listed in another category without that modification.

For a rejected site - it is typically impossible to conquer the reasons for rejection by making a slight tweak like this. So what good would it do for me to send an email to the site I rejected yesterday - because it had absolutely nothing to do with the category it was suggested to and was a mirror of a site I had moved elsewhere the week before, and a mirror of about a dozen more sites (two of which were listed)? What could I have said that would have made this site listable? Not a single thing - not only that, but they would have been made aware that I had found their mirrors and identified them for everyone else to know also.

spectregunner · Dec 28, 2005

I think that what you fail to see is that frequently editors reach out (on their own initiative) to webmasters whose sites fall slightly short due to minor, correctable issues.

The vast, vast majority of declined sites are declined for reasons that are not correctable.

motsa · Dec 28, 2005

I think that what you fail to see is that frequently editors reach out (on their own initiative) to webmasters whose sites fall slightly short due to minor, correctable issues.

Don't know about "frequently" but it does happen sometimes (I know that in all of my edits, I've never written to a webmaster whose site fell slightly short due to minor, correctable issues).

spectregunner · Dec 28, 2005

I know that in all of my edits, I've never written to a webmaster whose site fell slightly short due to minor, correctable issues

But you are smarter than I am!

Far to be perfect ...

vorxio

Member

vorxio

Member

nea

Meta & kMeta

hutcheson

vorxio

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

motsa

hutcheson

oneeye

Member

motsa

vorxio

Member

spectregunner

Member

oneeye

Member

hutcheson

vorxio

Member

hutcheson

lmocr

Member

spectregunner

Member

motsa

spectregunner

Member