I noticed that a directory called Skaffe, which is very small at this point, had one clever feature: the ability to check submission status via a form. This might be a great time-saver not to mention a public relations plus - especially if it included reasons why (and when) a site that had been listed dropped out. Could save the people here a lot of time and effort too. Since this info is available to editors, it probably wouldn't be too hard to program.
Potential Time Saver?
- Thread starter davez
- Start date
bobrat
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
- Messages
- 11,061
Not to put a damper on it. But with the current software wqe can't check status without a major sfotware replacement, so it won't be happening.
We could email out, if a site was accepted or refused, but that would require a lot of work, although it's technically possible, but for various reasons, the current view is that no-one want's it to happen. Its' not a priority, when there are other things considered more important.
We could email out, if a site was accepted or refused, but that would require a lot of work, although it's technically possible, but for various reasons, the current view is that no-one want's it to happen. Its' not a priority, when there are other things considered more important.
tweedy7736
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2002
- Messages
- 32
Staff
Given what bobrat said, you should still feel free to email the dmoz staff with your idea. As stated, they have a lot on their plates already, but a constructive email never hurt anyone.
Given what bobrat said, you should still feel free to email the dmoz staff with your idea. As stated, they have a lot on their plates already, but a constructive email never hurt anyone.
Good Suggestion
This automated submission status check sounds like a good idea and with all the talented members here at the DMOZ it probably wouldn't be that hard to implement. I can't imagine to many things that would save more time. Since "submission status" is one of the few major forum topics, it would seem to be a priority!
This automated submission status check sounds like a good idea and with all the talented members here at the DMOZ it probably wouldn't be that hard to implement. I can't imagine to many things that would save more time. Since "submission status" is one of the few major forum topics, it would seem to be a priority!
Ah, but it is not an _editor_ priority. And it's not a _staff_ priority.
There are a variety of issues -- technical, security, privacy, confidentiality, quality-assurance. The general idea is not likely to be forgotten, but it is not likely to happen any time soon; and I suspect that any implementation will be ringed around with restrictions that will seem highly arbitrary to most people without some knowledge of cryptography and related fields -- but even more highly frustrating to spammers who are using thousands of automated test submittals to try to deduce why their dozens of intentional-spam submittals are not getting through.
There are a variety of issues -- technical, security, privacy, confidentiality, quality-assurance. The general idea is not likely to be forgotten, but it is not likely to happen any time soon; and I suspect that any implementation will be ringed around with restrictions that will seem highly arbitrary to most people without some knowledge of cryptography and related fields -- but even more highly frustrating to spammers who are using thousands of automated test submittals to try to deduce why their dozens of intentional-spam submittals are not getting through.
More Time Savers
1) Require editors to edit a good amount of submissions each month. I understand they are volunteers but the ODP gets plenty of editor applications each day that will provide editors that will follow established guidelines. If you want to edit than edit!
2) When an editor rejects a site have the editor comment on why. Lets stop the guessing game and tell a submitter why the site was rejected! This saves time because submitters will not have to ask a million questions as to why their site was rejected. This would also force an editor to give an honest opinion and help remove the possibility of alterior motives.
3) Have editors (or aspiring editors) who want to add their own sites to a category that they want to edit, submit the site at the same time they submit their application for editor or if they are currently an editor require them to have the site reviewed by a senior editor. This would eliminate the need to deny new applications for self promotion and also cut down on editors editing for personal gain. In addition if their site does not meet the guidelines for the particular category, the applicant is probably not qualified enough to edit that particular category.
1) Require editors to edit a good amount of submissions each month. I understand they are volunteers but the ODP gets plenty of editor applications each day that will provide editors that will follow established guidelines. If you want to edit than edit!
2) When an editor rejects a site have the editor comment on why. Lets stop the guessing game and tell a submitter why the site was rejected! This saves time because submitters will not have to ask a million questions as to why their site was rejected. This would also force an editor to give an honest opinion and help remove the possibility of alterior motives.
3) Have editors (or aspiring editors) who want to add their own sites to a category that they want to edit, submit the site at the same time they submit their application for editor or if they are currently an editor require them to have the site reviewed by a senior editor. This would eliminate the need to deny new applications for self promotion and also cut down on editors editing for personal gain. In addition if their site does not meet the guidelines for the particular category, the applicant is probably not qualified enough to edit that particular category.
In response to Hutchenson
Ah, but so what if you frustrate spammers! The DMOZ obviously gets spammed any way Hutch. Automated submissions could be easily avoided. I still can't see how this is wouldn't be a top subject but of course it's just my opinion.
Ah, but so what if you frustrate spammers! The DMOZ obviously gets spammed any way Hutch. Automated submissions could be easily avoided. I still can't see how this is wouldn't be a top subject but of course it's just my opinion.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
This has been discussed already several times here at RZ.helper said:
What do you prefer:
a) an editor that adds 1 site every 2 months
b) no editor at all
This also has been discussed several times.
- We will not tell anyone why a specific site is rejected and how we decided to do so.
- All reason for rejection are clearly specified in our Guidelines
So you'd suggest firing an editor who found hundreds of good listable sites using well crafted searches and moved or removed hundreds of listings changed or gone dead just because that editor didn't process submitted suggestions?
I don't think so.
One thing I see over and over again in these forums is posts that state or imply that service to webmasters is our purpose. It's not. We serve web users. If a webmaster benefits by something we do, all well and good, but it's a side effect, not our purpose.
I don't think so.
One thing I see over and over again in these forums is posts that state or imply that service to webmasters is our purpose. It's not. We serve web users. If a webmaster benefits by something we do, all well and good, but it's a side effect, not our purpose.
In response to brmehlman
This suggestion could be for new applicants (current editors grandfathered). It is exactly that a suggestion. You worry about webmasters to much. I am talking about helping the DMOZ. Some may not care about image, some may not care about efficiency. These suggestions may or may not be helpful but I will still make them. Is it because I am a webmaster, no! Many of the the editors here at the DMOZ are though! What percentage of editors own a site or sites? This is the internet, webmasters are common place here! A lot of what some perceive to be bad ideas can become good ones if you work on them.
This suggestion could be for new applicants (current editors grandfathered). It is exactly that a suggestion. You worry about webmasters to much. I am talking about helping the DMOZ. Some may not care about image, some may not care about efficiency. These suggestions may or may not be helpful but I will still make them. Is it because I am a webmaster, no! Many of the the editors here at the DMOZ are though! What percentage of editors own a site or sites? This is the internet, webmasters are common place here! A lot of what some perceive to be bad ideas can become good ones if you work on them.
Everything we've said about why we're not going to require editors to look at submitted site suggestions applies as much to new editors as to existing ones.
I'm always open to suggestions, but if they aren't going to further our goals I see no reason not to say so.
I'm always open to suggestions, but if they aren't going to further our goals I see no reason not to say so.
Concerning rejection notices:
helper, I understand why what you suggest would be very valuable to spammers, and indeed they are always spammer's top priorities. It is essential for spammers to know immediately how we detected their deception, so they can immediately change their strategy and not waste any of their own valuable time submitting spam we can easily weed out.
On the other hand, it's absolutely useless for submitters of legitimate sites -- you know, the ones we actually want to have more of, and don't reject.
I can see why this is important to you, and certainly there are many who will agree with you. But I'm completely puzzled as to why you think we're so extraordinarily stupid as to want to implement something that helps spammers hurt editors, but doesn't help submitters of legitimate sites!
Concerning editor quotas:
It has been said before and needs to be repeated until the message gets across: We are editors, not submittal reviewers! "Our priority is to build the directory!" and a directory-building editor who doesn't ever look at a single submittal is a valued member of the community. This is the official word, and the Editor-in-Chief says it often enough that it could be taken as the official motto. I couldn't change it if I wanted to. Not that I'd want to.
Editors' priorities are one of our most valuable assets, and we will not let site suggestions deprive us of that valuable asset.
Which part of that haven't you heard before?
helper, I understand why what you suggest would be very valuable to spammers, and indeed they are always spammer's top priorities. It is essential for spammers to know immediately how we detected their deception, so they can immediately change their strategy and not waste any of their own valuable time submitting spam we can easily weed out.
On the other hand, it's absolutely useless for submitters of legitimate sites -- you know, the ones we actually want to have more of, and don't reject.
I can see why this is important to you, and certainly there are many who will agree with you. But I'm completely puzzled as to why you think we're so extraordinarily stupid as to want to implement something that helps spammers hurt editors, but doesn't help submitters of legitimate sites!
Concerning editor quotas:
It has been said before and needs to be repeated until the message gets across: We are editors, not submittal reviewers! "Our priority is to build the directory!" and a directory-building editor who doesn't ever look at a single submittal is a valued member of the community. This is the official word, and the Editor-in-Chief says it often enough that it could be taken as the official motto. I couldn't change it if I wanted to. Not that I'd want to.
Editors' priorities are one of our most valuable assets, and we will not let site suggestions deprive us of that valuable asset.
Which part of that haven't you heard before?
In response to Hutchenson
Concerning rejection notices:
I am not sure that telling a person why the site was rejected would help a spammer. According to what ODP guidelines suggest a site may be rejected for other reasons besides spamming. I can't see how this would help a spammer one bit. I am not clear on your comment "I understand why what you suggest would be very valuable to spammers...". Is the ODP's goal to waste spammers time? No. If you are spamming how can you change your strategy? You probably can't! I Hope you don't think my goal is to spam or help spammers!
Why not tell people "don't bother submitting, the editor in this category would rather surf the net and find sites instead of looking at sites submitted to the category he or she edits. Your legitimate site may never be found!
Concerning rejection notices:
I am not sure that telling a person why the site was rejected would help a spammer. According to what ODP guidelines suggest a site may be rejected for other reasons besides spamming. I can't see how this would help a spammer one bit. I am not clear on your comment "I understand why what you suggest would be very valuable to spammers...". Is the ODP's goal to waste spammers time? No. If you are spamming how can you change your strategy? You probably can't! I Hope you don't think my goal is to spam or help spammers!
Are legitimate sites ever rejected?
Why is this important to me Hutchenson? I certainly don't think anyone is stupid!
Why not tell people "don't bother submitting, the editor in this category would rather surf the net and find sites instead of looking at sites submitted to the category he or she edits. Your legitimate site may never be found!
What does this mean? What priorities are you talking about?
What? Which part of what?
What???????
You are saying it's important to me?????????? Why?????????? Maybe I am taking this the wrong way and maybe I am not. I think this is important to all legitimate site owners. I also think improving the DMOZ and making it more efficient is important to editors and the editor-in-chief. Maybe I just can't see where you are coming from because I am not in your shoes!
What does this mean hutchenson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you accusing me of being a spammer!!!!!!!!!!!
You are saying it's important to me?????????? Why?????????? Maybe I am taking this the wrong way and maybe I am not. I think this is important to all legitimate site owners. I also think improving the DMOZ and making it more efficient is important to editors and the editor-in-chief. Maybe I just can't see where you are coming from because I am not in your shoes!
We know exactly what kind of sites we reject, therefore we know exactly what kind of webmaster is interested in the details of the rejections. That's simple logic, backed by specific experience.
Now, the only question left for us to consider is: are you among those who would not be helped by not receiving a rejection notice when their site wasn't rejected, or are you among those who desperately need information about how we figured out their sites are sneaky spam, so they can be more sneaky next time?
Only you can answer that, and you don't have to ... although I think you did.
Now, the only question left for us to consider is: are you among those who would not be helped by not receiving a rejection notice when their site wasn't rejected, or are you among those who desperately need information about how we figured out their sites are sneaky spam, so they can be more sneaky next time?
Only you can answer that, and you don't have to ... although I think you did.
I will just guess Hutchenson!!!
I have many web sites listed in the DMOZ. If your goal was to know just ask! I also have other sites all of which are legitimate that are not listed. Some I have submitted and some I have not. As to your puzzling questions and assumptions I really don't know what you think! This thread is not about defending my integrity, this thread is about potential time savers.
As far as why a site is rejected? Well, maybe I am going in the wrong direction there. I think that legitimate site owners are more concerned about being unfairly turned down or ignored as opposed to having spamming concerns. That's one of the reasons why I thought it would be a good idea to have editors explain their reasoning. To me it is very easy to spot spam. I see it in search engines and the DMOZ all the time! As far as spotting a spammer based on his or her suggestions in a forum??? You are very smart but if somebody thinks I am a spammer because of my posts they probably won't score high marks in common sense. Also you say "we know exactly what kind of sites we reject" that statement speaks for thousands of editors, I am pretty sure that two editors can look at a site and one will give it a thumbs up and the other a thumbs down. P.S. If I was a spammer I wouldn't have over 27 sites listed (all legitimate and maybe to your suprise not crosslinked or even remotely close to the same subject). Hutchenson you may want to check the ODP Communication and Codes of Conduct policy.
I have many web sites listed in the DMOZ. If your goal was to know just ask! I also have other sites all of which are legitimate that are not listed. Some I have submitted and some I have not. As to your puzzling questions and assumptions I really don't know what you think! This thread is not about defending my integrity, this thread is about potential time savers.
As far as why a site is rejected? Well, maybe I am going in the wrong direction there. I think that legitimate site owners are more concerned about being unfairly turned down or ignored as opposed to having spamming concerns. That's one of the reasons why I thought it would be a good idea to have editors explain their reasoning. To me it is very easy to spot spam. I see it in search engines and the DMOZ all the time! As far as spotting a spammer based on his or her suggestions in a forum??? You are very smart but if somebody thinks I am a spammer because of my posts they probably won't score high marks in common sense. Also you say "we know exactly what kind of sites we reject" that statement speaks for thousands of editors, I am pretty sure that two editors can look at a site and one will give it a thumbs up and the other a thumbs down. P.S. If I was a spammer I wouldn't have over 27 sites listed (all legitimate and maybe to your suprise not crosslinked or even remotely close to the same subject). Hutchenson you may want to check the ODP Communication and Codes of Conduct policy.
This does not imply that an editor should not review submittals
Some editors feel that a high number of unreviewed sites in a category is inherently bad, and choose to delete them rather than deal with them in an appropriate manner. A variation of this is when editors delete submissions that are inappropriate for their category, as opposed to attempting to find the correct category and moving the site there.
This type of abuse is alarmingly rampant, and is detrimental to the Directory's growth.
It can be detected in two main ways:
You notice that the number of unreviewed in a category has droppped dramatically, or at a significantly faster pace than normal. (Keep in mind that this could simply be caused by a new editor in a particular sub-category or a higher level editor helping out.)
You notice, while adding sites from Unreviewed, that they have previously been deleted. (In many cases this was appropriately done because the sites were submitted more than once; there will usually be notes left to that effect.)
Some editors feel that a high number of unreviewed sites in a category is inherently bad, and choose to delete them rather than deal with them in an appropriate manner. A variation of this is when editors delete submissions that are inappropriate for their category, as opposed to attempting to find the correct category and moving the site there.
This type of abuse is alarmingly rampant, and is detrimental to the Directory's growth.
It can be detected in two main ways:
You notice that the number of unreviewed in a category has droppped dramatically, or at a significantly faster pace than normal. (Keep in mind that this could simply be caused by a new editor in a particular sub-category or a higher level editor helping out.)
You notice, while adding sites from Unreviewed, that they have previously been deleted. (In many cases this was appropriately done because the sites were submitted more than once; there will usually be notes left to that effect.)