http://www.distributedpowersolutions.com

Interesting article: in fact, it would have been especially enlightening if you had known who sponsors the ODP!

Click to expand...

So why the hell is DMOZ so ****ed up with a backlog of what, 500,000 websites? Is it not obvious that anything that gets that out of control will lead to nothing short of anarchy with everyone throwing their hands up saying the hell with it and doing whatever they feel like, which leads to laziness leading to waste/inefficiency and a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME?

Ever hear the quote "get busy living or get busy dying"

or how about

"i intend to keep working until the last dog dies"

Think of how different DMOZ would be if the backlog were about zero, how many more diverse categories there would be, how much more useful it would be. You think you're bogged down now? What do you think things will be like five years from now, a waiting list of 5,000,000, or maybe two to three years?

>Think of how different DMOZ would be if the backlog were about zero

You've got another misperception going here. Our goal, and our job, is not to list sites for the benefit of webmasters; it is not to process submissions. It is to add sites. And, in fact, if NONE of the 5000 sites we add tomorrow comes from the submissions pool, we will have achieved our goal just as well as if every single one of them had.

We don't really care if a given site has been submitted two years ago, yesterday, or never submitted. It's really irrelevant to us, because we're interested in listing EVERYTHING on the Internet. Not just sites which are submitted. Certainly not just the sites of angry and rather foul-mouthed webmasters who think we owe them immediate service for free.

Suggesting your site to us is of mutual benefit to both of us. It saves us a bit of time, and makes it more likely your site will be listed eventually. But that's really all. There's no guarantee related to a site suggestion, ever. As long as we continue growing our directory at a good pace, we are doing what we have set out to do. The size of the submissions pool is really irrelevant to us. Even if there were 0 sites or one million sites that had been submitted, our work would be exactly the same.

Quite an interesting thread, but there seems to be an impasse......

Is there a FIFO system in place for reviewing submitted sites?

What are the editors looking for when reviewing a site? Is it simply a check to determine that it was submitted to the appropriate category, or are there other criteria used to determine acceptability?

Is there a list somewhere that shows categories desperately needing editors? I've applied before as well, and told that there was already enough for the category selected (I think that's what it said...). If we knew where assistance was needed, then I could apply to categories suffering the most backlog.

your quote
"Why not just post the website if it's legit and let visitors have the choice to go the website?"

Again, you need to realize that this is a directory not a search engine.

You might want to check out
the Open Directory Help Center regarding "How to submit your site"

As it states:
"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."

This may help clarify some of your concerns if you are willing to read through it.

>Is there a FIFO system in place for reviewing submitted sites?
No. "First site submitted" is a totally meaningless factoid for any number of reasons. ("First site published" might be meaningful, but it's not information we have.) But the more important issue is, it fundamentally contravenes several of the project's goals and ideals.

The random approach is really much better in a number of ways, including being more efficient, less systematically biased, and less susceptible to manipulation by vicious SERP perps.

>What are the editors looking for when reviewing a site?
Unique content, like the guidelines say.

>Is there a list somewhere that shows categories desperately needing editors?
Editors sometimes make such lists in the internal forums. The fundamental problem is that most categories needing help need it because there is a lack of disinterested interest in the subject, or because the category is under massive malicious spam attack -- not something we want a new editor to have to deal with, and not something we'd entrust to an unknown editor.

>I've applied before as well, and told that there was already enough for the category selected (I think that's what it said...).
Sigh. The standard note gives a long list of reasons that might apply. People are supposed to scan the whole list and evaluate for themselves which are applicable, not skip to the end and latch onto the one reason that is very seldom applicable. IIRC, the last reason says a site is "too large for a new editor, OR (OR!) already has enough editors." That's actually two possible reasons, and the former is much more common than the latter!

>If we knew where assistance was needed, then I could apply to categories suffering the most backlog.
Attitude shift: the project does not assistance with the backlog of unreviewed submitted sites. We need assistance with the backlog of unreviewed unsubmitted sites! Submittals are merely the most basic kind of assistance. They are not the problem; they are merely a very tiny and very corrupt bit of the solution.

Spin-Zero said:

Is there a FIFO system in place for reviewing submitted sites?

Click to expand...

No there is no FIFO system. Editors review sites in the order they choose. Essentially sites are reviewed in a random order by the editor of the category to which it is submitted. That is why the time it takes for a particular site to be reviewed can take anywhere from a couple of hours to a couple of years.

For more information, check out the FAQ page will help to explain the process.

>Why not just post the website if it's legit and let visitors have the choice to go the website?

Well, that's what we do. The editor review determines legitimacy.

If you want that same action, but with legitimacy determined by webmaster desire instead, then that would be what we call a free-for-all-link-farm. And there are many such websites out there: you're welcome to avail yourself of their services. We don't need to compete with them; we've got enough to do pursuing our own goal. (The FFALFs can seed with our data if they want.)

>You should suggest to also add "so long as the backup does not exceed 10% or a new opening for editor should be added".

That doesn't parse. And insofar as it makes sense, it, expresses several severe misapprehensions about the ODP:

(1) there IS no such thing as an editor "opening" -- all categories can be edited by multiple editors: and we start dozens of new categories daily. If someone shows they can make a contribution to category X (for sufficiently small categories), then we're happy to have their help.

(2) the submittal backlog is simply not a relevant datum when considering whether a category is comprehensive.

(3) but: a high submittal backlog is an indication that a new editor SHOULDN'T be dropped into the category: that category, considered as a project, is by definition too large for a new editor. Insofar as we consider the backlog, we already have the exact opposite of your proposal in place.

>What about the red marks next to sites that I've read about on other boards?

As much misinformation as you've absorbed, and as incredible as some of it is, no telling what you've heard on other boards.

We do try to track spam. We do try to track editor actions. The combination of those two means that sites build reputations based on their submittal activities. But any action by an editor can be undone by another; and no editor can force another editor to act, or prevent another editor from acting. (The most that can happen is that if the meta-editors agree an editor is abusing, that editor can be removed and their abusive edits undone.)

>Well, if there was some type of process in place, maybe I could work out the arithmetic. A first come first served methodology might seem like a good starting point. That way, I could understand the lead times and have an expection. But the results show a completely random process.

Exactly. So you cannot predict the lead time. You can expect some sites to be reviewed within minutes (as I did for about a dozen sites yesterday) and others to wait for months. (Don't tell me you didn't see that pattern in your forum reading!) And if you can't predict the lead time, there's logically no point at which you should start entertaining paranoiac fantasies about being blacklisted. This isn't rocket science.

>If a category is getting to large, break it up into further sub-categories.

Duh.

>It seems to me though, as you stated above that once a category gets large enough, it doesn't get the attention "if big enough to already keep the user busy", that any new submissions are just overflow and will never, ever, get looked at.

What I actually stated was that the odds get lower. I didn't and wouldn't say "never". What tends to happen is that a team of editors is organized to tackle large problem areas (which large backlogs sometimes indicate). So everything happens at once.

We do subcategorize when we can identify how. Sometimes, though, webmasters simply don't provide enough unique information about themselves to permit any kind of objective categorization -- which tells editors we would do better to focus on areas where we can find genuinely unique sites.

For example: online music sales or web development services. What is the value to SURFERS of adding another site to either one? Low, vanishingly small: in fact, they can almost certainly find what they want just as well without one more listing as with it. Would subcategorization change that fundamental fact? Of course it will not. What COULD change things? Only this: proprietors must be able to identify what is unique about their business, and to find out how to reflect that in the ODP taxonomy. Suppose there is nothing unique about their products or services? Then the world can get along fine without them, and so can the ODP. Nothing we do can change that fundamental fact.

Thanks, Mate! Good information.

I'm basically a noob here, so I'm just trying to better understand the whole process, and help if needed.

Exactly. So you cannot predict the lead time. You can expect some sites to be reviewed within minutes (as I did for about a dozen sites yesterday) and others to wait for months. (Don't tell me you didn't see that pattern in your forum reading!) And if you can't predict the lead time, there's logically no point at which you should start entertaining paranoiac fantasies about being blacklisted. This isn't rocket science.

Click to expand...

There you go, keep everyone in suspense of what YOU are going to accept or reject or when you're going to either. Maybe we should start referring to all editors as "Dear God".

All in the name of preventing obnoxious webmasters from even beginning to have a reason to complain, read constructive criticism if your feeling optimistic.

When was the last time you tried to bootstrap a website? Do you have any idea how difficult it is? These are not the days of "here's a couple million, go get some eyeballs" but rather "build it to a million visitors a month and maybe we'll talk to you". Ever think that maybe the webmasters that are bitching the most about this happen to have the most legitimate websites available and are working 100 times harder than others to improve them? Maybe the fact that DMOZ gets funded by so many millions that there is little incentive to make things better or give much of an effort to help those that don't have those millions to throw around.

I'd bet that this very issue that I'm continually ranting about is the number one problem people have with DMOZ. So, if it's such a problem, why not do something about it? Are people at DMOZ this shortsighted to not see that if it is this big a problem today that, duh, it will be twice a big a year from now, 10 times as big five years from now? What's the breaking point? How many websites does it take to have on the backburner that it just becomes too hot to touch?

Is there nothing in your concept of Polity between your slave and your deity?

Editors are autonomous humans who volunteer to do what they consider important. That's all. And that's enough.

You're still confused about what the ODP is. It's not a website promotion service! And we don't want it to be. There are thousands, probably millions of sites that will help you bootstrap your site. The ODP has a different mission, and there is nobody else who shares it -- there are only a handful of sites at all similar.

If you are looking to the ODP to provide you millions of eyeballs, I can guarantee that you will be disappointed. It's never done that for anyone else, and it can't do it for you. In fact, there's nothing we'd do for you that we wouldn't just as happily do for any of your competitors.

And -- webmasters aren't our customers. Surfers are our customers, and we want to hear from them. Webmasters are actually our potential suppliers, and -- it's probably futile to hope they'd listen to us. But most of them don't.

That's OK. It's a big web, and there's room for a lot of little guys. You can start off on your own, or you can find a dozen likeminded friends and work with them, or join a few thousand people on something really big. Take your pick. We won't stop you. We won't stomp on your face.

And the problem you mention, that so obsesses you, is simply not a problem at all to our customers. And so, among all our real problems, yours is simply not on our list -- which doesn't mean we'll try to abuse you for going somewhere else to fix it. That's your privilege. Ours is to try to fix our problems -- and we have enough of them!

I appreciate your detailed responses. They have helped me to understand what DMOZ is about. You could have simply ignored my rants but you didn't, thanks for the feedback. I'm sure that your volunteer efforts go largely unappreciated, well, it is because of the usefullness of the directory that I see such a value in it, and would like to be a part of it any way I can.

I tried to be an editor to help out as I'm always seeing new websites from different businesses and organizations desparately trying to promote renewable energy and sustainability in their location that inclusion in this directory might help them out. I was declined for some reason. I still thought there were many different ways to categorize the industry to make it as unique as it really is and created a directory on the Odysen website to try to reflect that. Being included in DMOZ would another way to help this cause but that is out of my hands and is completely in yours, or whomever the appropriate editor is.

It would be great to be considered a value added addition to the directory and again I appreciate all of your responses.

>I was declined for some reason.

I don't know the details of your application and this wouldn't be the place to comment on them if I did... but I do notice that the category you're talking about has more than 600 sites in it (if you count all its subcategories, which we do). That's way too large and broad a category for *any* brand-new editor. In general, we expect new editors to start with a small category and work up to larger ones as they learn the ropes.

HTH...

Yes, and they've barely been touched for at least the last year. There are so many more ways to break that up than what they've done. It's out of date, never gets updated, and I wonder why I got so upset about it in the first place. Trying to talk to these editors here about it is useless too. Why do they even have a board if this is the kind of crap you get if you bother posting.

webmaster: "ahhh, I submitted my website two years go, what's the status?"

dmoz: "it's still pending, check back in six months."

webmaster: "ok."

six months later.....

webmaster: "any change?"

dmoz: "nope, still pending, check back in six months."

webmaster: "this sucks."

dmoz: "Read the rules. We do not volunteer our very valuable time to competely serve stupid dumbass webmasters. Just because you submit a website doesn't mean anything. We are so much above any typical directories that do that kind of thing. We will enter whatever website we want, submitting your website means nothing."

webmaster: "ok, that sounds really neat, can I become an editor for a really screwed up section that's completely out of date."

dmoz: "Read the rules. And the answer is no, for unspecified reasons. Actually the reason is probably, but not completely, because there are too many websites in the category you selected and you are too stupid to be able handle it. Our editors of many years of experience can't even handle it, as I'm sure you've noticed. So why do you think you're so superior to be able to handle it?"

webmaster: "you suck"

dmoz: "no, it is you that suck. it says so our manual."

webmaster: "you have a manual that tells you that webmasters suck?"

dmoz: "well, not actually. we really don't have rules for anything. it is my own personal rulebook I just made up. I showed it to some fellow editors and they like it so much they all made copies, so now its the master rulebook I guess. It's easy to remember too. It has one rule and the rule is "webmasters suck."

webmaster: "Thanks for all the help, you guys are brilliant!"

matt, we're not saying we couldn't use help. We're saying start with a focus. Pick a LITTLE neglected category (20 sites or so.) Double its size. Let us look at your work. If we like it, we'll want more -- take on another little category.

If you like doing this sort of thing, a month down the road you could be wading through 1000 submittals (3/4 of them misplaced, and many of them spam) in that formerly-neglected formerly-600-site category.

Done. I picked one with a whopping five listings. There should be at least 500 in the category I chose.