Issues of ODP

paj_mccarthy · Nov 19, 2008

Just putting together a few thoughts of where I think the ODP has a few issues with the view to having an open discussion about them and how they could possibly be improved. I am in no way attached to the ODP and so I don't really have much of a clue in terms of feasibility, but hopefully the editors can give us their input.

These problems are those that are webmaster facing, as these are the only problems that I am qualified to mention!

1) Communication

Webmasters are usually left in the dark - they aren't informed when a decision has been made about their site leading to resubmissions.

- There is no way of tracking the status of a submission.

- When a site is rejected there is no communication to the webmaster. Site owners are therefore unaware why their site has been rejected.

2) Editor power

The one factor that makes DMOZ unique from the other major directories is a shortcoming aswell as a selling point. The quality and integrity of the data within the directory is dependent upon the diligence of the editors. This can mean:

- Editors may edit a category in which they have their own web site. In which case there is a significant conflict of interest. Should the editor receive a submission from a competitor, he may choose to reject the listing. I understand that suspicious activity is logged, but I imagine this still does occur as a carefully planned hijack could remain undetected.

- Editors may choose to include their site in a directory when it doesn't comply with the Webmaster guidelines.

- Bribery. Such is the profound status of DMOZ and the effect that a backlink from here can have on a web site, webmasters may try and bribe editors for a listing, which may be tempting for a corrupt editor. Not sure if this occurs, this is purely speculation.

- Webmasters may look to become an editor only for the benefit of their own web site.

3) Link Reviewing

Web sites develop over time, domains change hands, content changes and the subject matter often changes. For example, failed real estate business to porn. Issues with this are:

- The website: editor ratio is too low to feasibly review all current content on a regular basis, therefore some sites are listed in DMOZ that really shouldn't be, either because they are in the wrong category or because their content no longer warrants inclusion.

What does everyone else think? Any additions or thoughts on the above?

motsa · Nov 19, 2008

Not sure what kind of response you're expecting.

Just putting together a few thoughts of where I think the ODP has a few issues with the view to having an open discussion about them and how they could possibly be improved. I am in no way attached to the ODP and so I don't really have much of a clue in terms of feasibility, but hopefully the editors can give us their input.

These problems are those that are webmaster facing, as these are the only problems that I am qualified to mention!

1) - There is no way of tracking the status of a submission.

Correct. May or may not change in the future, but is certainly not a high priority.

When a site is rejected there is no communication to the webmaster. Site owners are therefore unaware why their site has been rejected.

Sites are only rejected because they don't meet our very public guidelines regarding listability. Site owners can read those guidelines and determine themselves if and why their sites would be rejected.

Editors may edit a category in which they have their own web site. In which case there is a significant conflict of interest. Should the editor receive a submission from a competitor, he may choose to reject the listing. I understand that suspicious activity is logged, but I imagine this still does occur as a carefully planned hijack could remain undetected.

It can happen but it is rare, and it is pretty much always caught and dealt with.

Editors may choose to include their site in a directory when it doesn't comply with the Webmaster guidelines.

Editors doing so face repercussions, including potentially removal as editors.

Bribery. Such is the profound status of DMOZ and the effect that a backlink from here can have on a web site, webmasters may try and bribe editors for a listing, which may be tempting for a corrupt editor. Not sure if this occurs, this is purely speculation.

It has happened. When found, it is dealt with swiftly, resulting in the removal of the editor and the banning of the sites in question.

Webmasters may look to become an editor only for the benefit of their own web site.

Such people would not remain editors very long.

The website: editor ratio is too low to feasibly review all current content on a regular basis, therefore some sites are listed in DMOZ that really shouldn't be, either because they are in the wrong category or because their content no longer warrants inclusion.

We're not ever likely to reach the point where we have enough editors who are willing to edit where needed, versus where they want, to successfully rereview every listed site for changed content or current listability on a regular basis. That's why we offer the public the ability to report such listings when they find them using the link on the dmoz.org pages or in the QA forum here.

pvgool · Nov 19, 2008

> - There is no way of tracking the status of a submission.
Correct.
> - When a site is rejected there is no communication to the webmaster.
Correct
> Site owners are therefore unaware why their site has been rejected.
Incorrect. Reasons for rejection are avaliable for everybody.

> - Editors may edit a category in which they have their own web site.
Correct, nothing wrong with that
> In which case there is a significant conflict of interest.
Incorrect, an editor should treath all websites the same
> Should the editor receive a submission from a competitor, he may choose
> to reject the listing.
Incorrect, he may not choose to reject a listing for these reasons. Editors not handling websites according to our guidelines will be corrected and if needed they will be removed.
> I understand that suspicious activity is logged,
Incorrect, all activity is logged
> but I imagine this still does occur as a carefully planned hijack could remain
> undetected.
Correct/Incorrect. Yes, it has happened. No, it will be detected.

> - Editors may choose to include their site in a directory when it doesn't
> comply with the Webmaster guidelines.
Incorrect. Editors should treath all websites the same.

> - Bribery. Such is the profound status of DMOZ and the effect that a
> backlink from here can have on a web site,
Incorrect. DMOZ does not have any specific effect on a website or its chances of being found in search engines. It is a myth.
> webmasters may try and bribe editors for a listing, which may be tempting
> for a corrupt editor. Not sure if this occurs, this is purely speculation.
Unfourtunately it has happened. But the editors have been removed. And so have all the websites of the persons offering the bribe.

> - Webmasters may look to become an editor only for the benefit of their
> own web site.
Correct. It has happened. Nothing wrong wit that as long as those people act according to our guidelines.

> - The website: editor ratio is too low to feasibly review all current content on a regular basis,
Correct
> therefore some sites are listed in DMOZ that really shouldn't be, either
> because they are in the wrong category or because their content no longer
> warrants inclusion.
Correct.
And you can be of help if you find such websites by letting us know. You don't have to be an editor to help build the directory and maintain its quality.

paj_mccarthy · Nov 19, 2008

Thanks for your quick reply, I have added some thoughts / questions in red, mainly to try and understand how such close control is over the directory is maintained.

pvgool said:
> - There is no way of tracking the status of a submission.
Correct.
> - When a site is rejected there is no communication to the webmaster.
Correct
> Site owners are therefore unaware why their site has been rejected.
Incorrect. Reasons for rejection are avaliable for everybody. These reasons aren't specific to the site in question so if you wish to seek clarification as to exactly why your site was rejected as a webmaster you can't

> - Editors may edit a category in which they have their own web site.
Correct, nothing wrong with that
> In which case there is a significant conflict of interest.
Incorrect, an editor should treath all websites the same
If you are editor of a category and a competitor seeks an addition there is a conflict of interest, this can't be debated - Even though the category editor should approve it, some may be tempted not to. (whether this occurs or not is purely speculation - but it's a possibility)
> Should the editor receive a submission from a competitor, he may choose
> to reject the listing.
Incorrect, he may not choose to reject a listing for these reasons. Editors not handling websites according to our guidelines will be corrected and if needed they will be removed. I argue that it is impossible to check every single addition (resource constraints) and it wouldn't be difficult to go under the radar so to speak
> I understand that suspicious activity is logged,
Incorrect, all activity is logged
> but I imagine this still does occur as a carefully planned hijack could remain
> undetected.
Correct/Incorrect. Yes, it has happened. No, it will be detected. What process do you have that means every hijack attempt is detected? How can you catch every one? Serious question - not flaming.

> - Editors may choose to include their site in a directory when it doesn't
> comply with the Webmaster guidelines.
Incorrect. Editors should treath all websites the same.
I agree they should, but how is this monitored? It is possible for them to include a web site that doesn't comply as they have a personal interest in that site.

> - Bribery. Such is the profound status of DMOZ and the effect that a
> backlink from here can have on a web site,
Incorrect. DMOZ does not have any specific effect on a website or its chances of being found in search engines. It is a myth.
DMOZ backlinks are just like any other backlink, except generally speaking dmoz has a high PR and the directory is used by Google, so the benefits of getting into DMOZ can't be argued.
> webmasters may try and bribe editors for a listing, which may be tempting
> for a corrupt editor. Not sure if this occurs, this is purely speculation.
Unfourtunately it has happened. But the editors have been removed. And so have all the websites of the persons offering the bribe. Again, how can you be sure? This is impossible to completely control.

> - Webmasters may look to become an editor only for the benefit of their
> own web site.
Correct. It has happened. Nothing wrong wit that as long as those people act according to our guidelines.

> - The website: editor ratio is too low to feasibly review all current content on a regular basis,
Correct
> therefore some sites are listed in DMOZ that really shouldn't be, either
> because they are in the wrong category or because their content no longer
> warrants inclusion.
Correct.
And you can be of help if you find such websites by letting us know. You don't have to be an editor to help build the directory and maintain its quality.

Basically, whilst I take on board what you're saying, a lot of your responses are "editors should" and I'm not entirely convinced that there are sufficient procedures in place to render the issues that I have mentioned obsolete.

P.S I could be completely wrong because I don't know what goes on behind the scenes!

pvgool · Nov 19, 2008

I'm not entirely convinced that there are sufficient procedures in place to render the issues that I have mentioned obsolete.

You will have to trust us that procedures are in place. We might not see ervery issue at the moment it occurs but they will be spotted.
Ofcourse we can not tell you or anybody else not involved with the procedures what we can detect and how we do so. This could give information to people who might try to do some bad things. [which does not mean that I think that you will do these things, but other people might]

jimnoble · Nov 19, 2008

P.S I could be completely wrong because I don't know what goes on behind the scenes!

At last, something that I can agree with you about

.

Rather than take up lots of other folks' time here with misunderstandings and questions that are already adequately answered elsewhere, why not consult our editor guidelines? Once you have those off pat, you'll understand a lot more about what the editorial job entails and might even be tempted to apply.

As I've already told you in another thread, we will not discuss anti-abuse measures here. That being the case, this thread has run its course so I'm closing it. Please don't start a similar one.

Issues of ODP

paj_mccarthy

Member

motsa

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

paj_mccarthy

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

jimnoble

DMOZ Meta