Is there any way to establish if a site has been turned down?

With my browser that makes the site render as a grey rectangle with a stylized letter "f" in the middle of it.

The letter "f" turns into a play button when I hover over it. Sometimes clicking on it reveals content. More often it reminds me of why I installed the flash blocker in the first place.

brmehlman said:

There is no such thing as "site submission" in dmoz. If you would just comprehend that small detail, much else would become clear.

Click to expand...

Then eliminate the ambiguity:

"Thank you for your interest in the Open Directory Project. Submitting a site is easy, but before you proceed with the site submission form, we ask that you do two things."

"1. Please take a moment to review some of our submission policies and instructions. It is important that you understand these policies. Failure to understand and follow these policies generally will result in the rejection of a submission. "

Suggest a site and then whine and pester us about how long it takes us to think about it, or whine and pester us because you don't like the fact that we didn't follow your suggestion? Just look around this forum to see how we feel about that.

Click to expand...

You need an attitude adjustment. Complaining about the process isn't "whining." If you feel that way then you should ignore the thread. Maybe it's those "feelings" that need some honest self-reflection. There is always the not-too-subtle suggestion that one needs to show deference to the ODP to ever get listed. Are you wed to the notion that ODP is infalible or omniscient?

Suggest a site and ask us what we think of the suggestion: We'd love to respond. We've tried responding. The results were not good. Nine times out of ten, we ended up with a pointless argument. Actually, nine hundred thousand times out of a million more accurately presents the problem that attempt gave us. Finally, we gave up.

Click to expand...

If you are referring to the forum, that's not the way (IMO) to address these issues.

hutcheson said:

(4) Editor error -- this occurs, but it's rare (several cases daily, if my experience is any judge). At this point, in the judgment of the community and in our experience, webmaster feedback is absolutely certainly not an effective or efficient form of quality feedback (but it is an effective channel for abuse, malicious insinuations, and spam.)

Click to expand...

What mechanism exists for determining editor error? QA has never been explained in any of the DMOZ docs that I have read. I can see how you might discover that an editor listed a site that had inappropriate content but it SEEMS improbable to note sites not listed that should have been.

People may feel that there is no way for ODP to uncover a "failure-to-list" error unless someone brings it to the ODP's attention. Since there is no way to do that, frustration develops.

So it is not a procedure that we'd consider supporting.

Click to expand...

Is that a royal or collective "we?" Are you suggesting that you make policy for the ODP? It's that certainty of unanimity that creates the wrong impression. It's almost cult-like. Sometimes it seems that ODP is only "open" to - or from - the inside. That's NOT an accusation. True or not, it's the impression that I get.

There is always the not-too-subtle suggestion that one needs to show deference to the ODP to ever get listed. Are you wed to the notion that ODP is infalible or omniscient?

Click to expand...

People can post onto this forum and it will have no effect on their site status what so ever, whether they are appreciative of our efforts or not. There are a few guarenteed ways for a webmaster to ensure that their listable site will not be listed (offering bribes, physical assault and similar) but merely posting things on this forum is not one of them.

The only effect a poster in this forum can have on the working of the Directory itself is if they post Quality issues in the appropriate thread where editors will try to ensure that they are addressed in a reasonable time.

To get a listable website added to the ODP, you need do nothing - absolutely nothing. To get all the entries you are entitled to in the ODP, you need do also do nothing as no one is guarenteed a listing.

Sooner or later, an editor will come across the site, review it and, if it is still extant and listable, list it. (Most of the sites I have added were those that I found rather than being suggested). No one can predict when an editor will find (either as a suggestion in the review pool or on their own initiative) and review the site.

Now that editor could make a mistake and not list the site but the only party that suffers is the Directory. There is however a built-in fail-safe as, sooner or later, another editor will come across the site, review it and, if it is still extant and listable, list it.

Editors can make mistakes, but other editors doing random checks seem to find them. I just happened to look at a category last week and found an editor had deleted a site as not working (perhaps it was not when he checked it) it was working fine for me, so I stuck it back in for him to add it back.

In another case, he moved a site to another category since he though it was not in English (he just di not look carefully enough), eventaully another editor would have found it and moved it back, but since I was there, I moved it back right away.

In the same manner, after doing over 20,000 edits/reviews changes/moves, I'm sure I made some mistakes along the way. I've seen that other editors have caught several of my mistakes and corrected them.

Eric-the-Bun said:

People can post onto this forum and it will have no effect on their site status what so ever, whether they are appreciative of our efforts or not. There are a few guarenteed ways for a webmaster to ensure that their listable site will not be listed (offering bribes, physical assault and similar) but merely posting things on this forum is not one of them.

Click to expand...

Please be assured that I am addressing perception in contrast to action.

The only effect a poster in this forum can have on the working of the Directory itself is if they post Quality issues in the appropriate thread where editors will try to ensure that they are addressed in a reasonable time.

Click to expand...

I had a very good result working with Jeanmanco (who is polite, professional and consistent) in cleaning up a bunch of listed sites in "abuse" cats. We didn't agree accross the board but she expressed - and I respect - her reasoning.

Now that editor could make a mistake and not list the site but the only party that suffers is the Directory. There is however a built-in fail-safe as, sooner or later, another editor will come across the site, review it and, if it is still extant and listable, list it.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that for a second. However, the party that suffers is the surfer.

bobrat said:

Editors can make mistakes, but other editors doing random checks seem to find them.

Click to expand...

I could - I won't - go through a lengthy Deming rant about the quality cycle. In short, a quality result is engineered by quality of process.

Speaking for myself, I don't trust the process. This is an over-simplification but that means either;

1. The process is flawed and/or;
2. I don't understand the process.

If my understanding of the process is the problem then;

a. The process is abmiguous or not adaquately documented or;
b. For whatever reason, I'm not capable of comprehending what has been documented.

>What mechanism exists for determining editor error?

For positive errors, anyone may report problems -- and such reported problems get a VERY high priority -- most are reviewed within hours.

Since any editor with privileges and interest in a category can add sites there, and since no one editor can be required to add any site, omissions by any editor can't be considered error.

I know this is not what webmasters want. You want some way of controlling the editor, some way of imposing your will and your priorities and your desire on someone else.

But the ODP simply doesn't have that.

>Is that a royal or collective "we?"

It's a collective. The ODP has been facing this question for at least five years (to my personal knowledge), and I've personally been involved in at least four attempts to see what might be done without betraying the ODP ideals. And I can say that of my own experience, the community leaders have over that time grown less interested (even more hostile) to the whole idea.

There is a whole list of reasons why it's not a good idea -- as you could have read in the announcement. Different reasons weigh differently with different people. From the information-theoretic viewpoint, perhaps the significant philosophical issue is this:

(1) BEFORE a site rejection, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO TELL!
(2) AFTER a site rejection, WE DON'T WANT TO TELL THE SPAMMER ANYTHING!

There are no other possibilities. So, how do we deal with the very very rare case of accidentally-deleted suggestions (less than 1% of all suggestions)?

We don't. There are so many better things to do with our time -- so many more efficient ways to find previously-overlooked sites -- so many richer sources of URLs to mine -- that it just isn't worthwhile digging through once-rejected sites on the off chance that someone might have been a mistake.

You see, the ODP is designed around editor efficiency. If the editors are efficient enough, sites will be found by multiple methods, and no single method is critical. It's better to let the editors focus on the rich sources of URLs, rather than trying to suck out the last dregs of ONE minor supplemental source (that is, site suggestions.)

It's all very simple, as soon as you stop thinking about site suggestions as a tool for working your will on other people, and start thinking about it as a very minor way of helping people who are perfectly willing and able to do a good job without your help. And, at the same time, stop thinking about editors as "powerful", and start thinking of us as we really are -- that is, merely helpers and participants in a community that could go on just fine without any one of us. If I had never participated in the ODP, it would still have achieved something like it has achieved (not perhaps exactly the same), after a delay of two weeks. What kind of power did that give me?

hutcheson said:

I know this is not what webmasters want. You want some way of controlling the editor, some way of imposing your will and your priorities and your desire on someone else.

Click to expand...

Please don't project. That is not my intent - not at all.

From the information-theoretic viewpoint, perhaps the significant philosophical issue is this:

(1) BEFORE a site rejection, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO TELL!
(2) AFTER a site rejection, WE DON'T WANT TO TELL THE SPAMMER ANYTHING!

Click to expand...

That seems to suggest that all site rejections were suggested by spammers. Have you considered the possibility that spam is the result of a lack of meaningful communication?

Again, going back to my own experiences, I do NOT get repeated requests for IPA deletions from the blacklists even though some are mission critical. The process is modified as required by the quality cycle.

It's all very simple, as soon as you stop thinking about site suggestions as a tool for working your will on other people,

Click to expand...

You are embracing the notion that you know what I think. This is about process, not persuasion.

However, the party that suffers is the surfer.

Click to expand...

Firstly, on that basis, you could say that the surfer suffers if a site is not listed for any reason - whether it has not been reviewed or because it was an editor mistake. The ODP's aim is not to provide the surfer with quantity but with Quality, that is a selection of good listings which are hopefully the best and, overall, give the surfer a good chance of finding what they want. If we have not yet listed a good site, one of the sites we list should link to it.

The most likely example for your scenario is that the site is a borderline case - some editors might list it whilst others might defer judgement on it, leaving it in the review pool to come back too later in case it improves - it might be a mistake to delete it. However it is unlikely that any 'good' site would fall into this category. Hence the quantity in the directory might suffer but the Quality not at all (and some would argue that the Quality is actually improved by that 'mistake').

[Some info if I when I am reviewing I want to add or leave a site alone, this just requires a click on a button whilst if I want to delete a site I have to type a reason. If I accidentally clicked delete instead of add, the chances are that I will not have typed anything in the comments field and the 'system' would refuse to delete it and I'd realise my mistake. Not fool-proof but will catch many a slip.(nb in case you wonder, the commonest reason for deleting is 'duplicated suggestion')]

We could institute a complex system that checks every action to ensure that the all errors will be caught but then the surfer suffers as less sites will be added because we would be jumping through hoops to list each site. In summary it is highly unlikely that a good, listable site will be accidentally deleted, since those are the ones we are eager to add.

eyecon said:

Then eliminate the ambiguity:

"Thank you for your interest in the Open Directory Project. Submitting a site is easy, but before you proceed with the site submission form, we ask that you do two things."

Click to expand...

On that point, I agree with you one hundred percent. Some of our pages and much of our old documentation do give that false impression. Others used to but have been fixed. For example, the link on most of our category pages says "Suggest a url" where it used to say "Submit a url".

Sadly, such changes do take time. Our model of looking for consensus among editors has that disadvantage. The consensus model has advantages too, and on the whole I'm happy with it, but I do sometimes get frustrated about how long it takes to make a seemingly easy change.

Are you wed to the notion that ODP is infalible or omniscient?

Click to expand...

Infallible? Not even close. I've made my share of mistakes, and so have other editors. But by looking over one another's shoulders we do manage to reduce the number of errors to a tolerable level and produce what we think is a pretty good directory.

Is that a royal or collective "we?"

Click to expand...

Royal? What on earth leads you to think that? It's a simple and perfectly grammatical use of a common English pronoun. Hutcheson, as a member of a group which shares a common set of goals, was simply stating the fact that something you may wish was one of our goals isn't. That's the common use of "we", not the royal one.

eyecon said:

I don't doubt that for a second. However, the party that suffers is the surfer.

Click to expand...

I realy doubt that is true.

If I as a surfer am looking for sites about a specific subject and find a DMOZ category with 20 to 50 sites about that subject I'm very happy. I'm sure that amongst all the millions of sites outthere some more sites about the subject will be available (it would be very strange if there aren't any). But do I care. Absolultely not.

Does DMOZ as a directory care that not all sites are listed. No. We know we will never be able to list all sites.

The only one who cares is the owner of the site not listed.

So if a site is not listed by accident (editor mistake) this is not a problem for me as a surfer. Neither is it a big problem for DMOZ, one day the same or an other editor will find the site again and maybe decide to list it at that time.

There is not really a defined "process" for editing. So long as someone does something to improve the directory, then how they did it simply isn't an issue. Only with the "special" permissions (editall, meta) do processes start getting defined.

That's intentional: give the editors maximum scope for finding the most efficient way to contribute.

Any editor can try out any method for finding good websites. If it's successful in finding websites other people missed, people will fall over themselves to find out how he did it. If it's not successful, ... it was only his time wasted, and it was his choice.

That's how real progress can be made. But it is really astonishing to see the arrogance of some people who've never edited anything and yet presume to know how everyone ELSE could be made to work best.

hutcheson said:

There is not really a defined "process" for editing. So long as someone does something to improve the directory, then how they did it simply isn't an issue. Only with the "special" permissions (editall, meta) do processes start getting defined.

Click to expand...

I have busted your balls a couple of times but I am completely serious when I suggest that the lack of defined process is evident. IMO, it is impossible to obtain a quality result without a quality process.

That's intentional: give the editors maximum scope for finding the most efficient way to contribute.

Click to expand...

Process and flexibility are not mutually exclusive.

Any editor can try out any method for finding good websites. If it's successful in finding websites other people missed, people will fall over themselves to find out how he did it. If it's not successful, ... it was only his time wasted, and it was his choice.

Click to expand...

Of course I don't know the percentage added as a result of submissions/suggestions. The only issue I am addressing is the process (or lack thereof) that occurs when someone submits or suggests a site.

That's how real progress can be made. But it is really astonishing to see the arrogance of some people who've never edited anything and yet presume to know how everyone ELSE could be made to work best.

Click to expand...

Well, if you are referring to me, I have certainly done my fair share of editing. I have also been a participant in many collaberative efforts. There is nothing arrogant in suggesting that I think that the process can be improved. Right or wrong, I have been specific and reasoned. How this generates some ad hominem responses escapes me.

I suggest that you read about the Deming management method if you want a better sense of where I am coming from. I have no idea if you have had any management development training. I can only suggest that I have extraordinary confidence in the Quality Management approach as defined by Deming and others. I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my derriere.

Just to take it a small step further, I have no economic ax to grind. My site is non-commercial. Indeed, I recently pulled advertising because I felt that it was a distraction. I would like more companies to rsync (for free) the blacklists because that improves their quality as more false positive will be reported. We are widely listed by every search engine EXCEPT the ODP so I don't need ODP. Sure, I'd like to have it but I'm not selling anything so it's hardly critical.

>I have no idea if you have had any management development training...

No, but I read Dilbert. And laugh.

"Process" is just a word you use when you mean "I want to control you but I don't want you to recognize it."

Sorry, but too many people have tried the route here, and it's not that hard to recognize.

Now, if you want to do something POSITIVE for "quality", you could find an actual quality problem. And then the collective minds of the editing community could come up with a variety of efficient and effective solutions.

But all you have is ... your perception. And that's not my problem and isn't ever going to be.

"Process" is just a word you use when you mean "I want to control you but I don't want you to recognize it."

Click to expand...

Actually, former Netscape GM Jeremy Liew would vigorously disagree with you. You present a pathology of being susceptible in the past to manipulation. Nothing is more manipulative than telling others what they mean or think.

Now, if you want to do something POSITIVE for "quality", you could find an actual quality problem. And then the collective minds of the editing community could come up with a variety of efficient and effective solutions.

Click to expand...

The problem is that you are defining an "actual quality problem" as something that YOU agree is a quality problem. Those are two very different things. In any event you haven't addressed my hypothesis on the merits. That's unfortunate. I learn much more from those who disagree with my point of view.

To improve you have to first recognize where there is a problem. While I cannot know for certain, I doubt that there is any greater source of acrimony and frustration than the process associated with the submission of sites to ODP (and, yes, ODP is the source of the term "site submission").

but I am completely serious when I suggest that the lack of defined process is evident.

Click to expand...

You may be completely serious in making your suggestion - but your suggestion is erroneous.

How can you say that the lack of defined process is evident? Unless you mean that as a compliment (which I don't think you intended )?

It is that very "lack of defined process" that has led to the listing of almost 5 MILLION sites in the Open Directory Project. Because we work how we want to work - we typically work much much harder than if someone told us how to work.

I have no idea if you have had any management development training.

Click to expand...

Thankfully I have not, and the fact you think it is important shows the great divide between your mode of thinking and the operational procedures at ODP.

I used to work for a major financial company doing program development. I was hired based on my technical competence rather then my "management techniques". I recall with amusement a meeting to discuss the implemenatition of a new online mortgage system. The senior managers, came up with a plan to do a feasability study, that would take six months to complete, after which they would have an idea of what was involved and could put togehter esimates and timelines. On the other hand, I just stated that I would complete the whole project in six months. (Ended up implementing on week late) I had no plan, no schedule, not estimate, no etc.etc. just plunged in and got the job done.

Odp works much the same way, people just review and edit sites and somehow they get the job done.

There are no managers here.

>The problem is that you are defining an "actual quality problem" as something that YOU agree is a quality problem.

That is, um, not something that I agree is a problem. And, with as many REAL problems as there are in the world, your problems with someone else's work are ... YOUR problems.

That's fine. You have the right to choose your own concerns ("process" and "perception" rather than "reality or results") and mission (getting special promotional services for your website) and methods.

But the ODP community was formed around different goals and ideals and methods, and naturally enough it's uncongenial to you (and vice versa).

So, what's the solution? Form your own community of process-minded website promoters, and see what you can do.

To improve you have to first recognize where there is a problem. While I cannot know for certain, I doubt that there is any greater source of acrimony and frustration than the process associated with the submission of sites to ODP.

Click to expand...

Precisely => logical analysis:

Q: Who is it a problem for?
A: the submitter/suggester

Q: What are the possible root causes of the problem?
A: submitter/suggester not understanding or wanting to understand the ODP processes, not reading/understanding the FAQs or posts on the forum

Q: What process can be put in place to improve the situation?
A: Regular Reviews of FAQs and information for clarity etc. however 'you can lead a horse to water...'