Open Directory Project should be renamed to Closed Directory Project

lkevinl · Sep 6, 2005

Hey Hutch... I've got my browny stars from Zeal (I'm so proud) and contribute when I can. I think their screening system is a bit better than "guess until you're in". As a matter of fact, I think there is no way you CAN'T learn from their process (how do you like that for a double negative?!?).

Most people here are not asking the real questions you want to hear like "How can I contribute better?". They're asking "Why can't I see what's going on?!?".
The simple answer is that they'll NEVER see what's going on here and to go a step further, I'm suggesting to wkenny a place to go where he can get what he seeks! He'll sleep so much better at night!

hutcheson · Sep 6, 2005

Yes, there is that difference. But ... the answer to both questions is really the same. The kind of help people come to the ODP to give, is the kind of help you can get from people through the ODP.

lkevinl · Sep 6, 2005

Agreed.
For the record, in mentioning the question "How can I contribute better" I was referring to submitters who come to this forum to ask editors about ways to submit better.

hutcheson · Sep 6, 2005

Well, that's one thing that's not really as different from the Zeal mentality. In Zeal, you _have_ to become an editor to even suggest a site. From the ODP point of view, we've just made the "suggest a site" capability more widely available -- more open, if you want to put it that way.

senox · Sep 7, 2005

And for every editor that responds to my rant, STOP IT and get back to editing-that is what makes you an editor- get back to work

You don't mind by any chance if I take the time to go to the beach, have a drink with friends of mine, eat, sleep, make love or prefer to do any other activity like that today, do you? :bignosewi

spectregunner · Sep 7, 2005

Speaking of hands, you have a lot of time on yours tonight, don't you?

Alucard · Sep 7, 2005

It's called a "Life" - you might want to look into getting one. I'm told that they can be terribly effective.

Alucard · Sep 7, 2005

MatrixViper said:
I really thought that the idea about not allowing users to have their site submissions reviewed would have freed up more time for the editors to do what they should be doing *editing* - obviously this has not occurred.

Since I don't find this postulation at all self-evident, I would appreciate it if you would back it up with some empirical evidence. Thanks.

tell me editorites, what are you folks going to do when your editor numbers rank in the thousands and nobody submits sites to you anymore?

We will go out and find the sites ourselves, thanks.

wkenny · Sep 8, 2005

The last word

hutcheson said:
>listing these sites maintains quality, the very core of the project.

Um, you must be talking about some other project. From the beginning, that was never the core of the ODP.

The following line is from "About the Open Directory Project"
"culling out the bad and useless and keeping only the best content."

Since so many of the editors who have repsonded on this thread seem to think that submitted sites are usually a waste of time, then why not remove the "suggest URL" link from this page and from other DMOZ supplied results pages?

Alucard · Sep 8, 2005

Not one person has said that it is a waste of time, I believe.

There are certain categhories in the directory where submissions are a very valuable source of new sites. There are other parts where the majority is submission spam.

Turning off Submissions entirely would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Believe me, it has been debated on this forum, other fora, and the internal editors' forum quite a few times, though, to evaluate whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

hutcheson · Sep 8, 2005

wkenny, good editing requires something more than a black-and-white attitude; it requires developing judgment. Google results are frequently spam-filled -- but it would be stark spittle-frothing insane to forbid editors from using Google!

Why should submittals be treated any differently? Editors are neither forbidden nor required to use them, but are encouraged to use their best judgment. So if time is wasted, it was time that was offered freely to that very purpose. And if time is not wasted, the submittals cause no harm. And how to know whether time would be wasted but to try some experiments?

If submittals are sometimes useful to some editors, that's reason enough to maintain the functionality. But there is never any need for a reason for any particular editor to ignore them -- editors aren't judged on what they don't do, but what they do contribute.

dvh · Sep 8, 2005

motsa said:
Rejected applicants generally get an email.

So this means, if I haven't gotten an email, I'm probably still in the running?

(not a sneaky attempt at a submission-status check. In fact, if this is really a general policy, then there is no need for submissions-status checks)

hutcheson · Sep 8, 2005

Don't confuse submittal status (which doesn't need a response, since no action is needed) with editor applications (which do, since presumably the applicant will take some action on being accepted.)

tdjames · Sep 8, 2005

dvh said:
So this means, if I haven't gotten an email, I'm probably still in the running?

(not a sneaky attempt at a submission-status check. In fact, if this is really a general policy, then there is no need for submissions-status checks)

You don’t get an email if your website is rejected or accepted in ODP. Mosta was making a statement that you receive a email if you applied to be an editor for ODP and you are rejected.

http://resource-zone.com/forum/showpost.php?p=196387&postcount=3

motsa said:
You cannot find out when you might be approved/not approved (Closed)

Click to expand...

Rejected applicants generally get an email. Whether you like what's in the email or not, you generally get one

dvh · Sep 8, 2005

Oops. Wishful thinking got the better of me. Carry on.

jaydilla30 · Sep 8, 2005

Quality and unique content is all you need to make it on the net. Whether or not your in the directory or not. But people with unique quality content are in the directory. It comes hand in hand

cusackj · Sep 10, 2005

But does ZEAL have the clout of DMOZ?

random777 · Sep 10, 2005

pvgool said:
From all the sites I have rejected only a handfull might be changed to become listable. For the other sites rejected by me I never want the owner to know why we didn't list his crap.

- it reflects editors' mutual attitude so well!

Psychiatric wonder - people start thinking so much alike when they become editors!

Regards,
Greg

pvgool · Sep 10, 2005

random777 said:
Psychiatric wonder - people start thinking so much alike when they become editors!

Being spammed with several 1000 sites each day that are totaly not listable will open your eyes very quickly.

giz · Sep 10, 2005

I just looked down the list of the unreviewed sites in a category, and out of over 200 "suggestions" not one has a title and description that comes even close to saying "posssibly listable". So today, I'll choose to not review and delete almost all of those sites, as that would be adding nothing to the directory public side at all. Instead I'll look in a different category for something more productive to do.

Open Directory Project should be renamed to Closed Directory Project

lkevinl

Member

hutcheson

lkevinl

Member

hutcheson

senox

Member

spectregunner

Member

Alucard

Member

Alucard

Member

wkenny

Member

Alucard

Member

hutcheson

dvh

Member

hutcheson

tdjames

Member

dvh

Member

jaydilla30

Member

cusackj

Member

random777

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

giz

Member