listing is a powerful tool nevertheless

>but that view fails to recognise one of the reasons for submission in the first place.

Well, that's not a "view". That is a "procedure."

But you are partly right. That procedure deliberately and intentionally gives no recognition whatsoever to that motive. Because motive is irrelevant. A sleazy insurance salesman and a virtuous paramedic, both living in the same apartment complex, will find the same road map useful! A "sort" algorithm doesn't depend for its efficiency on the purpose for which sorting is done! A doctor doesn't ask before a critical operation, "do you really want your mother to live? how badly do you want it?" -- because it doesn't affect the surgical procedure. In exactly the same way, the ODP submittal procedures don't care WHY or HOW BADLY you want a site listed.

If you are a public-spirited surfer, filling a lacuna in the directory; an amateur webmaster publicizing a hobby site; a professional webmaster desperate for filthy lucre -- YOUR VIEW DOESN'T MATTER. The best thing you can do for the site (and for your own reputation as a submitter) is to follow the procedure outlined.

Now, as a personal matter, I know how hard it is to forget something over which I have an interest but no control. I'm human: I send an e-text off to be published, and I want it featured in the archive's "what's new" section that afternoon. And it almost never happens that way. And while there may be less profit in an e-text than an ODP submittal, there is a GREAT deal more work -- a GREAT deal more of myself invested -- so the cases are comparable, and the answer is inevitably the same.

With a view to the ODP (which I'll argue below is practically speaking an ineffective view), the answers are (1) more good editors are always a good thing, but public-spirited competent volunteers are a limited resource; (2) more efficient use of editing resources; (3) motivating editors to do more work.

There's not much you can do about #1. Assuming competence and spirit, you might throw yourself into the breach somewhere. #2 is directly addressed by the submittal procedures -- the process as outlined, without further editor/submitter interaction, is significantly more efficient than any alternative. And, of course, editors are always working internally on ways to improve efficiency.

#3 brings up an interesting point. Studies have found that one of the biggest "demotivators" for volunteers in "information-commons" projects is the fear that someone will "appropriate" their work -- that is, profit economically by it. The ODP "Social Contract" addresses that directly: even though the patron (AOL) donates resources to the infrastructure, it agrees to give away the product without cost (and without onerous licensing limitations) forever. This promise undoubtedly contributed to preserving editors, motivating editors, and attracting new editors.

And ... in exactly the same way on a small scale, reminding editors that YOU want to profit from their work is a disencentive: or at least, a motivator to work in some more altruistic part of the directory.

So -- your best move is not to remind us that you're chafing at the bit to profit from us. Let us forget that; let us give it as little emotional significance as the submittal policies give it logical significance. And you'll be better off.

The real answer is in your hands: nobody here will accept your responsibility. You alone will always remain responsible for whatever promotion you feel your site needs -- as, for that matter, you yourself are alone responsible for whatever you yourself think should to be done for yourself. Pretend the ODP never existed. What would you have done? Well, then, do that, and do it now! Promote your site yourself to people within your community who share your interests; pay whatever promotion is worth to you, to people who will promote it for hire. That is the only place where your "views", your "desires", your "priorities" matter. Make the most of them there.

That's the only real answer; and that's really the only answer.

I'm struck by something. You say you checked on your competitors' sites and found a "very strong correlation between those that have a higher ranking and those that are listed in the open directory."

Why does it automatically follow that a listing in ODP leads to high page rank? Editors are surfers too, you know. We need to find sites for categories. (The unreviewed is just one such place.) An awful lot of us use Google to find those sites. Since the ones with high page rank bubble to the top of search results, wouldn't you expect those to be listed? Page rank is supposed to be a measure of how useful a site is because of the way other sites link to it. So, after getting past the inevitable spam wouldn't you expect the top 20 or so sites on a subject be the most useful? We're all about useful sites, so of course we would list those. And once you've listed twenty useful sites selling left-handed purple widgets, does it really make sense to add one more? Hundreds of sites all selling the same thing isn't very useful, since any surfer will only visit a fraction of those.

I think you're under misconception that most of our listings are the result of outside submissions. They're not. An example: When I signed up to be an editor I signed up for a category for a little game called PlanetSide. At the time I signed up there were eight sites listed, and three of them didn't work. I proceeded to find more sites and ended up with over 240 in the category within a couple of months. That number has been pretty steady since. Of all those sites added in 2-1/2 years, do you know how many came from submissions? Fewer than ten.

So many people seem to think that an ODP listing leads to high page rank. I suggest to you that maybe, just maybe, a high page rank can lead to an ODP listing.

wrathchild said:

Why does it automatically follow that a listing in ODP leads to high page rank?

Click to expand...

I understand that as a webmaster I can work to promote my little hobby site higher by swapping links, getting the right keywords, getting the content right etc (all the stuff SEO people charge an arm and a leg for).

However, it is a little bit disingenuous to say that it is the other way round (page rank -> ODP listing). Although the google page rank algorithms are hugely complex, it is generally accepted that it is influenced by the number of sites linking to your own. Given that there are a large number of sites using ODP data to populate their list of links, this drives up the number of linked sites significantly.

I think it is a virtuous circle...or is it a chicken and egg??

Either way, any self respecting webmaster will continue to work to bring their site details to those who want it most, when they want it and in the best format possible - but it is an inescapable truth that an ODP listing is a valuable additon to any webmaster's portfolio of marketing tools.

I didn't imagine that outside listings formed the bulk of your directory, on the contrary. As a sysop in the distant past of compuserve fora, I know that people get engaged because of an interest in something, and that outside interference is just that, unwanted meddling. So, while I recognise the submission process is bound to add a certain number of entries to the ODP, I perfectly understand that this may not be the prime resource for an editor. On the other hand, the ODP is an incredibly valuable asset that you (editors) have stewardship over. While you may not rank all sources of information equally, I think that your obligation is to make the resource as qualitatively objective as possible, regardless of personal bias....although human nature being what it is, and the fact that this work is unpaid possibly militates against that.

Now, given that i have been told

hutcheson said:

So -- your best move is not to remind us that you're chafing at the bit to profit from us. Let us forget that; let us give it as little emotional significance as the submittal policies give it logical significance. And you'll be better off.

Click to expand...

....please forget everything I just said!

Regards,
Clive

On the other hand, the ODP is an incredibly valuable asset that you (editors) have stewardship over. While you may not rank all sources of information equally, I think that your obligation is to make the resource as qualitatively objective as possible, regardless of personal bias....although human nature being what it is, and the fact that this work is unpaid possibly militates against that.

Click to expand...

I've seen this argument offered before, and while it is deliciously tempting, I think is rooted in a misunderstanding.

The ODP is, when you come down to it, a private website. It is not paid for by tax dollars, it is not managed or controlled by any government entity. It does not charge for its output. It is unbeholden to anyone. The work that is done on the site is done by volunteers who have all agreed to support common goal.

If, collectively, the editors decided that from this point forward only websites that made extensive use of the color blue would be listed, that would be within our right. It would be without the right of AOL to take away our funding if AOL disagreed, or triple our funding if they thought it was a change that was long overdue. It would be within the right of the people who use our downstream data to no longer do so, or to continue to do so. It would be the right of any individual surfer not to visit our website, or to use us more than some other resource.

But we have no global responsibility (beyond our social contract) to anyone. Sounds cruel when it is put like that, but that is really how it is. Non editors often try and explain to use that we have "stewardship" and "responsibility" and "moral obligations" to do certain things, but in fact, we do not. I think that some of the most contentious thread we have ever had on this forum have been the result of people insistting that we become something that we are not. We are not the trademark police, we are not the Texas Real Estate Commission police, we are not the Protect the French Language Police, we are a bunch of hobbyists who share a common love of finding nifty websites and putting them in a very big list. It is as simple as that.

>However, it is a little bit disingenuous to say that it is the other way round (page rank -> ODP listing). Although the google page rank algorithms are hugely complex, it is generally accepted that it is influenced by the number of sites linking to your own. Given that there are a large number of sites using ODP data to populate their list of links, this drives up the number of linked sites significantly.

This is, perhaps, not the best place to go into the intricacies of Google pagerank. But BOTH of the basic assumptions here are pure and simply wrong.

A better understanding of the critical concepts of link weight and duplicate content filters would free you from your rash assumption.