I can't bite my tongue any longer.

I can't bite my tongue any longer.

I've been reading this forum for about 6 months now and I've been TRYING to help ODP improve for about 3 months but have become completely infuriated by what is nothing short of a terrible service. But before you shout me down and tell me its run by Volunteers etc consider this. The majority of people who use ODP would rather it did not exist and as it does nothing more that distort search engines results. It definitely does not improve them and I strongly believe that most webmaster would rather the ODP did not exist. The only people who like the ODP are the editors and those people who have some how managed to get their sites listed.

That category I would like my site to included in
1) Has no editor
2) Is incredibly out of date
3) Has site's listed in the wrong categories
4) Had not been updated for over a year

DMOZ It's self
1) Provides no status update service
2) Gets annoyed with people who ask for status update
3) Does not understand why people might like to know that status of their submission.
4) Become an editor function does not work
5) Report abuse and spam link does not work
6) Looks and feels very tacky!

The only reason why I have never said this before as that I’ve been concerned that my website might not get listed but I’ve decided that is not a reason no tell it how it is. My website should be listed regardless of my opinion of the ODP. But somehow I doubt very much that I will ever get a website listed now!

> and I've been TRYING to help ODP improve for about 3 months but have become completely infuriated by what is nothing short of a terrible service.
As DMOZ has been down 2 out of these 3 months there was not much you (or anybody else) could do to improve it.

> The majority of people who use ODP would rather it did not exist
Strange. So you tell us that the people who use it don't want it. So my question is: why do they use it? There must be a reason. Most probably the wrong one as we have noticed over the years that webmasters expect something from DMOZ that it does not provide and from your posting I get the impression that you also have this wrong expectation. To make it clear:
:icon_arro DMOZ is NOT a listing service. :icon_excl

> That category I would like my site to included in
> 1) Has no editor
See our FAQ for an answer to that question
> 2) Is incredibly out of date
Please define "out of date". Is that the same as your point 4
> 3) Has site's listed in the wrong categories
Maybe. You can let us know if something is listed incorrectly. Either use the update listing link at DMOZ or post in the quality control part of R-Z. Doing so is helping us to improve DMOZ.
> 4) Had not been updated for over a year
That happens. It just means noone was interested in doing any editor work in that category. That means not a current editor and noone outside DMOZ wanted to become an editor for the category. For DMOZ as a whole this is not problem, I think you can find 100ths of catgeories not updated in the last year.

> DMOZ It's self
> 1) Provides no status update service
Correct
> 2) Gets annoyed with people who ask for status update
Correct. As these people are asking for something we don't provide.
> 3) Does not understand why people might like to know that status of their submission.
Yes and No. Please read the FAQ why we don't provide a status anymore. We tried it and it was of no use. Not for DMOZ, not for the editors and not for honest webmasters.
> 4) Become an editor function does not work
Correct. We are still recovering from the technical problems. Read the announcement
> 5) Report abuse and spam link does not work
Correct. Idem.
> 6) Looks and feels very tacky!
No idea what "tacky" means in relation to DMOZ or your perception of what we should be.

The only reason why I have never said this before as that I’ve been concerned that my website might not get listed but I’ve decided that is not a reason no tell it how it is. My website should be listed regardless of my opinion of the ODP. But somehow I doubt very much that I will ever get a website listed now!

Click to expand...

Anything you write in R-Z will have no impact on the decision to list your site. Two exceptions: 1) you offer a bribe, in such a case you and all your sites will be banned. 2) you threat with legal actions, in such a case all future communications must be done through AOL legal department and until the action is resolved no site of you will be reviewed.

The majority of people who use ODP would rather it did not exist

Click to expand...

I think perhaps you're mistaking who our users are. We are not here to help webmasters promote their sites, we are here to help users looking for information. You should not be asking "does the ODP help users looking for X find my site?" but "does the ODP offer users looking for X find a useful range of sites?"

and as it does nothing more that distort search engines results. It definitely does not improve them

Click to expand...

Well that's rather up to the search engines isn't it? Since they're competing for users, one would have to assume that they're trying their best to present relevant results to their users. If they're choosing to let what the ODP does influence their results, the logical conclusion is that they believe that overall it improves things.

And just to emphasise what pvgool said: If you find a listing that shouldn't be there for some reason (e.g. site hijacked, dead, or otherwise contrary to our site selection criteria) please do tell us about it. You'll find that quality control issues like this are usually handled fairly quickly.

Excellent post, pvgool, I agree completely.

We don't hold posts for you or against you, johnny bravo, whatever site suggestion you have will still be reviewed impartially, when an editor gets to it, just like every other site suggestion.

I understand your point of view, and your frustration, and I also know what the truth of the matter is from the inside of the ODP, and I can honestly say that you really don't understand what we are and what we do.

We are really not a listing service, even though it might look like we are. We allow the public the priveledge of submitting site suggestions to us, just as each and every one of us have the priveledge of being editors.

We're not forced to edit, we're allowed to edit, and the public is allowed to make site suggestions, but, there is no obligation for either you or us to do either thing.

Just a few addendums to the above comments:

The only people who like the ODP are the editors and those people who have some how managed to get their sites listed.

Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. The sites that use our data use it for a reason, a reason that is frequently in opposition to what webmasters want (e.g. search engines want their search results to be accurate and useful, not a result of who SEOed their site the best).

2) Gets annoyed with people who ask for status update

Click to expand...

Wouldn't you if people kept asking you to do something that you've very clearly said you don't/won't do?

3) Does not understand why people might like to know that status of their submission.

Click to expand...

We understand *why* people would like to know to their status. But understanding does not make us willing to go down that road again.

6) Looks and feels very tacky!

Click to expand...

I'd say that it (dmoz.org) looks "old school", not "tacky" but, then, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It was designed to be minimalist since people were frequently using slow dial up connections when browsing the directory. Some people are still using dial up so it's still a consideration. I personally like the minimalist look.

My website should be listed regardless of my opinion of the ODP. But somehow I doubt very much that I will ever get a website listed now!

Click to expand...

Even if we knew which Web site was yours, your public demeanor has nothing at all to do with whether your site gets listed. If it is listable, rudeness won't harm you. If it isn't listable, being the nicest person on the planet won't help you.

The reality of the situation is that because you don't continually update categories you pollute the search engines with inbound links that point to sites that are no longer relevant.

The best thing the DOMZ could do is set to all the links to "no follow" so that they had no affect on Google.

However, If you did do this I very much doubt webmasters would have any interest in the DOMZ. In fact the best Google could do would be to say we don't count links for the DMOZ anymore.

The truth is, if you don't improve the speed in which your process submissions and you don't improve the quality of your listings keep them fresh an up to date, Google will decide on its own that data in the DMOZ is no longer worth using.

The editors will be the death of the DMOZ unless they start to listen to its users and improve the quality of the listings.

Actually, the reality of the situation is that the ODP has nothing whatsoever to do with Google. We're doing our own thing, and Google, as well as, other search engines are big boys who can choose to use our data or not to use it.

Whether they use it or not, is not a particular concern to us, I think, and neither is how they rank sites in their search engines.

If you don't like what Google does, you should go talk to Google about it, not us. We have no influence with them, they merely choose to use the data we collect, and use it the way they see fit to.

Let me ask you something. If the ODP is so bad, and so out of touch with reality, and so worthless, why are you here and why is getting your site listed in it so important to you?

I would think it wouldn't matter much.

However, If you did do this I very much doubt webmasters would have any interest in the DOMZ.

Click to expand...

And that is a bad thing? Who said we're interested in webmasters? We're only interested in web surfers.

You see it this way - Site> webmaster> SEO> Search Engine> ODP

We see it differently - Site > ODP

The reality of the situation is that because you don't continually update categories you pollute the search engines with inbound links that point to sites that are no longer relevant.

Click to expand...

I'd say that we do the best we can given the resources (volunteer editors) we have. The main problem IMO is repeated, poor, and malicious suggestions we get from the public -- it gets very time consuming to sort out the ham from the spam. Also sites change over time, and constantly checking 5 million odd listings is not an easy task for only a few thousand editors. Out of interest, have you reported those bad links you were complaining about before?

In fact the best Google could do would be to say we don't count links for the DMOZ anymore.

Click to expand...

Best for whom? As I've already said, this is entirely up to Google. Perhaps they do this already? Presumably not since you're here complaining. Webmasters have been complaining for years, and Google didn't get where they are today by being stupid. The only conclusion I can see is that Google believes that (at least on average) counting links from the ODP is beneficial to its users.

Maybe you should consider making all your links No Follow so Google does not count them. If you don't care what Google do then it should not matter.

The end result will be less work for you because less people will be submitting their sites to you for simple reason of improving their Google rank.

Everybody's a winner!

I've tried to report the bad links but the report spam url does not work!

> Maybe you should consider making all your links No Follow so Google does not count them. If you don't care what Google do then it should not matter.
We are interested in people being able to find the sites we list. Blocking the ability for them to be found through search engines would contradict our purpose.

> The end result will be less work for you because less people will be submitting their sites to you for simple reason of improving their Google rank.
Reviewing suggested sites is only a (small) part of our "work".

> I've tried to report the bad links but the report spam url does not work!
I already told you how to report bad links and "report abuse/spam" is not one of these options.
I repeat: use the "update listing" link on DMOZ or post in the quality control part of R-Z

We are interested in people being able to find the sites we list. Blocking the ability for them to be found through search engines would contradict our purpose

Click to expand...

What is the purpose of the DMOZ?

I'm not been sarcastic, this is a serious question.

(wriiten in my own words)
To provide our users with a set of sites related to a subject the user is interested in.

users: the people looking for sites either directly on DMOZ or indirectly through any of our data users
set of sites: we know that we can't be complete and list all sites, but if a user is searchning for a subject and we can provide (say) 30 sites about that subject and he can find what he is looking for it doens't mather that there are 10 more sites about the same subject we haven't listed (yet)

We can not index the whole internet, and we don't want to (we refuse to list a major part of all sites available).
We also are not interested in a specific single site being found by our users.

Good explanation. I think one of our biggest problems right now is using the term "users", instead of "web surfers" because all webmasters and SEOs consider themselves as users, so they think of themselves as our "customers" who we need to listen to, and satisfy their needs.

We had the same kind of problem with the terms "submission" which we've changed now to "suggestions" to make things clearer.

Maybe you should consider making all your links No Follow so Google does not count them. If you don't care what Google do then it should not matter.

Click to expand...

People have suggested that many times before and I still don't quite understand it. Why should we hobble our directory because some people don't like how someone else uses our directory? If one of our data users doesn't find the directory useful, they won't use it or they'll change how they use it. Suggesting that we change the directory in order to force how they use it is a bit backwards.

Good explanation. I think one of our biggest problems is using the term "users", instead of "web surfers" because all webmasters and SEOs consider themselves as users, so they think of themselves as our "customers" who we need to listen to, and satisfy their needs.

Click to expand...

"Users" and "web surfers" are not synonymous when it comes to the ODP. "Users" to the ODP are the people who might be browsing the directory directly as well as the sites using our data.

This is very intresting....

http://www.corruptdmozeditor.com/2005/05/dmoz-editors-are-laughing-at-your.html

Your creating a rod for your own back.

Nice, . I can't comment on our forums, but, I can say that we are aware of the SEO forums that try to bash us and the tactics they use, so, it's not a particular surprise to see another one.

If that was intended to upset us, it failed, , but, it does show where you're coming from and what you are.

It's also almost 2 years old. Hardly a relevant posting.

curiosity without practical value for honest people.

Well, here are some of the reasons we know about:

(1) Simple curiosity, with no practical value, because webmaster will do the same thing regardless of whether the site is listed.

(2) Lowballing web developer doesn't want to spend an instant more on his commercial site than is necessary to get a listing. His clients (the business or organizations) and their surfers will get the absolute minimum of work required for him to get volunteers to fulfil his professional site promotion responsibilities.

(3) Viscious-spam webmaster wants to know the minute his spam is rejected, so he can immediately suggest it again, thus achieving the maximum inconvenience to the editors with minimum effort.

(4) Psychopathic manipulator wants special service from the ODP editors--an immediate review of his website. He knows the editors won't go for that. So he asks for a site status instead. Whatever site status he gets, he can then sneer, "but in the time you took to answer my question as if it had been an honest one, you could have given me the privileged special service I demand and just listed my site!" -- or some other direct personal abuse or trolling.

In several years of handling suggestion status questions, these reasons covered all but a handful of cases. And in the time we weeded through all the pointless or malicious questions ... well, we could have spent the time better improving the ODP in some other way.

Obviously, we can't tell beforehand (or afterwards, in some cases) which category each querant falls into, so we try to assume it's category 1, even though we know on average the other categories are more likely.

But however that works out, the real issue is not that we don't KNOW the webmaster motives. It's that we OUGHT not to CARE what the webmaster motives are. Bad motives, like rudeness, ought not to be grounds for rejecting a site; good motives, like courtesy, ought not to be grounds for accepting a site.

There's a fundamental principle of ethics involved here. If you are using the facilities that an organization gave you for a specific purpose, your use ought to contribute to that purpose. If you're a bank teller, you can freely open the money drawer, but if you open it for your own purposes -- society recognizes you as betrayer of trust, and law recognizes you as a criminal. It's a simple matter of ethics. And ... asking someone to betray a trust, is just as unethical and despicable. Asking someone to use the ODP tools for your own ulterior motive? -- Yes, you deserve to be despised and rejected. And when it happens, it's a sign of a lack of corruption. A good thing

Thanks for the compliment.

Too many cooks ...

While ODP editors are volunteers it appears they have lots of extra time to add additional comments to posts that should just be replied to by one mod or adm. What, no more listings to delete or reject ?

Let's see better time management rather than comments. Especially, since they don't provide site submission status. More site editing, rejecting and additions. Hey BTW, add more sites for countries other than the USA. There is a whole country to the North, it's called Canada.

SERPS are being skewed by ODP data. Why? . It is the same data replicated many times on different servers. While it is valid to mirror data, when it gets to 50+ servers then it should be discounted 100%.

Most of these sites don't even modify the data, it is just replicated, good .. bad .. errors and all. This borders very close in to the area of SPAM.

It is a good thing ODP gets a few brownie points from SEs. Otherwise there would be a real shortage of editors.

Enough of me ... let's open the floor for more of those editor comments ...
.