ODP from the outsider's perspective.

Hello all.

As I am new to the forum, here is some background on myself: I have 12 years of IT experience in the financial industry, and have recently learned web design to help my wife with her real estate business in Jefferson City, Missouri (USA). In pursuit of listing my wife's site, I came across the ODP.

There appears to be a lot of friction between the editors and the submitters. I don’t think the problem is anyone’s fault, but the ODP lengthy process is frustrating to average businesses and people like myself who expect results. I really think the issue stems from expecting a non-profit organization to understand and react to the needs of businesses. The attitude of some of the editors in this forum is appears to be ‘You get what you pay for’. Since they are volunteering their time, I wouldn’t expect anything different.

But, the ODP does have a category for Business, and most of the submitters can find their competitor’s sites (with average content) listed under Business, and wonder why they can’t add their comparable site to the list.

Since Google and other companies are using ODP data, there are significant financial benefits to be in the database, but there is a shroud of uncertainty as to if, or when, a listing will be added under Business.

After waiting a month for a response on my submission, I determined that there are no editors for my category, and decided to apply to become an editor for my city. I’m still waiting for a response.

To summarize, from the outside, ODP appears to be struggling. Submitters have months or years to wait for submissions to be processed, and there do not appear to be enough resources to evaluate and add more editors. Perhaps a method to pay the editors is needed to speed up the process?

Thanks,
dwalker

If you look around this forum, you'll see that people regularly suggest that AOL start paying editors. It's not going to happen. And, honestly, I don't know why people think it would.

To summarize, from the outside, ODP appears to be struggling. Submitters have months or years to wait for submissions to be processed, and there do not appear to be enough resources to evaluate and add more editors.

Click to expand...

That's nothing different from how the ODP appeared pretty much since the day it started. I came across an old thread at one of the larger webmaster forums the other day in which people were complaining about long wait times and predicting that the ODP was dead (you'd swear it was written just the other day) but in fact it was written in (I think) 2002. And it was an old complaint back then. As long as the ODP is volunteer-driven and its volunteers are able to work where, when, and how often they like, those complaints will always keep resurfacing.

Perhaps a method to pay the editors is needed to speed up the process?

Click to expand...

Perhaps not.

Money is not the answer to everything.

This issue is not one of having too few editors, or not enough editing resources or not enough time and money.

The issue is twofold:
--the problems caused by greedy spammers who would rather destroy something or make it unuseable for others if they cannot use it to their advantage.
--the unrealistic expections promoted and fueled by the SEO community, that for a large part is frustrated by their inability to prostitute the ODP for their own purposes.

dwalker said:

There appears to be a lot of friction between the editors and the submitters. I don’t think the problem is anyone’s fault, but the ODP lengthy process is frustrating to average businesses and people like myself who expect results. I really think the issue stems from expecting a non-profit organization to understand and react to the needs of businesses. The attitude of some of the editors in this forum is appears to be ‘You get what you pay for’. Since they are volunteering their time, I wouldn’t expect anything different.

Click to expand...

I believe that the issues stem from those who are expecting things from project of volunteers, that the volunteers have never done, promised to do, or plan to do in the future - which is become a listing service for site owners, webmasters, or designers. Which is partially what you describe, businesses expect that we volunteer our time to do what they want when in fact it is quite the opposite.
'You get what you pay for' isn't how I would look at it though. Rather "You get what was promised and what was intended" -which is a directory of useful sites offering unique content categorized by volunteers in a way they find helpful/useful, and which is made freely to any for their own use with proper attributions. Nothing more and nothing less.

dwalker said:

But, the ODP does have a category for Business, and most of the submitters can find their competitor’s sites (with average content) listed under Business, and wonder why they can’t add their comparable site to the list.

Click to expand...

The directory wasn't created to list every site made. Instead it lists a collection of the most unique. The misconception here is that comparable sites should all be listed, when in fact if comparable sites are already listed potential additions to the category should offer something more unique to be included. The idea isn't to be as good (or bad) as what is already listed, its to be better.

dwalker said:

Since Google and other companies are using ODP data, there are significant financial benefits to be in the database, but there is a shroud of uncertainty as to if, or when, a listing will be added under Business.

Click to expand...

What an end user chooses to do with the data the directory produces and how much weight or lack there of they wish to assign it, is completly up to them. If this is breeding frustration, the frustration should be directed to the ones causing it which is the end user not the data producer.

dwalker said:

After waiting a month for a response on my submission, I determined that there are no editors for my category, and decided to apply to become an editor for my city. I’m still waiting for a response.

Click to expand...

What response are you waiting for? The ODP has never given our responses to suggestions beyond the "Thank you for your Suggestion" page you see when you offer us a URL to consider. The only 'response' you will ever have is if the site is listable, it will show up in the live directory once reviewed. The ODP gets a few more suggestions than 1 per day (especially in Business) so a month is hardly long enough to wait for it to be listed. You won't get any automated response when a review or rejection occurs, so waiting for one would be pointless.

dwalker said:

To summarize, from the outside, ODP appears to be struggling. Submitters have months or years to wait for submissions to be processed, and there do not appear to be enough resources to evaluate and add more editors. Perhaps a method to pay the editors is needed to speed up the process?

Click to expand...

If you want a pay for inclusion directory there are plenty out there-yahoo comes to mind. The ODP is not a business and won't ever be. It is a volunteer project and will continue to be. These 'submitters' that are waiting and waiting are misguided. The knowledgeable "Suggesters" (and its important to once again point out that a URL is a suggestion, no site is guaranteed a listing) suggest their URL and move on to the important things-promoting their site and satisfying their customers. The ODP does not exist to promote sites or serve the webmaster/site owner community. Any benefit that they receive from the editors work is strictly an unintended by-product.

and decided to apply to become an editor for my city. I’m still waiting for a response.

Click to expand...

Your application of 6th April 2007 was declined the same day. You were sent an email saying so and I have reason to believe that you received it.

But, the ODP does have a category for Business, and most of the submitters can find their competitor’s sites (with average content) listed under Business, and wonder why they can’t add their comparable site to the list.

Click to expand...

As we're creating a resource for web surfers, adding another site that has the same content that the existing sites already have, wouldn't add any value to the category. A site needs to have some unique content that no other site has, to be included.

Also, there are certain types of sites that we can't and won't list, those are here:
http://dmoz.org/guidelines/include.html

And, if you look at the "category description" in the upper right hand corner of the category page, it might give you a reason why your site suggestion hasn't been accepted.

Other than that, an editor may not have gotten around to reviewing your site suggestion yet.

and have recently learned web design to help my wife with her real estate business in Jefferson City, Missouri

After waiting a month for a response on my submission, I determined that there are no editors for my category, and decided to apply to become an editor for my city. I’m still waiting for a response.

Click to expand...

You will never get a response, one way or another, to a site suggestion. As the State level editor for Missouri, I can tell you that Jefferson City is well taken care of, and there are no site suggestions that haven't been reviewed there. (And I'm pushing the line of confidentiallity by stating even that.)

As long as I'm the State level editor, every locality in the state has an editor, as I can edit in all localities, I'm just named once at the State level, instead of being named as the resident editor in every locality.

Also, there are 200-300 other editors with higher permissions who can also edit in every locality of the state, do, and are most welcome to do so when they have the time and desire to.

There appears to be a lot of friction between the editors and the submitters.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with you about that, and as most of us have (or in my case, had) websites of our own, I think we can sympathize with someone who is on the outside, and trying to get a site suggestion listed.

The problem is that site suggesters see us as an apple, when we're really an orange. In other words, we're building a community library, we allow donations (site suggestions) to help us in that, but the donators get impatient and angry if we take a long time to look at the donation, and even angrier if we don't use it.

No site suggestion has a right to be listed (as we're not a listing service for site owners), and we are not all inclusive, we don't want every site. We're building something for the benefit of the web surfer who is looking for the best specific information they can find, without wading through a lot of junk.

That means instead of listing a thousand similar sites, we look for the 100 sites with unique content.

Thanks for the responses everyone. Looking at my post now, I see it is a bit rude; for that I apologize. I’m sure you have had enough of that here.

What a lot of site submitters are looking for is a clear winner in the category of ‘Online Business Directory’. Unfortunately, there are too many choices for users and businesses alike to pick from. No business wants to pay 20 sites to list, and users don’t want to look through 20 sites to find a business.

I considered the Yahoo directory, but they have a poor directory and a very high price to list. The online Yellow Pages is archaic but viable, since most users have heard of it. Finally, there is Google, a best-of-breed internet company which promotes a free directory (DMOZ) with lots of content.

So, that’s how business promoters are indirectly being funneled by Google to submit sites to the DMOZ. From there, it takes a while to figure out that the DMOZ is tailored to supply unique content, and is not a business directory. Using Crowbar’s fruit analogy, Google is selling apples, but all they have are oranges. In response to Shadow, the frustration is with Google, not the DMOZ.

Jim, thanks for looking up my 1st application, I really didn’t expect this level of attention when I posted. I did receive a response that my application needed more information; I assumed the response was automated. I corrected the problem on my 2nd application which has not had a response. The 2nd application is what my post was referring to.

I’m curious what the ideal list would be from a DMOZ perspective for the following directory:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Reg...ferson_City/Business_and_Economy/Real_Estate/

1. A list of the top Real Estate Agents in Jefferson City … Business.
2. A list of the best web site content about Real Estate Agents in Jefferson City Missouri …Business

After spending several months reviewing the competing Realtors® in Jefferson City, I know that the actual DMOZ list is not representing the current market very well. Seven of the nine listings are for RE-MAX agents; but REMAX does not represent 78% of the market in either web content or business. I think this level of favoritism for a particular business de-legitimizes the DMOZ when users or other businesses see this.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate what the DMOZ is doing. The Internet needs a definitive online directory free of spam so users can quickly find what they need. I just wish there was a definitive online directory for legitimate businesses to quickly and efficiently be listed.

I’m curious what the ideal list would be from a DMOZ perspective for the following directory:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Regi...y/Real_Estate/

1. A list of the top Real Estate Agents in Jefferson City … Business.
2. A list of the best web site content about Real Estate Agents in Jefferson City Missouri …Business

Click to expand...

Ideal would be:

3. A list of all the websites about Real Estate Agents with offices located in Jefferson City, Missouri, that contain substantial unique content (just an address and phone number is not sufficient).

P.S. to editors

I'm here at my final destination and am fine. Will post more in the internal forum later.

After spending several months reviewing the competing Realtors® in Jefferson City, I know that the actual DMOZ list is not representing the current market very well. Seven of the nine listings are for RE-MAX agents; but REMAX does not represent 78% of the market in either web content or business. I think this level of favoritism for a particular business de-legitimizes the DMOZ when users or other businesses see this.

Click to expand...

That's because the current market hasn't suggested their sites, or they don't have unique content on their sites, which is fairly simple to provide. I recently added 3 of those RE sites, and I see there's one waiting for review right now.

As the state of Missouri has a grand total of 6 editors who are willing to spend their time working for free, and all of them are editing in their own localities, I think it's pretty safe to say that I do most of the editing across the state, , and guess what, I live in New York State.

Doesn't make much sense for me to show favoritism to ReMax agents in Jefferson City, when I live in another state, know no one in Missouri, and am not in the Real Estate business or any business that's associated with Real Estate, .

I actually own and operate a furniture refinishing business. I'm a US level editor, I edit in all 50 states, but, I pay special attention to Missouri, Idaho, and Utah because they had no state level editor, and I felt they needed one, so I adopted those three states (editing wise), along with NYS.

If you're interested, we've got some special guidelines just for RE sites:
http://dmoz.org/guidelines/regional/realestate.html

Maybe those will enlighten you, .

There are also 200-300 other editors who can edit in Missouri, I don't own it, and many of them stop for awhile to edit, as they're passing through, just as I do in other states.

Real estate sites are very often problematic in terms of unique content.

Ther are a lot of companies that are selling real estate template website, which in and of itself is not necessarily a problem except when:

-- the Agent claims to be in a larger or more prosperous city than the one where there office is located
-- the Agent views having a website as a checklist item or necessary evil and doesn't even bother to provide his or her own photo (I've seen the same agent photos on dozens of sites scatttered acros the country, or can't be bothered telling visitors who they are or what they add to the process. An "about me" page that begins with "In today's challenging real estate market...." only brings up an editor's gag reflex.
-- the website has more affiliate content than real content
-- the website rips off most of its content from the Chamer of Commerce
-- the website claims that all of the office listings are actually the agent's
-- the website does not even contain the agent's office address
-- the website offers nothing in terms of content other than forms the visitor needs to fill out in order to be "contacted"
-- the agent suggests the website to 17 different localities.
-- the agent submits the site to the wrong state (it happens all the time).
-- the agent decides that thsice they can legally sell any property in (name that state) they are going to submit to the top level of (name that state).
-- the site spend more time talking aobut the agent's dog than about who the agent is and what they can do for someone.
-- the site is disguised as a community information directory/portal.

And I could go on and on and on and on.

I've written to RE agents, told them that their sites could not be listed until/unless their office address was included, and received replies telling me to kiss off, they would "get someone else" to list their sites.

I've seen real estate sites where the agent never included their full name for "privacy purposes" and demanded that I list it becase their first name was sufficient.

We all seen agents throw major fits that we had the audacity to change their spammy titles and descriptions.

We've seen more than one agent who could not spell RE/MAX.

In case you thought that spectregunner was being particularly harsh about the real estate sector, he wasn't. Historically, the industry has been so abusive of our directory that we had to write and publish specific guidelines for it in self defence.

The only other sectors that merit such a distinction are Gambling, Adult and Travel.

The URL Jim gave is for the copy located on the editor side of the directory. The public URL is http://dmoz.org/guidelines/regional/realestate.html (The content is exactly the same).

Good post, spectregunner. I think I'll have to rereview those 9 existing RE listings in Jefferson City to make sure there were no mistakes made in listing them, by myself or other editors. (now that it's caught my interest)

I can always use a second opinion, if you get the time, .

Thank you for reviewing those RE sites, spectregunner. Nice job, I agree with all of your changes, .

After looking at 3 or 4 RE sites, I get a little brain dead, they all have the same generic
garbage on them that every other RE site has, and it's painful to have to dig through all that to find something unique and worth listing, not to mention the time I waste that could be better spent on non-cookie cutter type sites.