Potential Time Saver?

I think the best solution to dealing with backlog is to increase the quality of submissions rather than enforcing editors to do anything.

The thing is editors complain that they're not really interested in submissions at all, so a lot of your comments are just going in one ear and out the other.
And, lets face it, they have good reason. We all know the nature of spam. The open submitter as it currently stands is basically an invitation for spam.

However, what the editors don't seem to understand is that the directory has been *completely built out* by volunteer submitters .. that is, they are the submitters which built it out.

My idea is trying to turn everybody that came to the website into a sub-editor (submitter). The resulting filter could generate a certain degree of friction which will slow the incoming of spam.

The friction would be that you have to successfully submit to under-developed/low traffic categories before you can submit to a developed/high traffic category.

An interesting analogy: the friction could be a lot like the hybrid engine in that while you are braking you could actually be creating productive energy.

Another side benefit is that it will help people deal with the frustration of not being able to do anything about getting their site submitted.

Unfortunately, another problem, is that the editors have become so insular that they do not care about the frustration that they are developing in the community by not addressing backlog in a productive way.

For them, they just see 800K submissions backlog. They don't realise that equates ~800K people frustrated by their lack of control, lack of knowing what's going and a feeling that their website is seemingly being rejected.

>> The thing is editors complain that they're not really interested in submissions at all, so a lot of your comments are just going in one ear and out the other.

Technically we don't complain, we just try to explain...that submissions aren't the be-all and end-all of our existence, that they aren't even near the top of our list of priorities.


>> For them, they just see 800K submissions backlog.

Again, we don't really see a backlog of any kind since we're not obsessed with the number.


>> They don't realise that equates ~800K people frustrated by their lack of control, lack of knowing what's going and a feeling that their website is seemingly being rejected.

You're completely misrepresenting that number and you know it. You're presuming, incorrectly, that (a) each person submitted one and only one site (and then only once to a single category), (b) no one submitted a site that was unlistable (hah!!), and (c) none of them know anything about the status of their submission.



In any case, many editors here have tried to explain to you why your suggestion isn't going to happen any time soon if at all. Please give it a rest.

>This type of abuse is alarmingly rampant,
Oh? Really? Can you name, like, three examples?

It does occur. It is, so far as we can tell, MUCH rarer than self-promotional kinds of abuse. We believe our approach to accepting editors, and our constant reminders NOT to obsess over the size of the unreviewed queue, minimize this kind of damage. Of course, if you know of (and actually tell us about) instances, we will both look at the specific case and consider what patterns we might have been overlooking. But unless there is MUCH more of this than what we've found ... and someone tells us about the specific cases, speculative means for attempting prevention are not going to be high on our priority list.

>... and is detrimental to the Directory's growth.
It's not what we want to see, no. Its effects really aren't significant, and really wouldn't be significant even if it were widespread. Several times I've been in a position to review thousands of sites that had been multiply submitted, and I think I have experienced a large enough sample to say that ALL kinds of "inappropriate deletion errors" (of which this is only one) are down in the 1% range. On the other hand, you could set a nuke off in the unreviewed queue of most "competitive" categories without noticeably increasing the number of innocent bystanders killed.

This is not to say we don't take this seriously when it occurs -- recurrance would be considered "abuse" just like self-promotion; but it simply doesn't occur often enough to be a major problem. Editors make mistakes, and this is just one of them.

tshephard, the "friction" you propose to add wouldn't even faze spammers -- what's another dozen submittals when you're already doing hundreds a day? -- but would affect casual public-spirited viewers. The population you're trying to single out for special distinction is our primary source for spam. But you can't drive the directory policy by prejudicial class judgments, whether they are based on valid experience or on uninformed speculation! In the beginning, and in the middle, and in the end, you have to go down the line and look at the websites. After you've looked at enough websites, you begin to see patterns -- as you mention, you can start seeing spam almost without looking at it. (A different person, with different experience, would catch different patterns.)

That's why my favorite proposal for "mana points for non-editors" involves detecting spam that slipped past the editor, rather than submitting more sites that haven't yet slipped in. (That's something we always want to look at quickly, unlike submittals in any particular category). But there are as yet unresolved problems with that approach also.

hutcheson said:

tshephard, the "friction" you propose to add wouldn't even faze spammers -- what's another dozen submittals when you're already doing hundreds a day?

Click to expand...

How would it not faze a spammer? This statement is very frustrating .. It's like you keep calling me ignorant and I don't know what I am talking about .. and then you say something like that.

A spammer would *not* have the resources to go out and find and submit a dozen websites (spelling correct, correct category, not already in the directory, etc etc) just so they can get a prioritized review of their one website ... which isn't guaranteed entry into DMOZ anyways.

Why bother wasting all that effort just to submit a website that will probably get flagged as spam and ruin their submittal reputation? They just could not be bothered.

However, someone who *does* have a good website, which *should* be included would have no problem spending a couple hours or so tracking down smaller websites to submit to under-developed categories in order to get a prioritized review after being successfully accepted to those under developed cats.

This suggestion satisfies many goals:

a) Harnish the selfish energy of people who want their website in the cat for something productive,
b) De-prioritizes spammers who don't have the resources to submit a bunch of good websites just to try to get their likely to be denied website in sooner rather than later
c) Deals with the frustration of submitters who feel that they can't do *anything* to help get their website reviewed when they are sure it's appropiate
d) Lets the cream quickly float to the top


Motsa: the 800K is a number that was suggested to me. It was also suggested that there are few repeat submitters. Apologies for not knowing better .. what do you think is the accurate number? 400K submitters? 100K .. you tell me. It's still a lot of frustration generating a lot of ill will towards dmoz.

>A spammer would *not* have the resources to go out and find and submit a dozen websites (spelling correct, correct category, not already in the directory, etc etc) just so they can get a prioritized review of their one website ... which isn't guaranteed entry into DMOZ anyways.

That is not ignorant: that is simply delusional. Why can't a spammer use Google just like anyone else?

And yes, I've seen them do it.

Please, let's limit the insults - they reflect far more on the author than it does on the reader.

Spam sites would not get accepted - you're not going to submit a bunch of websites when you have a low percentage chance of getting accepted.

Carefully and succesffuly submitting websites to poorly developed cats will not automatically get you accepted in a well developed cat .. they will just give you a prioritized review.

I am sure, ten percent of the time, the spam site MIGHT get accepted in the well developed cat .. but that means you have to do it about ten times (for ten different sites) and that would require the successfull submission of 120 (12 * 10) websites in the mean time.

You guys keep saying it's a bad idea, but I have yet to see any evidence that you even understand what I am saying.

tshephard, I'm curious, do you understand the meaning of spam as defined by the ODP? Any site that does not comply with the guidelines can be considered spam because it was not solicited by the ODP. It's not just sites being submitted multiple times or with multiple URLs that is a problem. It's because there are many, many, many average people trying to make money off affiliate programs. Many might only submit their site to one category. They are not the traditional spammer but their sites are considered spam by the ODP. There are literally tens of thousands of these kind of sites being generated and submitted by individuals to the ODP.

There are thousands of good submissions approved everyday. Adding sites is not the only thing editors do. Even if your suggestions were implemented, the general public would not see greater results and the wait time would most likely not decrease enough to make everyone happy, even without the spam seeping through the cracks.

And I think you underestimate spammers in general. I've seen them join a directory and work their way up to a senior level before they start dropping their spam into the directory. It takes a lot of time and effort to get to a senior level so I doubt your suggestion will deter them.

You really should become an editor and experience it for yourself. Once you experience how much editors do on a voluntary bases, you will see that they do a pretty good job and the system works for the most part. The backlog is not a priority to most editors and once you experience being an editor, you will understand that they have other priorities that need to be addressed before even considering the backlog.

Different approach!

If the DMOZ does not require editors to work on submissions, this policy alone creates a few problems. First of all if a great web site is not ranked in the search results, an editor can't find it by surfing. Second it creates an opportunity for editors to promote their own site by doing less editing. I suggested earlier that maybe editors should explain to submitters why a site was rejected, maybe this is a bad idea but what if they attached a note to the site as to why they declined a site and a senior editor could at random audit some of their work and ensure the directory is not missing quality sites because of self promotion.

If the DMOZ does not require editors to work on submissions...

Click to expand...

It doesn't. If an editor is contributing to the net growth of the directory, no one really cares if they're looking in the suggestion pool.

First of all if a great web site is not ranked in the search results, an editor can't find it by surfing.

Click to expand...

You'd be amazed at how resourceful editors are at finding sites, even ones not ranked well (or at all) in search results. Search engines are only one possible resource.

Second it creates an opportunity for editors to promote their own site by doing less editing. I suggested earlier that maybe editors should explain to submitters why a site was rejected, maybe this is a bad idea but what if they attached a note to the site as to why they declined a site and a senior editor could at random audit some of their work and ensure the directory is not missing quality sites because of self promotion.

Click to expand...

We already have procedures like this in place.

An editor suggested to me that they'd like to just get rid of submissions altogether.

Personally, I think that's better than what currently stands. I think a lot of people are becoming needlessly frustrated.

At least, if not that, just shut off submissions when the backlog in a cat gets to be too much.

But nobody seems to want to do anything. It almost feels like the editors think angry people is a strategical direction of DMOZ.

It reminds me of the fiasco of that bathing suit designer that purposely made all their clothes 2 sizes smaller than what they tagged on the suits.

But nobody seems to want to do anything

Click to expand...

No, nobody wants to do the things you are suggesting. There is a difference, and I'm not trying to be a jerk by saying this.

An editor suggested to me that they'd like to just get rid of submissions altogether.

Click to expand...

More than one editor would likely suggest that (myself included on some days) but it isn't going to happen.

Personally, I think that's better than what currently stands. I think a lot of people are becoming needlessly frustrated.

At least, if not that, just shut off submissions when the backlog in a cat gets to be too much.

Click to expand...

But, again, that presumes that the "backlog" is critical to us. It isn't and if you get anything at all from what we've told you here, it should be that. You're operating on the assumption that the submitted sites are or should be our primary concern. And what we've been trying to tell you (and everyone else) ad nauseum is that they aren't and never will be. They are a tool...one of many and certainly not the most important one at our disposal.

Accept that as a given fact, not as something you can convince us to change our minds about.

just shut off submissions when the backlog in a cat gets to be too much.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately allowing submissions is an all or nothing prospect. There are lots of low level, obscure categories that get very few submissions - a handful or two over the course of a year. The submissions they do get tend to be appropriate and are pretty high value - we wouldn't want to cut off submissions in these categories. However, if we closed submissions elsewhere, the spammers are just going to search until they find a category they can submit to - regardless of how poor the fit. The end result would be that the few good submissions to those categories would be swamped by spam, effectively cutting them off.

But nobody seems to want to do anything.

Click to expand...

What about yourself? If you want to see a better method for getting good sites listed in the ODP, here's an idea that has been suggested before (here and elsewhere.)

Set up a new directory with a parallel structure to the ODP. Call it something like www.not-in-dmoz.com . Create whatever system you want for accepting and reviewing submissions. Heck - you can even charge a fee for review to cull spammers. You goal is to list sites that are not in dmoz at all, with ODP compliant titles and descriptions. Set up a process to remove sites from your directory whenever they get listed in dmoz. If you do this well, dmoz editors will notice and start mining your directory for links - we do this all the time with high quality directories.

If you want to see the ODP improve, please listen to the people who run it to understand what would actually help us meet our goals. Hopefully one of these days a suggestion for an external tool or directory will get taken up by one the folk so vigorously wanting someone to do something. Unfortunately, that someone always seems to be someone else.

lissa, leannabartram, etc ..

You keep saying people do not want to do what I am suggesting.

Can you honestly say that you (or even they) even understand what I am proposing? Or are you just speed reading posts and saying "well they have a negative tone so it must be a bad idea".

This is not the careful analysis one would expect out of a meta-editor for dmoz. I challenge you to instead of using your time to simply say "you are wrong, we are right", use that time to carefully read a couple of my posts until you are very confident you understand all of the issues at hand.

And then post what you feel is a compelling and confident argument as to why it will not work, instead of just saying "this editor here is being very insulting so the poster must be a dumb guy". Well, sure, I probably am dumb, but that certainly does not mean I can not come up with good ideas.

You know, it is not a very complex idea and I was actualy sure it was a bad idea, but everytime someone responded with a reason as to why it wouldn't work, they appeared to completely miss the point.

In fact, I do believe that odds are my idea won't work. That is usually the nature of ideas. You try about 10 of them, and one of them will only work .. partially. You learn from it, improve, and move on.

And, I am not stubborn and easily accepting of the fact that my ideas aren't the greatest. However, I usually try to persist in a conversation until at least the other side seems to comphrehend what I am suggesting so that if the idea isn't going to work then they'll usually provide some insight as to why it will not .. and I can learn from it, and move on.

However I have seen no comprehension and certainly no insight. Any insight I have gained is from reading posts in other forums, and generally everything I've read has been a lot of dmoz editors complaining about weeding through a lot of spam.

leannabartram,

The reason I say dmoz editors don't want to do anything about the general frustration has very very little to do with their reaction to my idea. After all it's a pretty tiny subset of the editors on dmoz. It is unfortunate that you personalize my statements with some kind of hidden agenda when I have provided very little reason for you to do so. When I argue it has nothing to do with my own agenda (I have none, except for a more efficient DMOZ), it has to do with what I believe is logically correct.

The reason I feel that editors do not want to do anything is a simple matter of browsing these forums. Time and time again I will see people express real, existing frustration and editors saying time and time again "that's just the way it is". Well, yes, I know you need to reject websites, but you can do it in a way that doesn't leave all of the submitters so deeply confused, bewildered, and frustrated.


Also, as for the suggestion that I try setting up my own dmoz .. I've heard that from a couple of other editors as well.

All I can productively suggest at this point is that if you'd like to do some light reading, consider visiting http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ and you'll discover some really great insights on the value of open collaboration and debate.

Well, all this reminds me of the well-known -- at least in France -- late French humorist Fernand Raynaud and of his skit 'Les Croissants'. It's a nonsensical dialogue between a customer and a waiter in a bar. The customer wants a coffee and two croissants. When told that there are no more croissants, he keeps asking for any beverage, but always 'avec deux croissants'...

tshephard, I'm not not trying to make fun of you, but I couldn't help remembering it when I read your last post...it

Sure - but who's the waiter and who's the customer?

I think the analogy would probably be better (and less insulting for someone) if the customer was speaking english and the waiter was speaking french.

99% of all discussions are generally based on this premise. If both participants fully spoke the same language, there would be no discussion, and it would be as simple as .. ordering coffee with 2 doughnuts.

OK, you've said your piece and we've said ours. Since we mutually agree that we don't understand each other, it makes no sense to let this thread go on. I'm now going to close it.