ODP and secrecy

Hi all:

This forum has the potential to become a great resource and to help ODP to address some of the many issues and questions users have. I am sure that the majority of the posters here are intelligent enough to seperate the serious posters from the professional complainers, and have the common sense not to reply to them. Back to topic....

Part of the problem regarding users unhappines with OPD stems from the secrecy of the internal workings. In another thread I got the response ..."if you could only see things from the other side..". This is the problem - users cannot see those things and thus have to rely on rumors and output from the very vocal group of "professional ODP complainers" as I call them.

Why is there a necesity for all the secrecy regarding the internal workings of ODP? Every submission is human reviewed, so the kind of secrecy that surrounds the internal workings of Search Engines is totally unnecessary.

By working in secrecy the ODP only adds fuel to the fires started by the complainers, and by not answering fully and truthfully the charges they level, they add credibility to the complainers often irrational outbursts.

I sincerely hope that we can expect this forum to address some of these issues rather than ansering the complainers in kind.

First of all, ODP is obviously the less secret directory of the web. This new public forum is the best proof: where is the public forum of editors for other directories?

But even without the existence of this forum, it's very easy for anyone interesting about DMoz to become an editor and to join the thousands other editors on the "other side". So, how could seriously exist secret retained by thousands persons?

So, there is not really secrecy but just a need of intimacy to permit the editors to work quietly and more or less anonymously if necessar to avoid attacks, spam etc. That's why the forum in DMOZ is accessible only for editors.

Zav'
(hope my English is enough understandable)

Why is there a necesity for all the secrecy regarding the internal workings of ODP? Every submission is human reviewed, so the kind of secrecy that surrounds the internal workings of Search Engines is totally unnecessary.

One of the primary purposes for this forum is to demystify the ODP as much as possible. Unfortunately, there will always be an element that cannot be disclosed to the non-editing public. As it is, the ODP is much more open than any other major search engine player out there. If you consider engines like Yahoo, AOL, or Google, you will find that the ODP is far more "open," even if you're not an editor.

There are several reasons why a certain amount of information is necessary to the continuing function of the directory.

First of all, we need to protect some of our information from unscrupulous submitters who would use it to exploit the directory. Secondly, editors need to be able to work in a semi-autonomous environment, where their actions aren't questioned at every turn.

There is a peculiar double-standard that is applied to the Open Directory. Submitters are willing to jump through multiple hoops to get listed in Yahoo, but then complain when modest requests are made of them at the ODP. And while submitters are willing to put up with a veil of secrecy surrounding the inner machinations of engines like Yahoo and Google, many complain that the ODP is not open enough.

I'm not implying that this applies to you Mel. You have demonstrated you're quite reasonable in your questions, and I applaud you for that. The reason I state the above however, is to demonstrate why I believe the restrictions on some form of information imposed by the directory, is not unreasonable.

Hi Apeuro:

Well there is one great reasons many of us "jump through hoops" to get into Yahoo and that is because Yahoo has the greatest number of searchers on the web by a considerable margin, and so if you are serious about promoting your site Yahoo is a must.

ODP is also a must, but not for the traffic it drives, but for its connection with Google, the second highest search traffic site on the web.

The actual established guidelines for site submissions, and guidelines for specific areas of the directory are publicly available. Many categories (trying to get that to be all) have specific charters publically available through the decsription button in each category, which describe things specific to that category. I think ODP is pretty up front with the requirements for submission and acceptance.

I assume that the concerns about secrecy stem from the fact that there is an internal forum. However, there are many, many forums that are available to members only. Why is the internal ODP forum such a concern? Becoming an editor is joining a community of people and carries both priviledges and responsibilities. The forums are a place for editors to work together to teach each other, resolve problems, and fine tune the internal workings of ODP. The expectation of individual editors is that this is a safe place to discuss things in a polite fashion, and the knowledge is there that editors who are abusive in the forums may lose their editing priviledges. In order for editors to improve ODP, they need to know that there is a place that things they say are private within the community and won't be spread to the world at large. If there wasn't a place to do this, ODP would be severely hampered in its efforts.

It is true that there are a lot of unreviewed sites. Unfortunately the internet grows at a far faster pace than editors joining, being trained, and taking on more responsibility. Also unfortunately, a significant amount of time is spent just dealing with spamming, mis-directed sites, and non-working/under-construction sites. If a site not being listed, or being listed in a place different than the submitter wanted is being construed as evidence of some conspiracy, this is just incorrect.

Are there specific things that are of concern?

What sort of complaint's have been received. I was a user of the ODP before joining and I was never in any doubt that it is a human edited directory that being so, submissions could take some time in being added, plus, there had to be relevant content.

I actually found places like Yahoo! and webring an absolute nightmare to get web sites listed at, let alone going into the chronic and illogical placement of sites. I've also edited on other human edited directories and whilst I found them interesting ODP without a doubt has the best set up for correct placement, volume of sites and time it takes to get them listed.

I'm not taking a pop at your comments Mel, I'm dismayed that users find ODP a shadowy place and I'm positive that this wasn't the intension and hopefully with this forum, it's something that can be put right.

Hi Lissa:

I cannot speak for the whole internet community, only for myself and those whose questions I try to answer regarding ODP.

I think that there are a couple of things that need to be considered when looking at the "secrecy" behind ODP.

It can be argued that Looksmart is even more secretive than ODP, but since I can get my site into their index within a few days (yes I will have to pay for it), and I can get the title and description modified in a few days also if need be, the process is satisfactory to me, so I don't care about what happens behind the scenes.

Conversely, when I submit a site to ODP it may take up from three to six months before I see any results (or I may never see any results or get any responses from editors) and although I discuss this process often with knowledgable individuals I cannot find a solution. Now I know that Looksmart has something like 150 human editors, and ODP claims to have 45,000 human editors so I wonder what on earth is going on when one organization can build a major directory giving good service and results with less than 1/10 of one percent of the resources that another directory has, yet the second cannot seem to cope. I therefor wonder what it is that makes the difference, and cannot find anything in the public sections of ODP that explains it, so assume that there must be a lot going on in those areas I cannot see to explain it.

Mind you, I am not saying that the ODP is not a good resource, and that the editors are not dedicated etc. I am only saying that there are real problems being experienced by real people and it is frustrating not to know why, or how to remedy the situation.

Now let me anticipate the ineveitable response that I am going to get that by and large this does not happen. It does happen and regularly judging from the posts I see. But let me be even more specific - I consider myself to be quite knowledgable, have 15 years of hands on IT experience,and am paid good money to get sites ranked highly on search engines, which I do quite successfully.

Here is ONE of my experiences:
submitted a site to Yahoo, Looksmart and ODP on the same day and hour. Looksmart came back in five days with a title and description that were not too good, but when requested changed it at no cost to a satisfactory one within two days; Yahoo responded within a week with a totally mangled title and description that I did not even bother to try to change, and after a month I had heard nothing from ODP, so I wrote a very polite query to cat editor and got no reply, waited another two weeks and tried the cat editor again, no reply; waited a month and emailed the cat editor one category up no response, waited two weeks and emailed the next level up editor again - no reponse - two weeks later emailed one level higher cat editor, again no resonse so I gave up.

I was advised by another ODP editor to keep trying and so this time I went to the top of the category editor and within a day got an email reponse back and the problem was solved.

Even though I did mange to get the problem solved after three months, (and I give full marks to the editor who solved it,) It was not a satisfactory experience and so I wonder why?

Thanks for expanding a bit. One thing that is misleading is that the statistics for the number of editors represents the total number of editors ever, not the total number of editors currently (which tends to hover in the 5000-6000 range, I think), and certainly not the total number of pretty active editors. We've discussed internally the desire to add a "# current editors" statistic, but unfortunately with an actual staff of only 2 people who can modify the software, they are pretty busy dealing with big maintenance and upgrade issues and can't attend to the hundreds of little proposed improvements.

Another thing that may not be apparent is where those editors are focussed. There are a lot focussed on building the international areas (both English language and everything else). Also there are a lot of people working in areas that don't tend to receive submissions. I.e. they are out scrounging up sites and information pertinent to some topic they are interested in. I would guess that the majority of submitters are trying to get listed in Business, Shopping, or Computers (or a Regional counterpart), and I think the number of active editors in these areas is a much smaller percentage of total editors than in a pay-for-listing type directory.

Basically, the pay-for-listing directories view their customers as the submitters, but ODP views their customers as web users, and as web users themselves base what they work to list and improve on their own interests. (My thoughts when I decided to join were - "Hmmm, I like zoos and want a good resource for when I travel. I like to organize, so why don't I organize this, and then someone else who like zoos will be able to use it too.") It may seem strange for someone in the business of websites, but the motivations for many volunteer editors are completely different than they might think. In some area where submissions are almost non-existent, a submission is almost like a gift of some nifty site the editor didn't happen to find (Oooh, another pretty rock for the collection!) But in other areas the submissions are so overwhelming (and such a high percentage are either same as 1000 others already listed or actually no content/non-functioning) that submissions are viewed as a constant mess needing cleaning. In other words, trying to keep up with submissions, prevents editors from going out and finding the really neat, unique content sites to add to the directory.

My I'm long-winded /images/icons/smile.gif

In summary, I think that part of the miscommunication stems from a mis-understanding by submitters as to what purpose the editors are actually editing for. A submitted site just doesn't carry the same priority to an ODP editor as it does in a paid-submission directory. Not trying to be offensive, but the purpose of the ODP is fundamentally different than other paid-submission directories.

ODP claims to have 45,000 human editors
ODP has close to 10.000 active, listed editors. Others timed out after a period of inactivity (some od them never did a single edit after beeing approved /images/icons/frown.gif ). Some (less than 3% of those inactive) were removed.

(description) changed at no cost to a satisfactory
Satisfactory for site owner or to ODP user? We are always ready to improve our description of an actual content of site. OTOH we are not so willing to include keywords, promotional language and commercial offers.
BTW: At ODP all our actions are performed at no cost to whoever.

it may take up from three to six months before I see any results
Sorry, it happens. To prevent such a long delays:
1. submit your sites to the most appropriate category.
2. be sure suggested descriptions follow the ODP Editing Guidelines

If it does not help:
Sometimes category gets lot of submissions and editors are unable to process them timely. In such a case you cannot do much to make it faster - usually we know the problem and periodically we organise a cleaning action by special group of volunteers. Rarely cleaning gets out of control and is singlehandly performed by abusive, clueless or simply lazy editor. A massive deletion of submissions is considered a serious abuse but not always gets noticed before substantial harm is done.
All submitter can do in above cases is to resubmit after a two month and/or email a top-level editor.

Sometimes your site is not listed because editor decided it does not offer any original, unique content. Editors are not obliged to notify submitter about their decision. You can always ask the editor or resubmit after a two months.

The last possible case is an abandonned category. The best solution is to email editors of higher categories, including the top ones.

I can imagine feasible software solutions to provide submitters a feedback about current status of their submissions but - sorry! - technically we are not able to introduce it in a foreseenable future. OTOH basic secrecy about editor's comments, debates, doubts and justifications of their actions it crucial to keep their communications open and honest and to make their work enviromment comfortable enough to keep them with us. Also we are not willing to promote (or dis-promote) sites we talk about by making our internal notes indexable for external search engines ... /images/icons/frown.gif .

As a new editor, low on the totem pole, I can tell you I spend a lot of time rewriting ridiculously worded descriptions that are submitted or submissions with no descriptions at all. It takes time to go through a site and learn what it's about, put together a description that follows our guidelines, and then, find the best place to put the site.

A nicely written description that follows our guidelines is not only a pleasure to see, it's also very rare to see. Duplicate submissions of the same site are a nuisance and another time waster.

Some categories are completely empty and we have to go searching for sites to put into them and, please realize, that editing submissions is only part of the work we do. Another large part is creating categories and subcategories, writing descriptions for each of them, and putting in all of the necessary @links so that the users can get to these sites.

Also, recognize that we are ordinary people who volunteer to do this job as we have the time to do it and there are a lot of different things to keep track of and to learn and discuss as we go along. Questions are asked and answered, issues are discussed and voted on, teams are formed and implemented to perform different tasks, so, our attention is not undivided, just the opposite.

Any submitter who contacts me, I promise you, will get an immediate response from me. I've never once had such an inquiry. I'm busy, but never too busy to respond.

Other editors are much busier than I am and may have to set thier own priorities and some editors may be a little gun shy about responding because of abuse that they may have suffered from a submitter.

We are not obligated to respond at all, actually. Everything is totally free to the submitter, as well as to the user. The reason this is, is because all of the work we editors do is free and we're happy to do it. There is a big difference between being an editor and being an active editor. I'm an active editor, /images/icons/smile.gif.

Thanks Lisa, Crowbar and Wladek for the responses.

Let me say that while some of these responses are pretty much what I had anticipated two things stand out to me.


The first is that it seems clear that the editors view the mere existance of the ODP directory as sufficient reason for its existance, even though I find that line of reasoning somewhat circular. To me it seems that the resource must be useful to a great number of people if it is to be useful at all ( and I do think that is true of ODP) and therefor the user is important.

This thread strikes very close to home, as I live in a foreign country which shall remain nameless, which has, I believe, only one top level editor. Having lived in this region for some 35 years, I thought I might be able to contribute something to one of the categories as an editor, but I guess I was rejected as I never heard anything in response. But I digress, In reviewing this category, I reviewed the profile of the country editor, who stated that he chose to edit because he was fascinated with the making of lists. This would seem to tie in with what you are saying - I edit the OPD category because I am interested in this topic and want to make a good list?

If so IMO this could be at the heart of some of the differences of opinion that many users seem to have with ODP, as they are accustomed to a web directory or search engine as a resource which is established to provide users with an information utility.

Secondly, I am also quite taken aback with the notion that many sites may be deliberately excluded because there are already sites addressing that topic and since in the opinion of the editor the site adds nothing new, it is excluded. This is akin to your local library not adding new science books because the librarian thinks they have enough books on that subject. IMO there is no editor whose wisdom exceeds the collective knowledge of the millions of people who spend time and money researching, building and operating thier websites.

Yes many of these websites are commercial in nature, but almost all the modern conveniences and inventions we enjoy today were driven by commerce. Any good university library will have many commercial items in its collection, because they contain knowledge, and that is what they are providing - access to knowledge.

Based on my perception of these reponses, I would like to suggest that the ODP should consider that the users are more important than the directory, and that even though a website only contains a grain of truth or wisdom, the inclusion of that grain is the start of the making of a mountain of knowledge.

Hi Wladek:

>>>(description) changed at no cost to a satisfactory
Satisfactory for site owner or to ODP user?<<

Well, here is another area of misunderstanding. First off let me state that I have no doubt that you get a lot of "spammy" titles and descriptions, but that does not automatically make all submitters charlatans.

As can perhaps be deduced from this thread, I am a professional practitioner of SEO, and have written many hundreds of titles and descriptions for directories. Despite what may be prevailing attitude at ODP, there ARE ethical SEOs. I realize that it is in my best interest to provide titles and descriptions that are accurate, as searchers who mistakenly go to a site based on a spammy description seldom if ever become customers.

My own sites DMOZ title and description was virtually unedited and provides both a clear and concise description of what my site is about and the verbage to get it noticed. properly. And Yes I think I am just as capable at writing a good title and description as any particular randomly chosen (what your get when you submit your site to the proper category) editor.

IMO it is easy to determine the proper category for submission to DMOZ - you decide on a keyphrase which best describes your site, search on that in DMOZ and choose the category that comes up most often in that search. In fact I think it is easier for the user to determine which cat to submit to than it is for the editor to determine if it belongs in that cat, as he will have to first gain an understanding of that site which may contain fifty or so pages and not all of them on the same topic.

I don't think anyone has said the user was unimportant, but you, actually. How the user will navigate the ODP is in constant discussion.

I wouldn't say you were rejected, you were never accepted. There could be any number of reasons for that, including, never having recieved your submission. I've been rejected a couple of times since becoming an editor and you learn to deal with it and try again.

If I'm not mistaken, all editors start out at the bottom, you don't just get handed a country level category until you've learned the ropes and shown that you are capable, knowledgible, and responsible enough to edit at that level. You have to work you're way up to that level, you can't just start at the top.

Sites are not rejected because there are other sites already addressing that topic. They get rejected when they are submitting the same site over and over again, hoping to get thier particular site listed multiple times through trickery.

Spam is not a poorly written description or title.

Spam is multiple submissions of a site, that has already been listed, by trying to make the site look different or changing the URL of it. Call it trickery and sneakiness, if you'd like, because that's what it is. Submitters are allowed one listing for a site, not dozens.

I'm sure you're very good at writing descriptions and titles, and you seem to be very intelligent, however, there are certain rules and guidelines that have been set in the ODP, and they have to be followed. If an editor can't work within those guidelines, then, they are rejected or asked to leave.

Plain and simple, you play by the rules or you don't edit. ( No matter how clever you think you might be)

Even experienced editors with thousands and thousands of edits, who are high in status and editing priviledges, can be tossed out on their ear, if they are found to be breaking the rules. No one is exempt.

I think to be an ODP editor, one has to leave his ego at the door and be willing to except the rules and work within them. If there are things he doesn't like about the ODP, then, he has the opportunity to make his case before his peers and except the concensus of opinion about the matter, gracefully and without bitterness.

Mel,

It's great to see civil discussion and it is something this forum was designed to provide. Sometimes posts are as subtle as a drive by shooting.

I don't have much time under my belt in ODP, but I can say it is nothing like I expected. I would like to add my opinion to this discussion, and please take it in the friendly, and hopefully, helpful manner I intend it. I am not speaking for ODP, I am speaking for me and how I see my responsibility to ODP, our users, our site providers, and my fellow editors.

From reading your posts and subsequent responses a few things jump out at me. Your experience with the development and marketing of sites is evident, but I don't think you completely understand how ODP is different from search engines. As Lissa was explaining, ODP is designed to accommodate Web users (or surfers). It is a directory, not a search engine. Other search engines are not as concerned with the results the user receives, they make their business the Web site owners. They assume users are sheep and will jump on whatever site is listed first, so they raffle off these higher spots to the highest bidders.

They charge for placement, they charge for keywords, they charge for "sponsored links." ODP does not. ODP prides itself on providing useful sites with dynamic content to the directory users (not Web site providers/owners). Nothing circular about it. It just seems to me maybe this doesn't fit what you are calling a directory (when they are just a search engine). One of the reasons this forum is here is to educate people about the differences.

With most search engines, if a user is looking for information and plugs in some keywords, the engine will return 4 or 5 pages of "consumer based" sites before 1 information based site. Again, this is something ODP, by its nature tries to avoid by not keyword loading descriptions and taking payment for placement.

You commented about a library and books, well most libraries have one copy of each book. Not just the same book with different covers. A library with 1,000 copies of "See Spot Run" serves no purpose. This is a closer example of the situation we, as editors try to avoid. Many commerce sites offer nothing more than identical products, so we look for sites that offer a little more. When a site provider has actually brought something to the table, as you suggest, with well researched, well presented information, we welcome it and add it to the directory.

As far as "Any good university library will have many commercial items in its collection." I beg to differ. I have never seen a University library filled with Sears and Robuck's catalogs.

Finally, you said, "I would like to suggest that the ODP should consider that the users are more important than the directory." Here I agree completely. We consider the USERS most important. We go through all the provider's submissions by hand, with nothing but the user in mind. Will a user find this site helpful? Will the user find this site beneficial? What makes this site unique for the user?

I just ask that you not confuse the "user" of the directory with the "provider" of the site.

The last thing that jumps out at me is that you have your client's sites listed. You said yourself, that you have gotten sites placed. So, if your sites are being placed why would you want us to lower our standards? Would you feel better after all the work researching and building your sites some other site being listed ahead of you but did not have the same level of quality within the site, it was able to belly up the cover charge?

If you are providing your clients with a quality service, as it seems you are, the sites are getting placed, as you said they have, why would you want us just to throw the doors open for sites that can place keywords more times than you, but make no sense and offer nothing substantial to the users of the directory.

I can tell by your fervor you take pride it your work. I can say with confidence the editors I have meet in ODP are just as proud of doing the best job they can. We, as a community of editors, donate our time because we want to provide quality to the surfers that use ODP.

Mel, I hope you find this forum helpful. I'm sure you will appreciate the job we do as much as we appreciate when we review a site that is well planned and well built as yours.

Thanks,
Jeff

A volunteer editor proud to provide his time and service helping to build the best directory for the Internet community.

Hi Dajeffster:

Yes its nice to be able to discuss things intelligently, and it is especially nice to be able to get clear and concise infomation regarding the ODP, which to me remains one on the enigmas on the web.

I must however take exception to your description of search engines:

>>Other search engines are not as concerned with the results the user receives, they make their business the Web site owners. They assume users are sheep and will jump on whatever site is listed first, so they raffle off these higher spots to the highest bidders.

They charge for placement, they charge for keywords, they charge for "sponsored links."

This is not a fair evaluation of a decent search engine or of any of the leading search engines such as Google, Fast, or MSN. All these search engines worship at the Altar of Relevancy, since if they do not provide relevant results they soon find their users going to wherever they can find relevant results. It is the unscrupulous webmasters and SEOs who spam these engines and attempt to get high rankings for unworthy sites that must take the blame here.

To put a finer point on it, we seem to agree that the user is important and that the job of ODP is to provide relevant information in response to users searches. In this respect it is really irrelvant what category a site is placed in so long as when the user searches for a particular thing, the directory give him the right answers. Hold on! I can hear the editors protesting now, but hardly anyone really goes to ODP and looks into a particular category for something and then goes through the alphabetical lists, visiting each site in turn, trying to determine which is the best listing for his use.

This would not only be illogical, but a waste of time, as a keyword search will bring more, results, and more relevant results faster than letting your fingers do the walking.

So IMO, in this respect, ODP IS a search engine of sorts because that is how people use it. This being the case it is important that it returns good results in response to keyword searches, and how to do that if you don't want to use relevant keywords in the titles and descriptions?

Hi Crowbar:

There are several misconceptions here. First of all it is my fault for bringing up the rejection, when my point was that here is a country that has only on editor for the entire category, and his stated interest is that he likes to make lists. I did not apply for a country position but for a much more humble subcategory with something like ten listings but with the potential for many more.

And yes after receiving many answers from ODP editors in the space of the past few days, I would hazard a guess that my several applications were not received since I did not get the mentioned email. Why they were not received is another question.

Mel,

I hope I can help with your confusion in this matter,

All the information you need for submitting sites to ODP are available at http://dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html and http://dmoz.org/add.html these links should help with understanding what ODP is about and the policies employed. There is no charge to submit and ODP doesn't accept money for premimum placement.

I would like address the search engines. I do not work developing Web sites or as a SEO and I don't have a tech background. But in an effort to help, to my understanding engines use crawlers, algorithimins (sp?) and a number of factors and determin "popularity" from the number of links to the site, meta tags, and keyword placement through the text of the site. Add and divide.

ODP is a directory it is not a search engine. ODP uses editors checking submissions for site content to add sites to the listings. No Crawlers, no Meta Tags, no mathmatics to place sites.

As for the three searches you listed, I am unfamiliar with Fast, but if it is fast.com it doesn't load, "Server not found" was the message my browser just gave me.

MSN... well you can see for yourself, but it is far from free to submit. When you run a search the first 2 links are "featured links" and the next 5 are sponsored links (these vary depending on how many submitted sites spend the extra money on top of the money just to submit)

Google across the top and top right corner... "sponsored links"

So these are not really good examples for saying that "paid listings" are not happening.

ODP is the Open Directory Project - not a seach engine. Some serch engines use ODP as their base directory and then use crawlers for their searches. All information about this can be found at http://dmoz.org/rdf.html and http://dmoz.org/license.html

I hope this information helps you with understanding the distiction between ODP and search engines.

As I said, since I am not working in the field, I only know what I read and what I learned while in college, but that was many years ago.

I hope this has helped.
Jeff

Hi Jeff:
I appreciate your offer of assistance, thanks but I am not confused at all. I am aware of that link and surprise, surprise have actually read it cover to cover. I have put many sites into the ODP - there is no question that I know how, what I want to know is why is it so difficult and time consuming?

Actually most search engines do use all or some of the techniques mentioned, but the missing one is also the most important and that is content. Not unlike ODp the search engines want to see real content that is useful to the viewers. Now we could argue, Pardon me, discuss all week which achieves the better results, but this is not necesary because we both agree that the user is the important link in this chain and they vote on this subject every day, every time they search. The results say that Yahoo does the best job in the eyes of the user, followed by Google and then MSN.

I do believe that if ODP believe they are something other than another information resource (and to the SEARCHERS they are just another search engine) they are going to have problems. I am not saying that you guys are not working hard and that there is not some great information in the ODP (after all my own site and many of my customers sites are in there) but SEARCHERS (aka surfers, customers, and viewers) are not so foolish as you might imagine and tend use the search box (even at ODP) and they have also pretty much learned to ignore the paid results, ads, and partner results that many search engines put up on their site in the hopes of breaking even some day.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too, when Google slips the occasional ODP description (BTW only if the site doesn't have its own description tag) that is a good use of ODP data, but when MSN puts in Looksmart directory results that is not good? I don't happen to much like either the MSN algo or the way it displays its results, but I am not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend that it doesn't get 12.87% of all search traffic.

BTW the top words searched for on the net today are 1.Google 2.Ebay and 3.Yahoo. Apropos of what you say? Well while ODP is a great resource, its still not top three in the minds of SEARCHERS.

Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but, we have no control over a sites content. We just describe the content that's there and this description speaks for the site.

Any sales hype or "attention getters" stuck in there by the professionals to get the site "noticed", are not allowed in the title or description. The place for that is on the website itself.

As far as quality content goes, yes, we like sites with quality content, but, our instructions are to list sites with "useful content", meaning useful to the user, and not, necessarily, built by a professional such as yourself.

This is a Directory for everyone, not just the professionals who make thier living from it, and, professionals are not given priority service over anyone else. Every site is equal and every site receives the same scrutiny by an editor, and every site has to wait its turn to be reviewed.

Long waiting times are due to a lack of quality editors who are willing to work for free and who are willing to work within the system and follow the Guidelines.

The way to remedy that situation is to apply, once again, to be one of our editors and be willing to do the work of listing, by following the established rules and not wasting everyones time bucking the system, which has been established by the concensus of both Staff and numerous volunteer editors.

But, realize that your affiliations should be left at the doorstep and, until you have proven yourself and your skills as an impartial editor, you will be treated as any other new editor would be treated, respectfully, but guided and corrected whenever it's necessary.

A good editor not only accepts correction and advice, but, seeks it out and follows it.