Give me some understanding please
- Thread starter davidaus
- Start date
Not by a non-editor. Suggest your site, and then forget about it."[url=http://resource-zone.com/forum/member.php?u=28192]davidaus[/url]" said:
Perhaps it was't reviewed, Perhaps it was and your server was down. Perhaps it doesn't have unique content. Perhaps something else."[url=http://resource-zone.com/forum/member.php?u=28192]davidaus[/url]" said:
This forum doesn't care: we won't look; we won't check; we won't do any such thing because if we do everybody and his brother will ask. (But my prejudice is that any domain beginning "hot" isn't.)"[url=http://resource-zone.com/forum/member.php?u=28192]davidaus[/url]" said:
Wait."[url=http://resource-zone.com/forum/member.php?u=28192]davidaus[/url]" said:
Oh, BTW, I am not editor, merely a passing mortal.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
We do not care about things like why site "A" is listed and site "B" is not listsed because:
1. This is not competitive for us. W review sites when we choose to review sites. An unreviewed site is just that, a site that has not been reviewed. If it has not been reviewed then we really don't know what content is behind the URL. Do you know what kind of dog I have? How could you? You've never seen my dog, or a picture of my dog, and you've never heard me talk about it. Now, turn that thought around and apply it to any website we have not reviewed. We don't know what is there until we look, and until we look we don't know what is there.
2. Worrying about how long a given site has been waiting for review is completely irrelevant to what we do. The date someone chooses to submit/suggest a site is an artifical constraint that binds us to do ... absolutely nothing. There is no ticking clock, no service level agreement, no commitment on our part other than we will eventually take a look at it.
But don't worry, it is not personal. There are about 9,000 active editors and a few million webmasters who are trying to get our attention. Our strategy is simple: we generally ignore all webmasters. Individual editors edit in the parts of the directory that interest them, on a schedule of their own choosing, and as long as we are productively editing, we don't feel at all guilty about the missions of sites that we cannot individually review.
spectregunner said:
hmmm ... that is not the point here. What I am trying to understand is the process of submission. Some gets in faster and some not even reviewed. Can you guarantee that all submission is reviewed? The answer is NO! Can you guarantee that there is no corrupt editor who kicked out his competitor website and submit all his own site? The answer is still NO!
What Im trying to understand is how could it possible for a website to be included much much more faster than mine while our site has the same age!
Do you think Im searching for your attention? Heheheh.... you must be paranoid!
gloria
Curlie Meta
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 388
How old a site is makes no difference to us, just the amount of unique content. And how would we know which is the oldest site on the subject? Say I decided to edit in Widgets/Round/Blue today. There are 50 sites in unreviewed, and we'll assume that all actually belong there. But I do a search on Google and find another 100 sites which have never been submitted. Am I supposed to look at all 150 sites and first determine which is the oldest before I list any? Things don't work that way. I may decide to look in the submission pool for sites, I may decide to look first at the sites which were never submitted. I'll list the first one I find which has sufficient unique content. And then I'll keep going. I might list the oldest one first, I might list the newest one first. It doesn't make any difference to me.
BTW, if you have any evidence (beyond a particular site not being listed) that abuse is happening, please submit an abuse report.
And how many people do you think are looking for the larger picture? And of those who are looking, how many are equipped with enough imagination to turn even so simple a phenomenon as a honeybee's dance into a pattern -- and how much less a distributed human project?
At my company, there are some professionals whose job is monitoring job queues to provide specified levels of service. They manage a matter of perhaps 20 queues and 200 servers -- most of those queues and servers strongly decoupled. And ... they regularly make a right hash of it. Now, I suspect they may be congenital idiots, and a blind astrologer could do a better job: but the fact remains that even so simple a system exhibits bafflingly complex behavior. Now consider a system with a million queues, and a few thousand servers, with innumerable untrackable strong couplings between queues and servers. No, that's far too simplistic and structured. Imagine all the queues are shuffled every few microseconds, and the servers switch queues at random intervals, even creating hundreds of dynamic, ephemeral queues daily.
And ... have you decided to go study something simple (like particle physics or organic chemistry) yet?
At my company, there are some professionals whose job is monitoring job queues to provide specified levels of service. They manage a matter of perhaps 20 queues and 200 servers -- most of those queues and servers strongly decoupled. And ... they regularly make a right hash of it. Now, I suspect they may be congenital idiots, and a blind astrologer could do a better job: but the fact remains that even so simple a system exhibits bafflingly complex behavior. Now consider a system with a million queues, and a few thousand servers, with innumerable untrackable strong couplings between queues and servers. No, that's far too simplistic and structured. Imagine all the queues are shuffled every few microseconds, and the servers switch queues at random intervals, even creating hundreds of dynamic, ephemeral queues daily.
And ... have you decided to go study something simple (like particle physics or organic chemistry) yet?
Good answers to the original question. I'd like to add my take on the answer to the other question, asked in item 6
My impression from reading a lot of threads here is that people get too closely focused on their own goals, to the point where they can't or won't even try to see what our goals might be.
hutcheson said:
Hutcheson, have you ever be a member of other online forum? Are you welcomed?
It seems not. Coz, from the way you answer threads is just like a revenge. I don't think ppl of other forum treat you nice, and that could be a reason of why you never treat ppl with better attitude than poking on their nose while sometimes ppl might just need a simple and understandable answer.
Perhaps it could make you feel like a better man
gloria said:
Ahh.... now I understand. Thanks for explaining Gloria
Because that is what resource-zone is made for. You don't talk about how to develop a useful site here, you don't discuss on how to get rid of those who is monopolying some DMOZ categories.brmehlman said: