As do most editors. But we're only human and we're volunteers, volunteering for a project that encourages us to edit where we have an interest, not where others tell us we must edit. So it's natural that some topics will be less comprehensive than others, simply because no one has taken an interest in them recently. Would you really want someone to tell you what categories you had to edit if you were accepted as an editor? I doubt it.
Last update: 21:47 PT, Saturday, July 30, 2005
- Thread starter RayJay
- Start date
Why would you think the most relevant sites aren't being added? What would lead you to suspect that editors aren't neglecting unimportant categories precisely to focus on the truly relevant? Or that Google, et al, are (in their own way) suppressing demonstrably unimportant results to focus on the demonstrably relevant (for their own definition of "relevant")?
If you disagree with other people's concept of "relevant" (as we all do, in one way or another!), then, yes, the only way of making your opinion matter is to act on it. In the ODP, that means volunteering as an editor, and trying to focus on what (in your own best judgment) is most relevant. For Google, that means collecting and publishing links to what you think is most relevant.
Any single individual's opinion on this matter is pretty insignificant, though, except for himself. There's no royal road to influence.
If you disagree with other people's concept of "relevant" (as we all do, in one way or another!), then, yes, the only way of making your opinion matter is to act on it. In the ODP, that means volunteering as an editor, and trying to focus on what (in your own best judgment) is most relevant. For Google, that means collecting and publishing links to what you think is most relevant.
Any single individual's opinion on this matter is pretty insignificant, though, except for himself. There's no royal road to influence.
All I can say is in the highly competitive, industry-specific, B2B category I've been talking about that has not been updated since 7/05 and for which there is no "named editor", there are only 5 sites listed.
I know of at least 7-8 very relevant, well-organized and useful sites (including mine) that definitely belong in the category and, undoubtedly, have also been submitted yet are not found by users of ODP. Some have been online as long or longer than those listed.
Those users are aware (by way of search engines, links, etc.) that there are many more than 5 sites they should see in ODP yet are not there.
Why would such users "trust" ODP to be a useful resource for other searches?
My guess is the former editor of this category added his/her own site, maybe a couple of the others, and then moved on.
IMHO, to truly be a useful resource, ODP needs a system to address this type of situation.
It could possibly be as easy as setting a standard for visits to each category (reflecting popularity of the category) combined with a minimum number of sites awaiting review. If a category thus qualifies, whenever it is neglected for the previously mentioned 4 month period, a META is notified that the category requires attention.
I, for one, prefer to use a directory over a search engine like Google - but only if I am confident it is showing me ALL the truly useful, relevant sites out there AS SOON as they come online.
Otherwise, I might as well wait for a monthly magazine to eventually provide a list of sites I might be interested in.
Well, that says alot. I suspect there are not many editors who would find editing a highly competitive B2B category interesting. In fact, I doubt I know anyone at all who would find that an interesting category to edit. Let's face it, the only reason *you* are really interested in this particular category is because you have a site that you feel belongs there. If you didn't have that site, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
Popularity of the category according to who? Considering that most people browsing the directory data are viewing it somewhere other than dmoz.org, how would you suggest we determine what's popular and what's not? And don't say "by number of suggestions" because that has nothing to do with the popularity of a topic.
And the meta editor is expected to do what? We're volunteers as well, you know, and as such aren't required to edit any specific category on demand. For example, you'd be waiting a loooooonnnnnnggggg for me to edit in a B2B category (or any of thousands of other categories for that matter).
It's not attitude.
There are 600,000+ categories in the ODP that I can edit. I am one person. There are not enough minutes in the day foir me to be able edit all of those categories, even if I wanted to. So I (like all editors) edit where I have an interest. B2B is among the subjects that don't interest me so those categories will be among the thousands that I may never touch in my time as an editor. Saying that to you is not contrary to my "job" as a meta editor.
I can't tell you whether any other meta editor feels the way I do about B2B sites. But they have the right to not edit in any category they want, just like all editors.
There are 600,000+ categories in the ODP that I can edit. I am one person. There are not enough minutes in the day foir me to be able edit all of those categories, even if I wanted to. So I (like all editors) edit where I have an interest. B2B is among the subjects that don't interest me so those categories will be among the thousands that I may never touch in my time as an editor. Saying that to you is not contrary to my "job" as a meta editor.
I can't tell you whether any other meta editor feels the way I do about B2B sites. But they have the right to not edit in any category they want, just like all editors.
So far as editing categories, metas are no different from anyone else. I have maybe 200,000 edits, spread over a few tens of thousands of categories. That means that for several hundred thousand categories I'd HAVE to say, like motsa, "It'll be a long time before I edit there." And so would every other editor have to say. It's drop-dead mind-numbingly simple arithmetic.
If being an editor means denying the fundamentals of simple arithmetic, we'd have lots fewer editors. (But just about as many critics.)
If being an editor means denying the fundamentals of simple arithmetic, we'd have lots fewer editors. (But just about as many critics.)
srikondoji
Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 74
RayJay said:
This particular category
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/E-mail/E-greetings/Invitations/
was last editied on "Last update: 13:50 PT, Tuesday, March 23, 2004"
But who cares it anyway. The editor is busy editing other categories or may be not or ????
He may just for namesake touch any one listed website and then the time stamp changes to the current date. For general public it looks like the most recently touched category.
>The editor is busy editing other categories or may be not or ????
Yes. Exactly. And how is this my business, if I don't happen to be the editor in question?
Editors aren't responsible to do a predefined amount of work, or to do predefined instances of work. Editors are simply expected to pick something good for the directory, and to do it well.
Yes. Exactly. And how is this my business, if I don't happen to be the editor in question?
Editors aren't responsible to do a predefined amount of work, or to do predefined instances of work. Editors are simply expected to pick something good for the directory, and to do it well.
>> a META is notified that the category requires attention. <<
And when the list of 400 000 categories that require attention is produced, how do we divide it up?
Perhaps by topic area of some sort, or perhaps give one meta all the categories that begin with A, another all the B categories?
But then, what is each meta supposed to do with the list of 10 000 categories that require attention that they receive?
As usual, Hutcheson had the right answer:
...you assert that there really IS work to be done in the category, and as evidence you show several good sites not listed.
If nobody can do that, or if nobody cares to do that, then by definition the topic isn't neglected. It is receiving all the attention justified by its body of knowledge and its social importance.
And when the list of 400 000 categories that require attention is produced, how do we divide it up?
Perhaps by topic area of some sort, or perhaps give one meta all the categories that begin with A, another all the B categories?
But then, what is each meta supposed to do with the list of 10 000 categories that require attention that they receive?
As usual, Hutcheson had the right answer:
...you assert that there really IS work to be done in the category, and as evidence you show several good sites not listed.
If nobody can do that, or if nobody cares to do that, then by definition the topic isn't neglected. It is receiving all the attention justified by its body of knowledge and its social importance.
Maybe that information needs to be displayed prominently on the DMOZ home page so the public can make an informed assessment as to whether their time is being spent wisely using the directory and it will be "receiving all the attention justified by its body of knowledge and its social importance."
Statistics so easily manipulable by malicious parties, wouldn't be used by any honest person.
Because, the simple facts are,
(1) the vast majority of suggestions are spam,
(2) within that giant Hormel tin, the specks of genuine gems are unevenly distributed.
So what does it signify that site suggestions are piling up against this place or that? Nothing, except that to be productive, editors should probably go elsewhere and look for sites on their own.
So we do well to let the "travel portals" pile up, even in Las Vegas, while we hunt out the sites created by genuine travel service businesses and genuine tourists. We do well to let the classified ads sites pile up, and focus on information of more than ephemeral value. We do well to focus on what interests us as surfers, and let the rest wait for a more sympathetic reviewer.
Or at least, the ability to do that is what attracts active editors to the ODP.
Because, the simple facts are,
(1) the vast majority of suggestions are spam,
(2) within that giant Hormel tin, the specks of genuine gems are unevenly distributed.
So what does it signify that site suggestions are piling up against this place or that? Nothing, except that to be productive, editors should probably go elsewhere and look for sites on their own.
So we do well to let the "travel portals" pile up, even in Las Vegas, while we hunt out the sites created by genuine travel service businesses and genuine tourists. We do well to let the classified ads sites pile up, and focus on information of more than ephemeral value. We do well to focus on what interests us as surfers, and let the rest wait for a more sympathetic reviewer.
Or at least, the ability to do that is what attracts active editors to the ODP.
srikondoji
Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 74
Few broken links in a category
Please look at few links in this category, they are broken or non-existant.
http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=sulekha
This category was recently updated and still contains some broken links
http://dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Linguistics/Languages/Natural/Dravidian/Tamil/
Tamil eBooks : This link is defaulting to the main page of website.
Thanks
sri
Please look at few links in this category, they are broken or non-existant.
http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/search?search=sulekha
This category was recently updated and still contains some broken links
http://dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Linguistics/Languages/Natural/Dravidian/Tamil/
Tamil eBooks : This link is defaulting to the main page of website.
Thanks
sri
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
Please direct request such as the above to the thread that is dedicated to that purpose.
Otherwise, you are simply adding to the workload and, perhaps, keeping an intersted editor away from the category you care most about.
Otherwise, you are simply adding to the workload and, perhaps, keeping an intersted editor away from the category you care most about.
I can understand that many editors prefer to work on sites they find, however, this widespread disdain for reviewing submitted sites is harmful to the directory. It is also unfair to site owners since the directory has achieved the status it now enjoys, whether it wanted it or not.
It seems to me that ODP really needs to make a decision - accept submissions or not.
If the decision is to continue accepting submissions, they need to be worked.
What would be the problem with requiring all editors to first clean up the submissions needing review and staying on top of them going forward? Of course this will require a period of additional time and effort but well worth it, I would think, for those editors that believe in the project.
As an alternative, clear out all pending submissions and put the word out that the directory has done so and is now starting to accept submissions again and they will be reviewed in a timely manner going forward.
Such a move by ODP would be so well received that new editors will join in droves.
This thing is broken. Isn't it worth fixing?
It seems to me that ODP really needs to make a decision - accept submissions or not.
If the decision is to continue accepting submissions, they need to be worked.
What would be the problem with requiring all editors to first clean up the submissions needing review and staying on top of them going forward? Of course this will require a period of additional time and effort but well worth it, I would think, for those editors that believe in the project.
As an alternative, clear out all pending submissions and put the word out that the directory has done so and is now starting to accept submissions again and they will be reviewed in a timely manner going forward.
Such a move by ODP would be so well received that new editors will join in droves.
This thing is broken. Isn't it worth fixing?
srikondoji
Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 74
Sure i will.spectregunner said:
>It is also unfair to site owners
It is profoundly disinterested in site owners. Anything that happens to site owners, good or bad, as a result of editing, is an irrelevant side-effect -- not worth the energy of determining what it is, let alone whether it would be possible to prevent it.
>... since the directory has achieved the status it now enjoys, whether it wanted it or not.
The directory gained the STATUS it has, by following the MISSION it has. Sacrificing that mission would betray everyone that matters: the surfers who trusted the directory to focus on content, not webmasters; the contributors who trusted the directory to give something away to surfers, not webmasters; the licensees who trusted the directory to focus on the needs of their users, not webmasters.
>It seems to me that ODP really needs to make a decision - accept submissions or not.
The decision has been made. It's not necessary to revisit it.
>If the decision is to continue accepting submissions, they need to be worked.
They are worked, and they are worked in a way that maximizes the efficiency and effectiveness of the critical resource. If there is any good to come from webmasters from site listings (not that it matters, of course), then obviously, the most efficient way of listing sites, benefits the largest number of webmasters.
There is no harm to me in you doing whatever you do. If you think editors would flock to the Dark Sith Lords' Directory, you're welcome to set up a sheepfold and send out invitations. I have no interest at all in your mission or your process, and I think your proposal is all rot, but what does that matter to you? That's MY opinion, but it's YOUR proposal, and YOU are still free to act on it. Enjoy!
And there is no harm to you in me doing what I think is most important, in the most effective way I can. Which I've been doing, and will continue to do. And if the Dark Lord's Academy takes over the ODP, I'll still do what I think is important, somewhere else.
The difference between us is not that we have different opinions. That's true of any two people. The difference between us is that only one of us thinks other people have a right to their own opinions.
It is profoundly disinterested in site owners. Anything that happens to site owners, good or bad, as a result of editing, is an irrelevant side-effect -- not worth the energy of determining what it is, let alone whether it would be possible to prevent it.
>... since the directory has achieved the status it now enjoys, whether it wanted it or not.
The directory gained the STATUS it has, by following the MISSION it has. Sacrificing that mission would betray everyone that matters: the surfers who trusted the directory to focus on content, not webmasters; the contributors who trusted the directory to give something away to surfers, not webmasters; the licensees who trusted the directory to focus on the needs of their users, not webmasters.
>It seems to me that ODP really needs to make a decision - accept submissions or not.
The decision has been made. It's not necessary to revisit it.
>If the decision is to continue accepting submissions, they need to be worked.
They are worked, and they are worked in a way that maximizes the efficiency and effectiveness of the critical resource. If there is any good to come from webmasters from site listings (not that it matters, of course), then obviously, the most efficient way of listing sites, benefits the largest number of webmasters.
There is no harm to me in you doing whatever you do. If you think editors would flock to the Dark Sith Lords' Directory, you're welcome to set up a sheepfold and send out invitations. I have no interest at all in your mission or your process, and I think your proposal is all rot, but what does that matter to you? That's MY opinion, but it's YOUR proposal, and YOU are still free to act on it. Enjoy!
And there is no harm to you in me doing what I think is most important, in the most effective way I can. Which I've been doing, and will continue to do. And if the Dark Lord's Academy takes over the ODP, I'll still do what I think is important, somewhere else.
The difference between us is not that we have different opinions. That's true of any two people. The difference between us is that only one of us thinks other people have a right to their own opinions.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
Why?RayJay said:
We can't influence the status webmasters/websiteowners think DMOZ has. DMOZ has never provided a service to webmasters, and as far as I can see it will never provide such a service.RayJay said:
That is easy. We don't. We accept suggestions. There is a small but significant difference.RayJay said:
A suggestion to DMOZ means "I found this nice website and I think it would be usefull for other people to know about its existence, do you agree"
But it is mainly used by webmaster "here is my site, I want it to be listed in DMOZ because I think it will be of importance for me, my site and my income"
All editors are volunteers. Noone is forced to do any specific work. We all do what we think is usefull for DMOZ in those parts we are interested in.RayJay said:
In your "solution" many editors would resign immediately.
Why wouldn't these people join now? If they think processing suggestions is a usefull activity they are willing to do for DMOZ they shoul apply now.RayJay said:
It is not broken at all.RayJay said:
It is just not doing what certain people want it to do.
And for DMOZ that is a good thing.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
And watch every spammer on the planet give themselves hernias attempting to mass-spam the directory.
No thanks.