I guess I don't understand

I guess I don't understand the logic behind the dmoz model.

I've been trying to get listed in a chat category now for a while with no success. I see the majority of the sites in the category are 2 bit sites cobbled together with no real features or benefit, or that are basically dead and forgotten. Many of them you can't even chat at. At the same time, my site has over 10,000 active members and gaining about 100 new members per day, has webcams, voice chat, custom profiles, photo galleries, videos, interest groups, and blogs. If you were someone looking through the directory for a good chat site which would you rather go to? A site that you can't chat at with a hand full of links to other sites and a dictionary of chat lingo, or an actual comprehensive chat site that you can actually chat at?

I understand that it takes several years to get listed in the directory, but that's the part I don't understand. With all of the technology out there today isn't there anything that can help editors streamline the review process? I notice that the category I'm trying for has been "edited" several times since my submission but I haven't noticed one single new site added. In fact, by looking at the sites listed and the way they were built, I would guess that there hasn't been a new site added that has been built after 2000. Seriously, these sites look like they've been built in Geocities or Angelfire, oh wait, one of the listings is an Angelfire site lol! Again, I really don't understand.

I guess it boils down to this; the dmoz directory is supposed to be built to help people find quality sites in the directory, not just a place for webmasters to list a site to help improve search engine ranking. But with the current model, I just don't understand how that is possible unless by quality you mean over 5 years old. I'm surprised that MySpace is listed since it's still so new in dmoz's eyes.

Please don't get offended, this is not intended to be a hate peice against dmoz. I like the basic idea of a human edited directory of quality sites. There just has to be a better way of going about it.

Has anyone looked at ways of streamlining the editing process? Maybe taking a chance and let more people participate as editors, I mean the problem seems to be that the editors are so overwhelmed that they are still working on submissions from 1998.

I read on another post that it only takes a second to delete a broken site, but it takes so much skill, time, and effort to add a new site. Again, I don't really understand that. How much time does it really take to pull up a submitted site, look at the content, and make a decission? Maybe there's more to it, I don't know, I've never been allowed to be an editor, but if it's really THAT hard I guess I don't need the hassle and am glad I'm not.

In fact, I think a lot of people would like to know exactly why it does take so long to add a site. People might be much more understanding of the insane length of time it takes to get added if they had a valid reasonable reason why it takes so long.

I'm also curious if there is any evidence of anyone actually using dmoz to find websites. It seems to me that since dmoz is so stagnate with very little new content being added that the only people really comming to dmoz would be webmasters trying to get sites listed. Personally I would never come to dmoz to browse new sites, especially when theres stumble and other places that actually have fresh content. I'll be honest and admit that the only reason I want a listing in dmoz is for the good backlink. Archaic and internet really don't go together.

How much time does it really take to pull up a submitted site, look at the content, and make a decission?

Click to expand...

Often about a minute. But when site owners start to be devious and try to suggest multiple related sites to different categories, then it can take significantly longer. You're also forgetting that we almost always have to re-write the suggested description (and often the title too). I can understand site owners not realising how we write descriptions, but it's rather worrying when they don't seem to know the title of their own site ("Business class ASP Dot Net MS, SQL web hosting and more" does not belong in the title for example).

All in all, I guess it's over five minutes per site. Now think of the number of suggestions we might get per day and the number of editors we have. Add to that the fact that reviewing new site suggestions isn't the only thing editors have to do (we also need to check on existing listings, discuss things in the internal forums, decide on category structures, mentor new editors, evaluate new editor applications, deal with cases of poor and abusive editing, ...) and you might understand why suggestions take so long to be processed.

However, remember that the "model" isn't to be a listing service to webmasters, it's to be a useful directory for surfers. As long as there are volunteer editors to help move thigns towards this goal, we'll carry on just fine. The time it takes for a suggestion to be reviewed is far less of an issue for us, than the question of how useful a category is to someone looking for information. As you've noted some of our categories aren't in the best shape. We don't operate on a first-in-first-out system with suggestions (for obvious reasons if you think about it) but instead the categories that get the attention are those which editors volunteer to take an interest in. Since our editors are web surfers too, this is probably reasonably effective at prioritising the categories that will be of most interest to our users.

If you'd like to help, why not become an editor?

I guess I don't understand the logic behind the dmoz model.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand people whose first two posts are cheap shots and who then post asking for assistance.

With all of the technology out there today isn't there anything that can help editors streamline the review process? I notice that the category I'm trying for has been "edited" several times since my submission but I haven't noticed one single new site added.

Click to expand...

We still have to look at the sites, check for duplicate content, seek hidden redirects and determine if it is a mirror or something else that is devious. There is also a lot mroe to editing that listed suggested sites.

Please don't get offended, this is not intended to be a hate peice against dmoz.

Click to expand...

Could have fooled me.

Has anyone looked at ways of streamlining the editing process?

Click to expand...

Constantly, but the important part is that we don't get so caught up in productivity gains that we lose our focus. We are NOT about processing suggestions and we are NOT a listing service for webmasters. We are simply a group of hobbyists who are shairng a passion for helping to catalog the web.

Archaic and internet really don't go together.

Click to expand...

Well, then, what else is there to say? We are doing something that we are interested in doing, in a manner of our choosing, and you disagree. That is your right, and you are welcome to do so. Since your only stated interest is in promoting your own site, and we don't share that interest, there is really not a lot of point in trying to build a dialogue.

Hope all your backlinks are profitable and you are able to find a directory or web service that meets your needs in manner of your choosing.

Lol spectre, I'm not asking for help, I already read your other post to someone else stating it is policy here not to help people. I just wanted clarification. I'm sorry if this posting in the "General ODP Issues" isn't a glowing praise of how great the ODP is, most "issues" aren't glowing praises, they'r ISSUES. I just happen to take ISSUE with the current model of the ODP.

Chaos, thank you for your candid reply. Becoming an editor is a great suggestion, except that it's harder to become an editor than it is to get a site listed. I've applied to some small neglected categories before that don't have editors and have always been reject, I'm just not ODP editor material I guess. I even applied for my small hometown of 11,000 people and wasn't even good enough to edit that.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that dmoz is supposed to be a directory for surfers to find sites, but I still contend that the only people using dmoz at this point are webmasters and dmoz editors. And if things stay as they are, that's how it will remain.

I still say that allowing more editors would only help dmoz, not hurt. The only way I can describe the current way of accepting new editors is a "good ole boy" system. I know that's going to piss off the likes of spectre who close their ears to anything other than glowing praises of the ODP. I'm not saying allow everyone that applies to be an editor, but denying the majority and only allowing a select few is never going to help make the ODP better. Sure everyone likes to be part of an elite clique but it's just not the way to make the ODP better. Again, the problem seems to be that the editors are overwhelmed with too many submissions and not enough time, the solution is to get more editors, the way to do that is to stop denying EVERYONE that isn't your buddy.

It just seems to me that dmoz has so much potential but it's so overrun by egotistical elitists like spectre holding it back that it will never reach it's potential.

And to your comment spectre "hope you are able to find a directory that meets your needs", that's my whole point. If you don't like it go somewhere else, oh wait, there is nowhere else. Everyone knows that dmoz is the only free directory on the web that is given any weight, I wish there were competition as dmoz would then have to improve or fade away, but there's not so that's it.

I guess it just irritates me that 2 bit sites get listed while good quality sites sit around for years, and if you try to contribute to make things better you get kicked in the ass and told you're not good enough to do something as complicated as reveiwing sites to see if they're worthy of inclusion in the almighty dmoz directory. Especially since something as simple as adding more editors would make things a lot better.

I've applied to some small neglected categories before that don't have editors and have always been reject, I'm just not ODP editor material I guess. I even applied for my small hometown of 11,000 people and wasn't even good enough to edit that.

Click to expand...

It takes a little more than just wanting to be an editor and finding a neglected category to become an editor, though that's a good start. The application is how you show us that you can find sites that actually belong in the category where you're applying, that you can write reasonably well in the language of the category you've chosen, that you have some level of integrity and honesty. The Becoming an Editor forum here has more tips for submitting a successful application.

I still say that allowing more editors would only help dmoz, not hurt. The only way I can describe the current way of accepting new editors is a "good ole boy" system. I know that's going to piss off the likes of spectre who close their ears to anything other than glowing praises of the ODP. I'm not saying allow everyone that applies to be an editor, but denying the majority and only allowing a select few is never going to help make the ODP better. Sure everyone likes to be part of an elite clique but it's just not the way to make the ODP better. Again, the problem seems to be that the editors are overwhelmed with too many submissions and not enough time, the solution is to get more editors, the way to do that is to stop denying EVERYONE that isn't your buddy.

Click to expand...

It's really not a "good ole boy" system. Sure, it would be great to have more editors, but relaxing the requirements or expectations isn't the way to do it -- it's amazing how much extra work a poor (or worse, abusive) editor causes for the very people whose plates are already overflowing.

I guess it just irritates me that 2 bit sites get listed while good quality sites sit around for years, and if you try to contribute to make things better you get kicked in the ass and told you're not good enough to do something as complicated as reveiwing sites to see if they're worthy of inclusion in the almighty dmoz directory. Especially since something as simple as adding more editors would make things a lot better.

Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if any of your rejections ever said "You're not good enough to be an editor." It really isn't complicated: pick a reasonable category (one that isn't too large, that isn't too spam-prone or problematic for a new editor), find 2-3 listable sites that aren't yet listed that belong in that category, give them unhyped titles and descriptions, and fill in your personal information (including affiliations) honestly. I suspect some of your previous applications may have been rejected because of the first item, picking a good category. Chat-related categories, especially broad or general ones, can be overwhelming in terms of spam and so probably aren't a good choice for a new editor. If that's the type of category you applied for, then I wouldn't be surprised at rejections. The small town category you mentioned may have been too large -- or your site choice may have been inappropriate for the category you picked.

lol, ok. Take my hometown of a whoppin 11,000 people. No editor and obviously not a large category by any means.

I suggested sites that were not listed for local attractions that in my opinion absolutely deserved to be in the directory.

Titles weren't hyped, they weren't my sites, they weren't spam sites.

I got rejected, of course there's no reason so how would anyone know the mistake they made?

I realize though that it was a blessing not being accepted as I just learned the ethics of the ODP. It's all about not taking up space and avoiding work at all cost. An inactive editor is better than anything else.

Good luck with your directory.

I got rejected, of course there's no reason so how would anyone know the mistake they made?

Click to expand...

Not true, every rejected application is answered with a list of possible reasons for rejection. A truely interested applicant would without much effort figure out which apply to him.

sfraise77 said:

Lol spectre, I'm not asking for help, I already read your other post to someone else stating it is policy here not to help people.

Click to expand...

Also, not true. The other advice was that the poster had already done everything that needed to be done to get the issues corrected, and that the purpose of these forums is NOT to edit on demand.

sfraise77 said:

I realize though that it was a blessing not being accepted as I just learned the ethics of the ODP. It's all about not taking up space and avoiding work at all cost. An inactive editor is better than anything else.

Click to expand...

It sounds as if it was, as your first line of your first post summed it all up:

I guess I don't understand the logic behind the dmoz model.

Click to expand...

Do you guys reveal how many editors are currently volunteering in DMOZ? I'm just curious about the editor/"suggested site" ratio.

I'd love to be an editor, but I just can't take rejection very well Just kidding!



Update: I found my answer.
I just found the report from Sept 06, which may give me an idea of the ratio.
* Currently active editor accounts: 7,198
* Number of editor accounts approved since the foundation of ODP: 74,542
* New editors: 332
* Reinstated editors: 209
* Accounts inactivated for a variety of reasons (inactivity, resignation, removal): 673

Now take that rough number of 7,198 current editors in 2006, and another rough number, 600,000 categories, and use your imagination to get an idea about how many site suggestions there might be, and more coming in daily, . (2 site suggestions per category might not be unreasonable) ?

Puts a different light on things, .