New Submission Method

Crooner · Apr 1, 2004

New Sumission Method

May I suggest a new submission method.

As a person who is sitting watching the world go by since September despite doing my best and not having offended anyone - perhaps someone will hopefully understand my (AS I SEE IT) needless frustration.

Whether I am right or wrong is irrelevant to the point that thousands of hours are being needlessly wasted.

Firstly may I thank all the people who give their time for nothing.

However - how can it be right that one site can take 13 minutes and another take 2 years to be published.

Surely the vast majority of people do not set out to intentionally waste as much time as possible of their own and the editors - no obviously not.

Has anyone previously suggested a script that automatically INSTANTLY rejects submissions that are incorrect and more importantly - TELLS THEM WHY !

As I see it this would help both submitters and editors.

bobrat · Apr 1, 2004

However - how can it be right that one site can take 13 minutes and another take 2 years to be published.

Because if I take over a categroy that no one was interested in editing for a couple of years, then there are old listings waiting there so when I edit them, it's taken over two years. Once I've caught up with the backlog, if I happen to look at the unreviewed pile one minute after someone suggested a site, and that site has no issues, and I write a description in 12 minutes, then it gets done in 13.

PHP:

Surely the vast majority of people do not set out to intentionally waste as much time as possible of their own and the editors - no obviously not.

No, but almost no-one reads the guidelines for submission to ODP, and if you look, a very large percentage of people posting here also do not read the guidelines either. That means some of the sites I reviewed after two years, had been submitted to the wrong category and end up being sent somewhere else. Like some of this stuff is not rocket science, it's just laziness from site owners - just find the first categroy that somehow relates, stick a title on that's the first thing I think of, and create a description, that says I'm the best in the whole world. And if you think I'm being sarcastic, you should see that's what I get send to me.

Has anyone previously suggested a script that automatically INSTANTLY rejects submissions that are incorrect and more importantly - TELLS THEM WHY !

Since this is a human edited directory, how can a script possibly do tha? It's got to read a description, and decide if it's appropriate to the site. And then analyze the site an decide if it's in the right category.

spectregunner · Apr 1, 2004

Surely the vast majority of people do not set out to intentionally waste as much time as possible of their own and the editors - no obviously not.

Aha, but you do!!!!!!

I choose to give a portion of my free time to editing.

I choose to waste a bit of my employer's time by posting to this fora when I am supposed to be working.

And submitters, who are constantly checking the status of their site make a conscious decision to ask.

If you live in the US, you have no doubt seen the Ronco Infomercial for the rotissary oven. At least 20 times during the infomerical the presenter shouts (and the audience echos) "Set it and Forget it!"

Sometimes I think a variation on that would work well here: Submit it and forget it. Eiteher it is going to end up in the directory or it is not, and the vast, vast majority of those sites that do not get listed are not fixable.

hutcheson · Apr 1, 2004

What new submission method were you going to suggest?

As for your frustration, I agree that it's needless. We do our best in these forums to help people learn what expectations are realistic, and which will only cause frustration. We don't always succeed, which would be, um, frustrating, if we had higher expectations. But some things are worth the effort.

As for how it can be right for one site to take longer than another to be published ... suppose, um, one site is more valuable than another? Then the more valuable one SHOULD by RIGHT be listed first. That seems pretty straightforward.

But each person defines "value" differently, no? A book which is worthless to you is worth days or weeks of effort to me; a site that is worse than worthless to me is obviously worth hours of effort to you. How can we define value?

It's very simple. We each choose what's valuable to ourselves. You aren't our Fuhrer, and we aren't your parole officer. We won't tell you what to put on your site, and you won't tell us what to put on ours.

Everyone else can get to both sites on the web, if they want; and then EVERYONE chooses whether viewing either of our sites is valuable. We don't hold a gun to peoples' heads to get them to visit dmoz.org, and ... we don't let you hold a gun to our head to visit your site.

What's so difficult to understand? What's so evil about someone other than yourself having freedom to do good and not evil -- for someone other than yourself?

Crooner · Apr 1, 2004

Dear Spectregunner,Hutcheson & Bobrat,

Surely there are so many mistakes - because people do not understand or dont know.

A meta told me that my change of description might have been turned down because there was an - & sign - but he was not sure.

You all seem angry because of the nonsense you have to deal with - and that is totally understandable.

What I am suggesting is that some sort of script that instantly rejects as much as possible that does not comply with your requirements must surely be a help.

If there are any idiots who - -----

choose to waste a bit of my employer's time by posting to this fora when I am supposed to be working.

This would stop most of that.

spectregunner · Apr 1, 2004

A meta told me that my change of description might have been turned down because there was an - & sign - but he was not sure.

I'm no meta, but I cannot imagie even the newest, greenest, english-language challenged meta telling you that. Nor could I imagine and editall telling you that, nor could I imagine any experienced editor telling you that.

No, we don't use ampersanads in the body of a description, but we don't reject update requests solely on the basis of an ampersand (unless that were the only change). We don't do "vanity" description updates. .... dear ODP, I don't like the description you provided, please change it to the following: keyword keyword keyword & keyword!!!!!

spectregunner · Apr 1, 2004

What I am suggesting is that some sort of script that instantly rejects as much as possible that does not comply with your requirements must surely be a help.

This is a really good question.

Yet, we promise that every site will be reviewed by a human - that is, after all, a key to the core of our existance. I'm not confortable that there is any productivity benefit that would outweigh that key fact. It is something that weights very heavily on us, and a commitment we take quite seriously.

Crooner · Apr 1, 2004

Dear Spectregunner

You say -

I'm no meta, but I cannot imagie even the newest, greenest, english-language challenged meta telling you that. Nor could I imagine and editall telling you that, nor could I imagine any experienced editor telling you that.

You are totally wrong - as I have it in an email - which I think is point proven !!!

With a script - this could have been avoided

Meanwhile - just like Diana Ross - Im Still Waiting !

bobrat · Apr 1, 2004

Although I'd love to have a script to get rid of the spam I get submiited, I'm not sure I'd want it to reject a submission if the only thing wrong was a & in the description.

If all the suggestions I got were of that high a quality I'd want lots more

gimmster · Apr 1, 2004

Actually a script that rejected any Title/Description with & in it would also reject any sites for companies that have the ampersand as part of their official company name.

Companies that use & in their name are listed with the official name 'Bob & Charlies Removal Service' . If their real name is 'Bob and Charlies Removal Service' we use that in preference.

However B&B as a contraction for Bed and Breakfast is not permitted, '& more' in a description is not permitted.

The difference between a valid use, and an invalid use, are not always obvious to any algorithm.

Even if you said acceptable in Title, not in Description, a lot of submitters incorrectly repeat the business name in the Title and the Description fields, which would result in the condition failing on the Description, even though the Title is accurate and acceptable.

As for a self categorising script, there are people out there trying to develop one (I saw a post on another forum a few weeks back) , but it's neither workable as is, nor is it likely to be compatible with the existing file and hardware structures that we work within.

:tree:

Crooner · Apr 2, 2004

Dear gimmster & bobrat

You both make good constructive points.

However if you wouldnt want to reject a submission because of the & sign - why was mine rejected (possibly a meta thought)

You have in reality a lottery situation (in my opinion)

Definite reality is - that you have hundreds of wonderful people giving up their time - and having much of it wasted which obviously makes them angry.

Root of the problem is not being addressed in a manner beneficial to submitters and editors.

Zeal is not perfect - but does give a lot more help.

Google add words will reject anything which does not comply.

I am NO expert but I do understand English language and I could reasonably quickly comply with what I am told - not even a genius can comply with what he is not told.

YOU WRITE
"As for a self categorising script, there are people out there trying to develop one (I saw a post on another forum a few weeks back) , but it's neither workable as is, nor is it likely to be compatible with the existing file and hardware structures that we work within."

Obviously I cant comment on your structures - but please lets address the root of the problem and make everyone happier

It can be done !

gimmster · Apr 2, 2004

I am NO expert but I do understand English language and I could reasonably quickly comply with what I am told - not even a genius can comply with what he is not told.

http://dmoz.org/add.html
http://dmoz.org/termsofuse.html
http://dmoz.org/guidelines/
and http://dmoz.org/guidelines/describing.html
are all publicly available documents
(the last is the one on Titles and Descriptions)

An unofficial, but also public, set of information sheets are at http://inelegant.org/ddp/, with http://inelegant.org/ddp/07002/ and http://inelegant.org/ddp/07006/ being the Description and Titling sheets, respectively.

All are linked to from the submission form (the ddp ones are linked on the guidelines page)

And, yes, we as editors have to learn them, submitters are expected to do their part by submitting a correctly formatted suggestion, to the appropriate category, following all the rules we follow. Certainly we don't expect submitters to understand every nuance, we don't expect that from new editors, but we do hope that some attempt has been made to follow the basics. We'll rewrite as required, and move as required, but don't expect a lot of sympathy to some one submitting:
Title: Franks B&B - Luxury SEAFRONT Bed and Breakfast in Idaho
Description: Franks Bed & Breakfast is the only 6 star luxury seafront lodging in Idaho. Come And See Our Sand Filled Beaches And Be Pampered In Our Spa And Sauna.
Category: Regional/North_America/United_States/ - but hey, thats at least the right Country

The closer to the most appropriate category you suggest a site, the less moves it will make, and the quicker it will get listed. The more guidelines compliant the Title and Descriptions, the more likely that an editor will pick the site out of the pool to review, and consequently the faster it may get listed. Submit something that looks hard to tackle, and, unless it's 'beat myself in the head with a 4x2 day' it's more likely to be left until that day.

We don't try to be obtuse, but to understand the problems you really have to be an editor to see just what is actually being dealt with here. We really, really can't quote real URL's and their various spam activities, not least so the spammers continue to be caught.

:tree:

Crooner · Apr 2, 2004

Dear gimmster,

Thank you for the information - I shall study it.

With regards to Frank - he sounds great and if Im ever in Idaho I will check him out.

However - does Frank claim to be an internet expert ?

He like most is doing the best that his current knowledge will allow.

Once again - I think a filter could take out much of what is not acceptable - and so help the editor.

YOU WROTE
"The closer to the most appropriate category you suggest a site, the less moves it will make, and the quicker it will get listed. The more guidelines compliant the Title and Descriptions, the more likely that an editor will pick the site out of the pool to review, and consequently the faster it may get listed. Submit something that looks hard to tackle, and, unless it's 'beat myself in the head with a 4x2 day' it's more likely to be left until that day."

Interesting - a meta rewrote my change of description so it would be as he said a "no brainer for the editor" - guess what -

Its Diana Ross again - Im Still Waiting

bobrat · Apr 2, 2004

but hey, thats at least the right Country

No I don't expect submitters to be internet experts. But I do expect things like knowing which state they are located in. I edit in an area that's divided by regional, and the description clearly states that submitters must submit to a specific state or country depending on their location, except for rare exceptions, and 70% of the submissions ignore that.

I also expect submitters to be able to spell the name of their company. A significant number can't.

I would also think they could supply the correct URL, surprisingly they often fail to do that, and I have to go play detective of fix the syntax. e.g. www.a bc..com

Crooner · Apr 2, 2004

Dear Bobrat,

Yet again you are proving my point.

www.a - would be rejected by the script.

Think 2005 all editors at Franks in Idaho without a care in the world !!!

lissa · Apr 2, 2004

Actually, we do have scripts that fix or deny common identifiable errors. For example, descriptions written in all caps won't be accepted. However, we don't reject descriptions that unnecessarily capitalize lots of words, because there are cases where it is proper to capitalize words in the middle of a sentence. Scripts fix urls that don't have the http:// or have malformed versions of it. Although scripts don't automatically fix things like spaces in a url, we have editor developed tools that search for such things and pull up a convenient format for editors to fix them rapidly. However, by and far these types of errors are a small percentage of what is submitted.

Think of the ability to write good decriptions as a self-selecting discriminator for webmasters to get "preferential treatment." When a webmaster cares enough to read the guidelines, examine the directory and find the correct category, and then write a guidelines compliant title and description, it stands out and has a greater chance of being listed ahead of other sites in the category. Why? Because an editor skimming a long list of submissions with time to only review a few will often choose to review the ones that appear to be quickest to review and seem to lead to a listing.

Case in point - in one area that I edit in there is a webmaster creating sites for individuals businesses in a particular field. The sites are based on a template and generally contain the same type of information, but the actual content in specific areas of the site is unique to each business. The webmaster submits 3-5 sites a week to exactly the correct category with a well-written description. All I need to do is spot-check the site for the unique content and correct placement, fix a particular word that I don't like, and list it. Whenever I edit in this area I tend to list these sites in parallel as I review sites in another category requiring more effort.

xixtas01 · Apr 2, 2004

The suggestion on the table is: A better validation script for submissions.

That's something that I can understand might be desireable based on your past experience, crooner. However, your experience is not typical. I personally have rejected many submissions and not ever one yet because the of the title or description submitted.

I've rejected several desciption updates because they weren't guidelines compliant. But none of these situations would have likely been filtered out by a script, no matter how baroque. Okay, maybe if every time the submission included the words "the best" in a description it got rejected that would have taken care of a couple of them, but then it would have been resumbmitted with "the premiere" or "the most wonderful". You see the problem?

If the title or description is bad (and it almost always is) we rewrite it, not reject it. Problem solved without any engineering. If an editor is rejecting sites because the submitted description contains an "&" then I would expect that editor might need a little additional education.

Based on my experience, I would say that this is a very small portion of the lengthy review time issue.

spectregunner · Apr 2, 2004

Without revealing the identity of the sender (because it serve no purpose), what are the exact contents of the e-mail? I think it might clarify things at this point if we knew exactly what you were told and the context of that advice.

If you are not comfortable doing that in this fora, you can PM any (one) of the editors who have responded to this thread.

RobertParker · Apr 2, 2004

I don't employ any scripts to help with submission reviews. The idea of ODP is to have humans do it.

I guess all ODP editors have slightly different approaches and ways of reviewing submissions - but if you submit a description according to the guidelines, you should have no problem - and no need for us to use scripts.

Crooner · Apr 4, 2004

lissa said:
Actually, we do have scripts that fix or deny common identifiable errors. For example, descriptions written in all caps won't be accepted. However, we don't reject descriptions that unnecessarily capitalize lots of words, because there are cases where it is proper to capitalize words in the middle of a sentence. Scripts fix urls that don't have the http:// or have malformed versions of it. Although scripts don't automatically fix things like spaces in a url, we have editor developed tools that search for such things and pull up a convenient format for editors to fix them rapidly. However, by and far these types of errors are a small percentage of what is submitted.

Think of the ability to write good decriptions as a self-selecting discriminator for webmasters to get "preferential treatment." When a webmaster cares enough to read the guidelines, examine the directory and find the correct category, and then write a guidelines compliant title and description, it stands out and has a greater chance of being listed ahead of other sites in the category. Why? Because an editor skimming a long list of submissions with time to only review a few will often choose to review the ones that appear to be quickest to review and seem to lead to a listing.

Case in point - in one area that I edit in there is a webmaster creating sites for individuals businesses in a particular field. The sites are based on a template and generally contain the same type of information, but the actual content in specific areas of the site is unique to each business. The webmaster submits 3-5 sites a week to exactly the correct category with a well-written description. All I need to do is spot-check the site for the unique content and correct placement, fix a particular word that I don't like, and list it. Whenever I edit in this area I tend to list these sites in parallel as I review sites in another category requiring more effort.

Dear Lisa,

Interesting piece - but again reiterates my point that thousands of hours are being wasted because of the lottery situation and that Dmoz are failing to make many people understand.

When you say fix a piece that I dont like - it sounds like a reasonable statement to amend an error under the guiidelines.

However I had a change of description thrown out for which I only found out 5 months later when I discovered the forum and the editors reply was -
I thew it out because I thought there might be too many keywords and its not my category anyway - so I wouldnt hold your breath.

The listing above me had over twice as many (supposedly) keywords.

Right and wrong it seems are currently a lottery depending on who edits your submission.

Somehow I believe there needs to be INSTANT guidance and HELP to get to the end result within minutes that leaves both submitters and editors happy.

New Submission Method

Crooner

Member

bobrat

Member

spectregunner

Member

hutcheson

Crooner

Member

spectregunner

Member

spectregunner

Member

Crooner

Member

bobrat

Member

gimmster

Crooner

Member

gimmster

Crooner

Member

bobrat

Member

Crooner

Member

lissa

Member

xixtas01

Member

spectregunner

Member

RobertParker

Member

Crooner

Member