ODP Should be DEAD?

hutcheson · Aug 19, 2006

Here's the way the ODP improvement process works. Editors, based on their experience with identified quality problems, get (or borrow an idea). Then they go implement it as a pilot project, and show other editors the result. Then, if the community thinks the result is worth two diddleys or a squat, it's placed in "editor tools". And if it becomes widely enough used, or often enough enhanced, then it is incorporated into the dmoz.org process itself. Occasionally, VERY occasionally, something becomes a mandatory part of the process.

There's no reason why editing experience has to be on the ODP itself. Obviously knowing what KIND of spam we face, is pretty important. But the fact is, the same jerks who generate the drivel-made-for-adsense doorway pages that clutter up Google search results, submit the same kinds of pages to us -- so, really, anyone can get a very good idea of the spam we face by just looking at the top 200 Google search results, and discarding the informational sites (whether that's two sites discarded or two dozen, you'll still have lots good examples of online spam.)

Anyone will, for instance, quickly notice that 100% of all successful spammers (and 99.9999% of the unsuccessful ones) are VERY good at filling their home page with keywords both relevant and irrelevant. (That fact alone should tell you that your idea for a filter is at best totally worthless. But is it that good? No, not really, it's worse. Because there are some high-information-content websites whose webmasters DON'T fill the main page with keywords whether relevant or irrelevant. So based on those facts, this filter, as proposed, is not only guaranteed to let all conceivable spam through, it is also guaranteed to block some of the most authoritative, most informative sites on the web.

I've looked at enough websites and enough site suggestions that I'm pretty confident of this analysis.

But if you actually implement this on your site, we'd be happy to hear an analysis of the first 100 suggestions rejected by the filter. But note: probably it would be even more harmful for the ODP than for your site -- after all, how many sites of the quality of "Smithsonian" or "BBC Special Reports", or even of the quality of "graduate student John Doe's extraterrestrial entomology page" are being submitted to your directory? I suspect just about all you get is madfads ("more anonymous drivel made for adsense"). But ... if you think I'm wrong here, you can test it. Go through all your suggestions for a week, and see if you can find two or three genuine authority suggestions that aren't already listed in the ODP. If you have lots of candidates, your quality standards are probably WAY below ours, but pick the best two or three, and post them here.

We have about 600,000 categories. We'd also be interested in knowing how long it takes you to write out the, say, 100,000 keywords for, say, the first 1000 categories; and what automated processes you found useful for that.

Well, I'll stop here. I think I've probably put way more thought into the ideas than you did, but if you still think them worthwhile, I've given you several things to work on. If your money isn't where your mouth is, it's obvious nobody else should take the ideas seriously. If your money IS there, then, succeed or fail we'd like to hear the results in a month or three -- or a year or three, we're all on volunteer time here!

hyipodirectory · Aug 19, 2006

hutcheson said:
Here's the way the ODP improvement process works. Editors, based on their experience with identified quality problems, get (or borrow an idea). Then they go implement it as a pilot project, and show other editors the result. Then, if the community thinks the result is worth two diddleys or a squat, it's placed in "editor tools". And if it becomes widely enough used, or often enough enhanced, then it is incorporated into the dmoz.org process itself. Occasionally, VERY occasionally, something becomes a mandatory part of the process.

There's no reason why editing experience has to be on the ODP itself. Obviously knowing what KIND of spam we face, is pretty important. But the fact is, the same jerks who generate the drivel-made-for-adsense doorway pages that clutter up Google search results, submit the same kinds of pages to us -- so, really, anyone can get a very good idea of the spam we face by just looking at the top 200 Google search results, and discarding the informational sites (whether that's two sites discarded or two dozen, you'll still have lots good examples of online spam.)

Anyone will, for instance, quickly notice that 100% of all successful spammers (and 99.9999% of the unsuccessful ones) are VERY good at filling their home page with keywords both relevant and irrelevant. (That fact alone should tell you that your idea for a filter is at best totally worthless. But is it that good? No, not really, it's worse. Because there are some high-information-content websites whose webmasters DON'T fill the main page with keywords whether relevant or irrelevant. So based on those facts, this filter, as proposed, is not only guaranteed to let all conceivable spam through, it is also guaranteed to block some of the most authoritative, most informative sites on the web.

I've looked at enough websites and enough site suggestions that I'm pretty confident of this analysis.

But if you actually implement this on your site, we'd be happy to hear an analysis of the first 100 suggestions rejected by the filter. But note: probably it would be even more harmful for the ODP than for your site -- after all, how many sites of the quality of "Smithsonian" or "BBC Special Reports", or even of the quality of "graduate student John Doe's extraterrestrial entomology page" are being submitted to your directory? I suspect just about all you get is madfads ("more anonymous drivel made for adsense"). But ... if you think I'm wrong here, you can test it. Go through all your suggestions for a week, and see if you can find two or three genuine authority suggestions that aren't already listed in the ODP. If you have lots of candidates, your quality standards are probably WAY below ours, but pick the best two or three, and post them here.

We have about 600,000 categories. We'd also be interested in knowing how long it takes you to write out the, say, 100,000 keywords for, say, the first 1000 categories; and what automated processes you found useful for that.

Well, I'll stop here. I think I've probably put way more thought into the ideas than you did, but if you still think them worthwhile, I've given you several things to work on. If your money isn't where your mouth is, it's obvious nobody else should take the ideas seriously. If your money IS there, then, succeed or fail we'd like to hear the results in a month or three -- or a year or three, we're all on volunteer time here!

I know filters aren't perfect but still could be useful. Heck I use filters to deny submissions to adult content, drugs sellers, Child exploitation sites, Online Gambling you know the the usual illegal sites to ban. Heck I got my directory a ICCS Certification So my directory needs to keep illegal site owners from submiting to my directory cause some people don't listen to my rules.

Heck I don't have any moderators for my directory. I wish I had tons of moderators

So sometimes filters really help like block adult sites to family friendly directory, or family friendly categories.

hutcheson · Aug 19, 2006

Adult sites being suggested to ordinary categories isn't a real big problem for us. Oh, it happens, but the real problem is just like Google -- marketroid spam du jour.

pvgool · Aug 20, 2006

hyipodirectory said:
I know filters aren't perfect but still could be useful. Heck I use filters to deny submissions to adult content, drugs sellers, Child exploitation sites, Online Gambling you know the the usual illegal sites to ban.

These are not the kind of site that give us trouble. Think about a solution how to filter affiliate resellers, real estate agents with many morror sites, hotelbookings resellers and people like tme. Filtering spam email at these times can be done adequately good, although a few of them manage to trick my spam filters, but filtering websites is much more complex. It might be technicaly possible but is it worth the effort to build such a filter.

glengall1 · Aug 23, 2006

shadow575 said:
Personally I am much happier to see Hurricane Katrina categories being updated with the upcoming hurricane season on its way than seeing updates to the Mtn. Bike Tutorials or the Deception Island categories.

You have also got to remeber that there are nearly 2 billion people in this world most of which will not be interested in the category you mention.

I don't think that DMOZ is dead at all. It is still a very important place for websites to be. That is undeniable but you must agree with the poster in the sense that if some parts of the directory are not up to date it does reflect on the directory as a whole. How do I know as a visitor to the directory what is up to date and what isn't. Quite simply I can't, I rely on the directory for that.

Is it just a fact that a good thing has got too big.

IMHO DMOZ as a whole is now too big and due to the many categoties that are not up to date (and the many that are) it is not the wholly reliable source anymore that it was set up to be.

This is not a critisicm just an opinion and a fact of life. I appreciate that editors are unpaid and work hard but I genuinely think that it's time is over (Sadly).

I have submitted a website two years ago I think. I am not complaining as I understand the problems. But just to assume that my site is okay for inclusion. That's this category two years out of date and that reflcts on the directory as a whole.

hutcheson · Aug 23, 2006

>But just to assume that my site is okay for inclusion.

Generally speaking, I'll take the "house" side of that assumption at anything up to 10 to 1 odds against.

Another pair of assumptions you're making, that in my experience would lose you your shirt at Vegas, is that "two years without visible change" is equivalent to "two years without work", which is equivalent to "two years out of date."

But you don't have to take my word for it. For any ODP category containing fewer than 100 listings, check the top, say, 200 Google results, looking for relevant, truly authoritative sites that aren't already listed. You'll be surprised.

glengall1 · Aug 23, 2006

hutcheson said:
>But just to assume that my site is okay for inclusion.

Generally speaking, I'll take the "house" side of that assumption at anything up to 10 to 1 odds against.

Maybe so but there is always the 1 that it is so that arguement, sorry excuse, holds no water. It would only hold water if there were NO chance it would be suitable.

hutcheson said:
Another pair of assumptions you're making, that in my experience would lose you your shirt at Vegas, is that "two years without visible change" is equivalent to "two years without work", which is equivalent to "two years out of date."

Is it not yourself that is assuming that I am assuming this. My shirt is very precious to me and I may be a better businessman than you are assuming.

hutcheson said:
But you don't have to take my word for it. For any ODP category containing fewer than 100 listings, check the top, say, 200 Google results, looking for relevant, truly authoritative sites that aren't already listed. You'll be surprised.

That's my whole point. I think Google should dump it's use of DMOZ. I am part of your scenario. I am listed in Google through my own efforts, well into the top 200 infact top 50 and I have been waiting over two years as there has been no editor.

The directory's own pages state,
"Automated search engines are increasingly unable to turn up useful results to search queries. The small paid editorial staffs at commercial directory sites can't keep up with submissions, and the quality and comprehensiveness of their directories has suffered. Link rot is setting in and they can't keep pace with the growth of the Internet."

Now unfortunately neither can DMOZ.

"The Open Directory follows in the footsteps of some of the most important editor/contributor projects of the 20th century. Just as the Oxford English Dictionary became the definitive word on words through the efforts of volunteers, the Open Directory follows in its footsteps to become the definitive catalog of the Web."

Yes it sure did but this is now the 21st century. DMOZ did extremely well, until the SE's came along and automated that process, not however perfectly but better than DMOZ.

I am not criticising here. I am not an editior but just pointing out facts.

Smokin78 · Aug 23, 2006

Outdated?

Everywhere I turn here, it seems that everyone keeps talking about the ODP being "Outdated". I am sure that this has all been used before, but I just wanted to put my 2 cents in also.

Here is just one example of something that I have noticed over the past weekend that I think fit this perfectly.

I was at a local grocery store the other day and remembered an ad I saw in the paper for a new cookie. I just had to have it. To my surprise, when I walked up and down the cookie aisle, the new cookies were not there. There was however the 387 other cookies which were roughly the same thing, but the new cookies were nowhere to be found. I had everything else on my list, milk, bread, paper towles, dog food, you name it, but no new cookies. I am pretty sure that they were just the same old cookie with a big shiny "NEW" sticker on the box but, THEY WERE NEW AND THE STORE DIDN'T HAVE THEM!!!

If I were to follow the logic, I should have dumped my cart over right there and stormed my way to the store manager's office. Upon arriving, the shouting and complaining would have begun until I had lost my voice. I then would have proceeded to write down all my complaints and hand them to him over and over until the new cookies arrived at the store. By that time, I am sure that some other new kind of cheese snack or other goofy dog bone would have been created and thus keeping the store "Outdated" and 100% useless.

Being a grocery store, this would have been horrible for the people living in that area because of the store becomming insignificant. Not having the latest cookie the very nanosecond it was invented would have been catastrophic to not only the area customers, but everyone on the planet due to the disservice that they had caused, and nobody on the planet should ever shop there again.

However to my dismay, I drove past the store just yesterday and noticed the parking lot packed with cars and people carrying out groceries like they were giving them away. I assume that these people were just totally stupid since they didn't realize how "Outdated" the store was for not having the latest cookies on the planet. I can only hope that they will realize before it is too late that these cookies will soon be the downfall of this store and everyone who works and shops there.

Ok, I really didn't want this to get that long but I was on hold with the phone company and had the time.

I didn't want to make this a rant, and I hope nobody takes it as one. I just felt as though I could try to slow this "Outdated" bandwagon a bit.

If you want to help keep ODP up to the second as far as new sites go, JOIN! Last time I checked it was still free.

Smokin78

glengall1 · Aug 23, 2006

Smokin78 said:
Everywhere I turn here, it seems that everyone keeps talking about the ODP being "Outdated". I am sure that this has all been used before, but I just wanted to put my 2 cents in also.

Here is just one example of something that I have noticed over the past weekend that I think fit this perfectly.

I was at a local grocery store the other day and remembered an ad I saw in the paper for a new cookie. I just had to have it. To my surprise, when I walked up and down the cookie aisle, the new cookies were not there. There was however the 387 other cookies which were roughly the same thing, but the new cookies were nowhere to be found. I had everything else on my list, milk, bread, paper towles, dog food, you name it, but no new cookies. I am pretty sure that they were just the same old cookie with a big shiny "NEW" sticker on the box but, THEY WERE NEW AND THE STORE DIDN'T HAVE THEM!!!

If I were to follow the logic, I should have dumped my cart over right there and stormed my way to the store manager's office. Upon arriving, the shouting and complaining would have begun until I had lost my voice. I then would have proceeded to write down all my complaints and hand them to him over and over until the new cookies arrived at the store. By that time, I am sure that some other new kind of cheese snack or other goofy dog bone would have been created and thus keeping the store "Outdated" and 100% useless.

Being a grocery store, this would have been horrible for the people living in that area because of the store becomming insignificant. Not having the latest cookie the very nanosecond it was invented would have been catastrophic to not only the area customers, but everyone on the planet due to the disservice that they had caused, and nobody on the planet should ever shop there again.

However to my dismay, I drove past the store just yesterday and noticed the parking lot packed with cars and people carrying out groceries like they were giving them away. I assume that these people were just totally stupid since they didn't realize how "Outdated" the store was for not having the latest cookies on the planet. I can only hope that they will realize before it is too late that these cookies will soon be the downfall of this store and everyone who works and shops there.

Ok, I really didn't want this to get that long but I was on hold with the phone company and had the time.

I didn't want to make this a rant, and I hope nobody takes it as one. I just felt as though I could try to slow this "Outdated" bandwagon a bit.

If you want to help keep ODP up to the second as far as new sites go, JOIN! Last time I checked it was still free.

Smokin78

Quite right. But consider this.

Because the store didn't have the cookies the first time then I didn't think anything, but what about the second, third and fourth time, in fact it doesn't have them for two years even although most other stores do. If I didn't start thinking "What else doesn't it have" then I am the most blinkered shopper I have ever seen.

If I looked closely enough the store was selling out of date cookies that in fact the manufacturer doesn't even make anymore. I looked into it further and it wasn't selling up to date toothbrushes either but it was selling up to date toilet brushes. It is not the stores fault because they don't have enough staff to cope with the clearing all the shelves, just the ones that the staff like the products themselves.

No expert applicants unfortunately for the cookie counter or toothbrushes in ages.

I ended up going to the cookie store that had the new cookies. Funnily enough they had alot of other things I wanted too. Completely forgot about the old cookie store and never went back although there is some older customers who it would take too much effort for them to change.

I drove past the old cookie store too and the car park was empty, guess the people did find out about the new cookie store after all and moved on.

I am not trying to be smart but show that there is genuine concern out there and not people just jumping on the bandwagon.

Smokin78 · Aug 23, 2006

Perfect!

You just made the point that most every other editor in ODP history has been trying to get across. There ARE MILLIONS of other stores and directories out there. Yahoo does things a certain way. They might not do it to everyone's liking so those people that don't like it go to MSN. MSN doesn't fit everyone's needs as well, so those people go to Google. Google does something that some don't like so they go to DMOZ, and so on and so on.

However, the only time something becomes insignificant or useless is when it does not get used any longer. Just because they invented a brand new 3 million terabyte hard drive, doesn't mean that everyone using the 2 million throws it away right then and there. The people using their stuff that are perfectly happy with their stuff will continue to use their stuff.

ODP must fall into the "stuff" category for more then a couple people otherwise it would not still be around and growing everyday.

The argument that people don't like a certain thing or way is the exact reason why there is more then 1 choice for just about everything. If there was only 1 car or 1 store or 1 directory, this wouldn't be an argument at all. The fact that so many people go out of their way to complain rather then change astounds me.

When I get a bad meal at a restaurant, I don't continue to go back and hope it doesn't happen again. I find somewhere else to eat. When I can't find what I am looking for somewhere, I try somewhere else. I don't waste my time complaining. If I think I can make a change for the better, then I make that change.

Smokin78

hutcheson · Aug 23, 2006

>I am not trying to be smart but show that there is genuine concern out there and not people just jumping on the bandwagon.

Nobody can fail to notice that there is a concern. And I don't think anyone believes it isn't genuine.

But there isn't a bandwagon. There are only a few thousand people who don't even play an instrument, but each one wants to be bandleader for the world. They get together, sure, to complain about the ODP's tin ear. But if they had to figure out who would be leading the bandwagon they claim is rolling along (rather than just forming an inchaote mob), they'd be making Kilkenny cats look pacifistic.

It's been that way for at least five years. But it is not in any way a public concern, it's merely a collection of mutually-contradictory personal concerns.

glengall, the grocery store situation you describe simply doesn't arise. The ODP is still the largest and most comprehensive store (in terms of departments), and if you had actually looked at the websites themselves (as I actually have!) you'd know for yourself that nine of ten of those so-called "new brands of cookies" are really vanilla wafers with "Nabisco" crossed out and "My Brand" scribbled across the package in unhygienic blue crayon. Or worse. Usually worse.

And nine of ten of the rest are simply other brands of vanilla wafers -- dispensable but not indispensable--absolutely nobody's beating down the door to ask for them. It's just people beating down the door to try to take up our valuable shelf space listing products that absolutely nobody's asking for.

But ... the ODP isn't and has never been a monopoly, and I don't think anyone wants it to be. So, if you find what you want at what's-his-name's-list (which I visited once and couldn't imagine ever wanting to visit again), or Amazon or YellowPages or ABEBooks or automallusa (which I have visited to my own advantage) -- or anyplace else on the web, then go there! I guarantee there won't be any hard feelings from anyone in the ODP community--WE aren't getting paid by the visitor!

glengall1 · Aug 23, 2006

Round In Circles

You also prove my point.

If something like a restaurany opens and it is not good, then if it does not change it will shut. If a restaurant can only serve a percentage of it's customers it may end up shutting down if it doesn't try to service the customers that it has to turn away.

hutcheson-
I don't want on the bandwagon. I want to help. As I said earlier I don't think it is dead but needs to realise and share it's problems. I am willing to become an editor in something that I have a little knowledge about. I have applied before (over a year ago) but did not obviously make the grade. I have applied again so we will see if my help is required.

Smokin78 · Aug 23, 2006

Just a guess...

I know this might be way out there in left field, but if you applied to edit something that you don't know anything about I don't think you are going to get accepted. I could be wrong. Actually I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.

Why not choose a subject that you, and maybe even others, consider you an authority on and apply for that. I would think that if you demonstrate you have extensive knowledge about a specific area, you would be a shoe-in as long as your intentions are genuine.

bobrat · Aug 23, 2006

Sometimes people apply to categories they think they are expert on, but fail to be accepted becuase the ignore the DMOZ listing guidelines. They then become very upset becuase they think their expertise is more important.

old_crone · Aug 23, 2006

If something like a restaurany opens and it is not good, then if it does not change it will shut. If a restaurant can only serve a percentage of it's customers it may end up shutting down if it doesn't try to service the customers that it has to turn away.

Who do you think the ODP's customers are and how are they being turned away?

armenoz · Aug 23, 2006

lan delüğünü deldüğümün dübürzade ibneleri .adam sandık eşşeği anlımıza değdi daşşaği

bobrat · Aug 23, 2006

Hackhell Forum

spectregunner · Aug 23, 2006

I would think that if you demonstrate you have extensive knowledge about a specific area, you would be a shoe-in as long as your intentions are genuine.

I do not review applications, but the above is patently wrong.

One must demonstrate the ability to identify websites that belong ina category and write a guidelines-compliant description. Sometimes being a content expert gets in the way of that happening.

hutcheson · Aug 23, 2006

You need to demonstrate both knowledge and intentions.

Most of the directory isn't rocket science: twelve-year-old children have made significant contributions. (Scary, though, how many adults don't have the grammar or learning skills of those overachieving twelve-year-olds!) And a few years working in an industry, a few courses on a subject, a few more years on a hobby, makes the right kind of people more than sufficiently expert.

Intentions are critical, though: and it's a difficult judgment area. So try hard not to see what (after all) seems like a "we don't trust you enough yet" response as a personal rejection. Think of it as: "you haven't yet demonstrated your trustworthiness." And think further back: how have you demonstrated that to the people around you in real life?

Some people never actually demonstrate reliability in action: sales types, in particular, are tempted to push the envelope of glib ignorance irretrievably deep into the dead letter box of obvious ulterior motives. And where talk serves well enough for every today, it may seem unimportant to act for any tomorrow.

But here, trust is not a tool for getting someone else to do something for you, it's doing something for someone else's good, without them even knowing ... because you know, eventually, people find out.

Smokin78 · Aug 23, 2006

Mis-said

After reading my post and sitting back for a few minutes I realized that I could have said it better. Spectre is exactly right.

Experts don't always make the best anything. It may help, but not always the only thing you need. I think that a strong intrest in a subject is just as important if not more. Being interested usually drives people to do and learn more because they WANT to, not because they HAVE to.

Sorry if I misled anyone and I hope that this helps to clear it up.

ODP Should be DEAD?

hutcheson

hyipodirectory

Member

hutcheson

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

glengall1

Member

hutcheson

glengall1

Member

Smokin78

Member

glengall1

Member

Smokin78

Member

hutcheson

glengall1

Member

Smokin78

Member

bobrat

Member

old_crone

Member

armenoz

Member

bobrat

Member

spectregunner

Member

hutcheson

Smokin78

Member