Lets speed up the site submision process!!

Seriously, I doubt anybody is happy about the mechanism the ODP uses to add new websites;
Webmasters are upset, annoyed, frustrated, irritated etc at the slow process with absolutely no indicators on when / or if their website will get listed ever!
Editors (especially in this forum) say the same things over and over again, and sometimes they get abused from webmasters who are so desperate to have their sites included
Articles online suggesting that ODP editors can be bribed, overall giving a bad name for the entire project ..

I mean, I can see why everybody is upset, maybe it's time to change how the ODP operates?

+ Perhaps raising donations? (works well for Wikipedia) and "Volunteer" Editors can be paid per each submition they sort (even for a short while then we go back to normal, I'm quite sure there's literally millions of websites waiting in the pool)
+ Having an option for paid expedited listings (Yahoo does it) while keeping the current structure
+ Having submitions in list format rather than a pool where volunteer editors choose websites to list, and giving each submition a number that can be checked for status online (Visa applications are a good example here)
+ Giving limited ability to make changes in the ODP (again like Wikipedia)

I dunno, probably none of these are smart enough ideas to implement, if you have any suggestions please list them here, all I know is that the current system isn't great and I'm confident there's a better way for this.

PS: If any of my suggestions actually get implemented, can I get the website I suggested listed first please? lol

Moheb said:

Seriously, I doubt anybody is happy about the mechanism the ODP uses to add new websites;

Click to expand...

Please define "happy"
I think most editors are happy about the mechanisms we use. These include:
- find sites through search engines,
- find sites through links on other sites
- find sites in newspapers and advertisments
- find sites in the pool of suggested sites
It always worked fine for me.

Webmasters are upset, annoyed, frustrated, irritated etc at the slow process with absolutely no indicators on when / or if their website will get listed ever!

Click to expand...

That is because they refuse to understand what DMOZ is about.
DMOZ does not have a process for webmasters to list their site.
As we don't have such a process it can't be slow.

Editors (especially in this forum) say the same things over and over again, and sometimes they get abused from webmasters who are so desperate to have their sites included

Click to expand...

We still hope that at sometime webmasters start to understand that the answer we give over and over again is the only answer possible. Asking the same questions many times won't change the answer.

Articles online suggesting that ODP editors can be bribed, overall giving a bad name for the entire project ..

Click to expand...

Although we have had editors that abused their privileges, and probably will have some in the future, these articles are mostly wrong. BTQ most of the articles are copies of copies of articles who claimed that they have heard something from the brother of the best friend of their nefew's former girlfriend.
Don;t believe everything you read on the web. Try to find evidence.

I mean, I can see why everybody is upset, maybe it's time to change how the ODP operates?

Click to expand...

Maybe it is time to change how your "everybody" thinks.

+ Perhaps raising donations? (works well for Wikipedia) and "Volunteer" Editors can be paid per each submition they sort (even for a short while then we go back to normal, I'm quite sure there's literally millions of websites waiting in the pool)

Click to expand...

No DMOZ should stay free. There are enough other directories who work the way you describe. If you like such directories please use them, we won't mind.

+ Having an option for paid expedited listings (Yahoo does it) while keeping the current structure

Click to expand...

same answer.

+ Having submitions in list format rather than a pool where volunteer editors choose websites to list, and giving each submition a number that can be checked for status online (Visa applications are a good example here)

Click to expand...

Has been discussed many time.
But you can never force an editor to process submissions in any peticular order.
We have tried status reprort here are RZ but they didn't work. Not for the editors and not for the people who suggested the sites.
Maybe somewhen in the future we will try again. But don't hold your breath until it happens.

+ Giving limited ability to make changes in the ODP (again like Wikipedia)

Click to expand...

No. We would get in the same problems (and probably much worse) as wikipedia has. People would start spamming the directory with description full of marketing hype.

I dunno, probably none of these are smart enough ideas to implement, if you have any suggestions please list them here, all I know is that the current system isn't great and I'm confident there's a better way for this.

Click to expand...

Ofcourse it can be improved. Everything can. Maybe you could start making things better on the webmaster side of this problem you see. Make them understand what DMOZ is about and how they should suggest sites. For us it clear that most don't understand this simple action.

PS: If any of my suggestions actually get implemented, can I get the website I suggested listed first please? lol

Click to expand...

NO. Any actions done on RZ (except for bribing an editor) won't influence what happens in DMOZ.

Wow, I feel completely shot down here
I assumed that we all wanted to improve the ODP and make it a pleasant experience for everybod: editors, webmasters, searchers and I thought that the editors too were frustrated with the process
Anyway, no worries, my apologies

The problem is that we aren't what people assume we are, a listing service for webmasters/site owners, . In that capacity we do a very poor job, but it's not what we do.

We build categories of sites that have something unique they can add to the category, and our purpose is to provide a web surfer with a good resource.

In doing that, the Directory allows the public to suggest sites to us for consideration in our task. Not all sites have what we're looking for, so not all sites are needed, .

When you're building categories with this purpose in mind, speed and being all inclusive are not important, only the quality of what we're building is.

So, the editors have the power to decide who gets listed and who doesn't. What an odd set-up! From the two replies here they sound like a right sanctimonious lot.

Get real - people want their site listed because they've spent a lot of time, effort and money on it and they'd like to see some return on it some day. Most people don't build a site for altruistic reasons, they want to make some money in return for their labours!

If google didn't place so much importance on dmoz listings, webmasters wouldn't waste their time bowing and scraping to its editors. No doubt most of the editors have their own sites listed, so perhaps they could be a little more understanding of those that are still trying.

So, editors, could you get your collective finger out and start listing sites a bit quicker, and stop taking yourselves so seriously. After all, it's only a web directory, not the Holy Bible!

Oh, and a quick email to the site owner wouldn't go amiss, just to let him/her know what's going on (like we do when people send us emails). Then there might not be any need for this forum at all, and we could then carry on looking for other ways to please the great god Google.

So, the editors have the power to decide who gets listed and who doesn't. What an odd set-up!

Click to expand...

What is odd about editors who are volunteering their own time building categories, choosing the sites to list? What else would they do?

stop taking yourselves so seriously

Click to expand...

That’s a rather backwards statement as it’s the editors here who are trying to get submitters to stop taking things so seriously and to understand that we are not a submission service. No matter how many times this gets repeated, it seems very, very few people want to accept it. But not accepting what we are does not change what we are.

After all, it's only a web directory, not the Holy Bible!

Click to expand...

Exactly!

scolas said:

So, the editors have the power to decide who gets listed and who doesn't. What an odd set-up! From the two replies here they sound like a right sanctimonious lot. .

Click to expand...

Yes and No.
Yes, we can decide where and how we will spend our time. Like most editors the time I can spend on DMOZ is limited.
No, we can only list sites according to our (publicly available) guidelines. We may not list sites that don't meet the guidelines and we may not reject sites that meet them.

Get real - people want their site listed because they've spent a lot of time, effort and money on it and they'd like to see some return on it some day. Most people don't build a site for altruistic reasons, they want to make some money in return for their labours!

Click to expand...

We know. But as editors we don't care. If you want to make money you will have to find ways to do so. But please don't rely on a bunch of hobbiest to do the marketing for you.

If google didn't place so much importance on dmoz listings, webmasters wouldn't waste their time bowing and scraping to its editors. No doubt most of the editors have their own sites listed, so perhaps they could be a little more understanding of those that are still trying.

Click to expand...

Google does not place more importance on a dmoz listing than it does on any other link to your site.

So, editors, could you get your collective finger out and start listing sites a bit quicker, and stop taking yourselves so seriously. After all, it's only a web directory, not the Holy Bible!

Click to expand...

Strange. Editors rarely take themself seriously. What we see is that webmasters take a DMOZ listing much to seriously. It is just a link, like any other.

Oh, and a quick email to the site owner wouldn't go amiss, just to let him/her know what's going on (like we do when people send us emails). Then there might not be any need for this forum at all, and we could then carry on looking for other ways to please the great god Google.

Click to expand...

I can give you the text for that email "Thanks for suggesting a site to DMOZ. At sometime an editor will evaluate the suggestion and either accept if for a listing or reject is according to our guidelines. We are sorry but we can not predict which editor will be reviewing this suggestion neither can we predict when he/she will review the suggestion."
BTW, the DMOZ editors are not interested in pleasing great god Google at all.

So, the editors have the power to decide who gets listed and who doesn't. What an odd set-up! From the two replies here they sound like a right sanctimonious lot.

Click to expand...

lol, read my signature, .

No doubt most of the editors have their own sites listed, so perhaps they could be a little more understanding of those that are still trying.

Click to expand...

I have no sites, nor am I afilliated with any, but I do appreciate your sentiments.

I still believe that it might be worth considering creating a login system for submitters so they can check the updated status of their submitions, something like : Untouched - Accepted - Rejected (with a reason)

Or maybe have a grading system giving more weight to older submitions

Just a better means of correspondance

I know I'll probably get shot down again by the moderators here because they seem to be happy with the way things are at the moment

And I do have a different opinion regarding dmoz' importance to Google but that's just a long pointless debate I guess, but at the end of the date I know that currently as a webmaster I'm unhappy and if I were an editor I'll be unhappy because of all the abuse I'm getting on this forum

Cheers

Your suggestions are not new and the editor community and the owner AOL are constantly looking for improvements of ODP. However worthy your ideas may seem to you, any changes that eventually are made most likely are not going to be based on a post in this forum.

Or maybe have a grading system giving more weight to older submitions

Click to expand...

Editors can already sort the listing suggestions awaiting review by date - though many prefer not to.

If you're thinking that we're a listing service for website owners, you might have a point - but we aren't.

We're building a directory here and we're primarily looking for websites which will enhance it. I completely fail to see why an older listing suggestion would somehow be more valuable to us than a newer one. In up and coming sectors, newer websites are more likely to add value .

Hi,I apologize if you felt i meant older sites are more important than new, I just meant old submissions rather than old sites (big difference!) and I didn't mean they should be considered higher for addition either, I meant they should be checked before new submissions.

I do realize that the editors are volunteers
And I do understand that the ODP is not a listing service

But -and I'm just guessing here- I'll try to assume a few things:
1. the ODP is simply very important for SEO efforts whether we like it or not
2. Although every editor is a volunteer, but I do think things could be taken a little bit more seriously, for example if you volunteer to become a firefighter or a volunteer paramedic you don't just say "oh yeah im a volunteer and i don't feel like doing any more work atm" .. I'm afraid I get that impression from many editors here.
3. I realize the ODP is a project that only wants to list quality websites for the good of the user, but I doubt that the way things worked 10 years ago still works now, the internet is growing at a phenominally high rate and the number of editors (although large) is not proportionally enough. I think the way things are done needs to be changed
4. As a normal human being, when you submit something somewhere, you expect to receive some result, especially if you work very hard for it, think exams, job applications, compitetions, government documents .. its just normal human nature, of course webmasters get upset when they're told they have to be patient for a few years with no idea if they should even keep hoping or was their submission even rejected on day one, they're humans too.

and "any changes that eventually are made most likely are not going to be based on a post in this forum" Why the negativity? if we come up with a good idea this directory can become one of the best and most visited websites online again, Facebook was an idea, Google was an idea, yahoo was an idea .. right? For God's sake we're a community thats composed of atleast 50% web masters and developers, can't we think of something??

There is always place for improvement, so please instead of ridiculing every idea here help by making suggestions, I still firmly believe -and this is my humble opinion- that currently there is a problem with the ODP

2. Although every editor is a volunteer, but I do think things could be taken a little bit more seriously, for example if you volunteer to become a firefighter or a volunteer paramedic you don't just say "oh yeah im a volunteer and i don't feel like doing any more work atm" .. I'm afraid I get that impression from many editors here.

Click to expand...

You're not really comparing volunteering as a fireman or a paramedic to volunteering as an editor with the ODP, are you? We're building a Web directory, not saving lives, you know. I can't speak for anyone else but I didn't volunteer to review every suggested site in every category that exists. I volunteered to edit categories that hold an interest for me. As long as I'm doing that and making the directory better in the process, I'm doing everything I signed up for.

4. As a normal human being, when you submit something somewhere, you expect to receive some result, especially if you work very hard for it, think exams, job applications, compitetions, government documents .. its just normal human nature, of course webmasters get upset when they're told they have to be patient for a few years with no idea if they should even keep hoping or was their submission even rejected on day one, they're humans too.

Click to expand...

Suggesting a web site to the ODP isn't at all like applying for a job or writing an exam. (Although, let's face it, in this day and age, you usually only get a response to a job application if you're chosen for an interview.) You may feel the same anticipation but that doesn't make it the same thing.

"any changes that eventually are made most likely are not going to be based on a post in this forum" Why the negativity?

Click to expand...

I don't think that was intended to be negative. But this is an unofficial forum. We don't speak for AOL so any suggestion discussion here is just that, a discussion here. Discussions of changes generally occur in the inner forums and even then require AOL approval and support. Encouraging discussion of suggestions here, especially ones that we are already aware of, is really not going to be productive. By all means, make your suggestions. If it's a good new idea, I'm sure someone will take it inside. But don't expect a comprehensive two-way discussion of it to occur here.

Good analogy

Actually the job application is a good analogy.

You find a job (category) to which you want to submit your resume (website) for consideration. You make it succinct and content rich without padding (spam/tons of ads and banners), provide a relevant and concise cover letter (title and description) and the mail or drop it off (submit) and wait to hear. Almost all employers these days, as Motsa indicated, only contact those from which they want further information, usually in the form of an interview. If your resume hasn't been looked at yet or has been rejected you never hear a thing back. In the meantime you continue on with your life.

Despite the person getting paid to review resumes, they still leave the pile sitting and do other things if they are just "not in the mood at the moment" and return to them later. As editors are volunteers, who have many other more pressing demands on their time, that situation is even more the norm. I have seen piles of submitted resumes that have never even been looked at, unlike site suggestions which, baring technical disaster, will be looked at eventually, even if it takes a while.

Thanks for mentioning it as it is a rather good analogy, even if it doesn't bring any solace to any delay anxiety

That is correct, but as you pointed out the job analogy, 2 points there:
1. You know for a fact that after 2 weeks max that your application hasnt been successful (not years in the dark as the current situation, not even knowing if you should try again or not)
2. You can call the employer, job agent if you haven't heard back from them and they can tell you their decision and possibly why you were not chosen

BIG difference!

You know for a fact that after 2 weeks max that your application hasnt been successful

Click to expand...

How do you know that? The longest I ever waited between the job application and getting the job was almost 2 years. Good thing I wasn't sitting around expectantly like most webmasters are for their sites to be listed.

what are you doing

Hi

Maybe every editor should pull their finger out and stop writing in the forums and start approving websites or whatever you supposed to be doing.

After reading this thread some people have came up with some great ideas but you mod/editors don’t want to know. Maybe it’s because you have got used to saying it can take as long as it needs too. Call me stupid but I don’t get it editor logs in to dmoz via cms I guess there’s a list of waiting for approves links then the editor views the site check backlinks etc and then clicks approve or decline. Now what takes year about that 5mins a site? But as you’re not spending time approving sites you have a 2 year backlog

Maybe you need to get some editors who will approve sites rather than writes in the forums every free second of their time that they spend writing in this forums that could be 3 or 4 sites that’s approved all I can say if my staff was as productive as yours you will be looking for new jobs

Anyways keep up the good work lol

All the best
Rick

Thank you for the encouragement.

There is no backlog as there is no timeline for reviewing a suggestion.

After reading this thread some people have came up with some great ideas but you mod/editors don’t want to know.

Click to expand...

Most of these so-called great ideas were first proposed years ago, and are proposed almost weekly -- and most are never going to be impleneted -- not because we don't want to hear great ideas, but because the so-called great ideas would harm the directory more thanit would help it, or because these great ideas would turnt he directory into yet antoher webmaster submission service.

No thanks.

spectregunner said:

Thank you for the encouragement.

There is no backlog as there is no timeline for reviewing a suggestion.


Most of these so-called great ideas were first proposed years ago, and are proposed almost weekly -- and most are never going to be impleneted -- not because we don't want to hear great ideas, but because the so-called great ideas would harm the directory more thanit would help it, or because these great ideas would turnt he directory into yet antoher webmaster submission service.

No thanks.

Click to expand...

there must a backlog as your team is slow it takes years for some one to review what are you doing

once again no usefull adivce other then we can take as long as we want and we know what were doing so were not going to change

dmoz should change it title to - we dont liston as were always right

> there must a backlog as your team is slow it takes years for some one to review what are you doing
There can not be a backlog as reviewing suggestions is not our task.
Our task is to build a directory. And we can (canb not must) use the pool of suggested sites in doing so.

> once again no usefull adivce other then we can take as long as we want and we know what were doing so were not going to change
No, what we say is. We don't provide the service you are asking for. We never did and probabaly never will.