questions for the editors

First, let me preface my thoughts with these:
1. I refer to the editors as a group with the pronoun 'you'. This is in no way meant to imply that all are as I will note. There are exceptions to every rule. If the remark does not apply to you (specific), don't get in an uproar.
2. I understand that the editors are volunteers, and have other things to do (job, family, a life in general) and, most importantly, are not paid for what they do. I do not have any knowledge of their work load, paid or voluntary.
3. I'm not intending to make the editors mad, but merely to note my observations and get some answers to some not-so-unreasonable questions. If I in fact do make you (the editors) mad, perhaps the comment struck pretty close to home, and some introspection is in order.
4. As most interaction between user and editor concerns the user's site, site submission status , etc., these are where the majority of my observations stem.



I have noticed in the threads I've read that you seem to go out of your way to be as rude, un-informative, un-cooperative, un-helpful, and holier-than-thou as possible. This is completely un-necessary. The virtue of being an editor does not put you in a higher place than we, and implies no right to behave as if you are.

The DMOZ is supposed to be the basis of a web community, not somewhere we lowly peons come in supplication to the omnipotent and untouchable high gods of the internet, the DMOZ editors.

You must understand that we do not understand. We don't know how your system of site review works, the number of applicants (supplicants) in each category, number of editors in each category, time available by the editors to review sites, etc. We don't know, and you won't tell us. Neither do we know why you won't tell us, you simply won't. All we want is information. We sit in obscurity, month after month, wanting just a glimmer of hope that we too might be one of the chosen few who can say their site is listed. You, however, sit high on the pedistal you've crafted for yourself, lording over us, saying: "Your site is currently being ignored. For one month hence, your querries are hereby BANISHED! Now begone with you." Obviously, that's not a direct quote, but it is the apparent attitude. May the gods be merciful if we want to know anything else. The knowledge is yours, and yours alone. To share it with the pesants might actually cause understanding.

Alright, I feel somewhat better. Enough ranting sarcasm. I trust the point is taken.

On to the serious questions: Why can't, or more accurately, won't you give us more information? Would that disrupt things so incredibly much? All we want is information.

What is so harmful about us knowing how many sites are in the cue and how many editors are on the section? That might actually give us an idea about how long it might take. Then, we might just leave you alone....

Why do you have the aloof attitude? There's no reason to talk down to us. Just because you have the power doesn't mean you have the right to be rude. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

You spendin a lot of time here, talking down to us and not informing us of anything. I'd bet that if you spent more time reviewing the sites (that is your prime function, right, not harrassing us) instead of patrolling the message board, there would be a LOT less sites "currently under review". We, then, would spend less time bothering you, because our sites would be listed. I think it would be a LOT easier that way.

avengers63 said:

On to the serious questions: Why can't, or more accurately, won't you give us more information? Would that disrupt things so incredibly much? All we want is information.

What is so harmful about us knowing how many sites are in the cue and how many editors are on the section? That might actually give us an idea about how long it might take. Then, we might just leave you alone....

Click to expand...

Because knowing how many sites are in the cue and how many editors are able to edit any category will not help you in any way. It will not give you an idea of how long it might take to get your site reviewed because there are just too many variables in a human edited directory.

avengers63 said:

Why do you have the aloof attitude? There's no reason to talk down to us. Just because you have the power doesn't mean you have the right to be rude. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Click to expand...

We have no more or less power than you have. The abuse many editors have experienced (I'm talking very real abuse) from Webmasters/owners who just wanted information has resulted in editors taking a more aloof stance towards Webmasters/owners.

avengers63]You spendin a lot of time here said:

is[/B'] your prime function, right, not harrassing us) instead of patrolling the message board, there would be a LOT less sites "currently under review". We, then, would spend less time bothering you, because our sites would be listed. I think it would be a LOT easier that way.

Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways. Either we supply you with information or we don't. You might not think the information provided has any value but it's all that can be offered. Our prime function is not focused on doing reviews. In fact, that is at the bottom of the list and no editor is forced to do reviews. Our primary function is to find and categorize sites. There are many ways to find good sites, the cue is just one way. If editors stop doing reviews today, it will not change the directories growth one iota.

I grant you it's a rant, but it is an INTERESTING rant. I'll take a shot at it. Let me start, if not at the tail, at least near the hinder talons of it.

(1) We don't tell how long the queues are. Why not? Well, we tried it -- in these forums, no less. And yes, it gave people an idea about how long they had to wait. The problem was, it gave people the WRONG idea. And after months of watching the reaction, we decided it really wasn't helping people understand, so we stopped.

(2) There are two things you ask for, information and hope. (There's a third thing some people demand: immediate personal attention, but I trust we've made it clear we don't offer that.) We can't really offer hope, because (like information about time waiting for review) we really don't know anything. One of my personal goals in this forum is to help people understand why we don't know, and why we don't mind not knowing. Because it is not just you who don't know what the editors will do tomorrow! So long as they are doing SOMETHING good, we are grateful and hope for more. That is not good enough to build a website promotion for a particular site on; but it is good enough to build the net's most comprehensive directory, which is our goal.

(3) There are two kinds of information you mention, global and specific. We really try to answer the questions about global process, and our hope is that will let you know why we won't answer some kinds of specific questions: we really don't know, and what we don't know won't help.

In this context, consider this example of our standard answer to a FAQ:
"My category has no editor, should I submit somewhere else?" The standard answer says, "NO! there are hundreds of editors who could edit in that category [but some of them never will, and the others have many alternative categories to edit in]; and even if it HAS listed editors, they may not be active currently. So submit to the one right place." That may sound like a put-off, but it's really not. We don't know, and you CAN'T know, just by looking at listed editors, whether a category is likely to be actively edited soon. That's not the answer you would want, but -- if you read it as telling something about our global process -- can you understand that it's the only answer we can give about the specific situation?

(4) I understand you seeing the ODP editors as untouchable, and that is something we will fight for. But it's not because we think they are gods; it's because we know they are humans. And not all of them young men with large-caliber lightning bolts (or firearms) always to hand: children, some of them pre-teenagers, grandmothers living alone, or mothers of very small children, in many ways susceptible to physical or electronic harassment. Without the protection of some large corporation with security guards and lawyers, We've had to deal with physical stalking, phone harassment, e-mail spamming.

Personal contact with submitters, is, we know from experience, risky and dangerous. So we strongly recommend that editors not make personal contact as editors, and we try to protect them from unwanted personal contacts that are made.

But 95% of submitters are not violently inclined, you say? True, but we can't tell which 5% of you are. And we have to treat everyone as if they were a closet psychotic, which means -- aloof and untouchable EXCEPT in public places like this forum, where ODP editors can control the content as necessary to protect that anonymity.

(5) Could we get more editing done if we didn't spend so much time here? Maybe. Maybe we'd watch TV instead. Some people think the forum is worth doing, and so they do it. Others don't, and so they never visit it. Which is better? I have my own opinion, you may form your own, but each editor is driven solely by his own opinion of what's worth doing, and neither one of us gets a vote.

(6) So when people ask for more power over editors (you didn't, but many submitters do), in many respects they are asking for something we don't have and can't give. It is a source of endless puzzlement to people -- how can you run a community this way? You don't. It runs itself, or it doesn't. And it runs in all sorts of strange directions. Some editors think we need better tools for finding spammers. They think that so strongly that they build the tools and persuade people to try them out. Some editors think we need forums. Some think we need to organize editing parties to clean up poor taxonomies, bad links, poor descriptions, misspellings, etc. So they try to organize them and coordinate whoever they can persuade to pitch in. All of those activities take away time that might have been spent reviewing sites. That's fine; they improve the directory, and improve all editors' sense of quality.

And sometimes editors even form "catbusting bees" to focus attention on the unreviewed sites in particular long-neglected categories. That takes away time that might have been spent in another category. That's fine. Editors are improving the directory, and we are grateful.

(7) This is the way it works. It does what it was meant to do, and it does it better than any other system as yet attempted. But, as I hope you can see, there are some things it simply CANNOT do. And one of them is to get any particular site submittal reviewed in any set timeframe. Unfortunately, that last is really the only thing most submitters are interested in. But the forum is dedicated to the ideal of helping people understand how it works, why it works, and what it can and cannot do. If we succeed in that, it will cut down on the frustration people feel when they hope or expect that it will do something which it can't do. And that will have made the forum worth while.

avengers63 said:

Why can't, or more accurately, won't you give us more information? Would that disrupt things so incredibly much? All we want is information.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes it would. We've learned the hard way that giving detailed information just invites bickering or arguing. Regarding sites that are rejected, we're not here to handhold you until your site is listable -- the guidelines are public and pretty clear. Regarding sites that are still waiting, anything more than a confirmation that you are waiting is irrelevent as we can't give review time estimates in such a situation.

avengers63 said:

What is so harmful about us knowing how many sites are in the cue and how many editors are on the section? That might actually give us an idea about how long it might take. Then, we might just leave you alone....

Click to expand...

How many sites are waiting to be reviewed in a category is irrelevent since editors may add sites directly rather than touching the pool at all. As noted in numerous other threads, dealing with the unreviewed queue is really not our top priority. Yes, it's a source for new additions to a category but it isn't the only or even the best source. The number of editors in a section (which is ~200 plus however many are actually listed on a category or its parents) is also irrelevent as there are plenty of well-tended categories with no listed editors and plenty of neglected ones with multiple editors listed.

avengers63 said:

Why do you have the aloof attitude? There's no reason to talk down to us. Just because you have the power doesn't mean you have the right to be rude. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Click to expand...

Tone is in the eye of the beholder. What you take as "talking down" to me is just someone trying to give you an answer within our restrictions.

avengers63]I said:

is[/B'] your prime function, right, not harrassing us) instead of patrolling the message board, there would be a LOT less sites "currently under review".

Click to expand...

Actually, our function as editors is to do what we can to further the growth of the directory. Reviewing sites that have been submitted is truly such a small part of that function (I know you don't understand that but trust that it's the case and move on with your life). And if you'd really rather us spend less time answering questions (and, frankly, what we do with our time and energies is not something you should be worrying about), why are you adding to the questions begging to be answered?

motsa said:

Reviewing sites that have been submitted is truly such a small part of that function (I know you don't understand that but trust that it's the case and move on with your life).

Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of the two main complaitns: rudeness and refusal to pass on knowledge.

We, the users, know only that your 'job' is to review sites and reply to our questions on the forum. If that's the least of your responsibilites, what are the others? As I said before, knowledge leads to understanding.

As to being rude, there was no reason to say '...and move on with your life' other than to condescend to me. Why did you feel it was necessary to talk down to me like that? Thank you, though, for proving my point: some of the editors are un-necessarily rude.

old_crone said:

Because knowing how many sites are in the cue and how many editors are able to edit any category will not help you in any way. It will not give you an idea of how long it might take to get your site reviewed because there are just too many variables in a human edited directory.

You might not think the information provided has any value but it's all that can be offered. Our prime function is not focused on doing reviews. In fact, that is at the bottom of the list and no editor is forced to do reviews. Our primary function is to find and categorize sites. There are many ways to find good sites, the cue is just one way.

Click to expand...

I absolutely disagree with the first paragraph. Knowing how many are in teh waiting room with us will give us an idea of how busy the editor is. The busier he is, the longer it we might have to wait.

I disagree that what you offer is all you can; it is all you will. There is a difference.

If categorizing sites is not done by reviewing the submissions, how is it done? All we know is through the submission process. Therefore, by what we know, reviewing the submissions=addding & categorizing sites. I noted the cue because that is all I know. So then, if reviewing submissions=addding & categorizing sites, and that is not your function, what do you do?

Hutchenson brought up an interesting point: categories w/ no editors. If there is no editor assigned, or he isn't active, what's the harm in telling us? You note that another editor has the option to jump in, but is under no obligation to do so. We then know that you have no knowledge, and why. While we still can't do anything but wait, we now know why.

We're out here wondering why, and you're in there, potentially knowing why, and refusing to tell us, without good reason.

avengers63 said:

Hutchenson brought up an interesting point: categories w/ no editors. If there is no editor assigned, or he isn't active, what's the harm in telling us?

Click to expand...

That's public information already--just look at the category. Our purpose here is to tell you how USELESS it is.

As for motsa's point, motsa is absolutely right, and your impression of our "job" is altogether wrong. Our job was not, is not, and will never be to review submittals. And as for answering submitters' questions -- you can see how unimportant that is to the project, since the ODP website has no mechanism for it at all, and for over four years there wasn't any official way at all to do it! The only mechanism for it is via outside forums (this one was set up by an editor on his own underutilized server.)

Our job, our only job, is to find good websites and add them to the directory. Everything else is a tool. Google, personal knowledge, hand-spidering links pages, advertisements, and ... there was another one ... memory fading ... oh, yes, site submittals.

That's right, site submittals are just another tool in an editor's toolbox: in some categories they are the least useful and most spam-ridden of all; in other categories, they are simply not present; in some categories they are actually useful. The editors have a free choice of tools, although they are enjoined NOT to rely too much on any particular one.

Which brings us back to another question. When someone asks, "how many other sites are there in my category to review?" the only proper answer is "How can we possibly know? Tell us how many competitors with websites do you have, and you'll know (without us saying anything) how many other websites there are for that category." Because, and this is perhaps the most important thing you must understand, our JOB is to list all good websites, not just websites that are submitted. People actually say, "my category is competitive, when will I get a listing?" They'll get one when everyone else does, if not before. And if the category is competitive, they had better figure on a VERY long wait.

How, then, do you go about finding viable sites besides using the submissions? Is there another database you use, somewhere else I can bring my business' website (www.buxomlingerie) to an editor's attention, etc? Again, and I'm really beating the hell out of my dead horse here, I just want more information.

avengers63 said:

We, the users, know only that your 'job' is to review sites and reply to our questions on the forum.

Click to expand...

Ah, no; this is a common misperception. We were not recruited to review sites and reply to forum questions. These are useful side tasks, and those of us who choose to attend to them are appreciated for it, just as the other teachers appreciate it when I take the time to clean the faculty kitchen. But that's not what we were hired for, and it's not what our supervisors are judging our progress by.

Our primary job is to build the directory, by locating, decribing, and adding good sites to it. If we are senior editors we can also improve the categorization system. Our secondary job is to maintain the directory, by identifying bad, non-functional, and non-compliant sites and either fixing the URL to a working one or deleting the site from the directory. Processing user submissions is an optional task, one that some editors find valuable to spend their time on and others (particularly editors of categories with extremely low-quality submission queues) do not.

Unfortunately, whenever we make statements based on this true situation, it's construed as rude and haughty by all the webmasters who *wish* our job was to serve them so much that they *believe* our job is to serve them. I can count the number of people who have actually accepted that this is not the case when I've directly told them so on one hand. But think about it: you're not paying us. You're not giving us anything, in fact. And the organization for which we're volunteering has asked us to do a task other than the one you want us to. So why is it rude, imperious, mean, [insert adjective here] for us to state that reviewing your site is not our primary priority? In any other venue, you'd accept a statement like that without blinking, wouldn't you?

avengers63]How said:

www.buxomlingerie[/url']) to an editor's attention, etc? Again, and I'm really beating the hell out of my dead horse here, I just want more information.

Click to expand...

Google is a great resource as are other search engines. Then there are sites already listed that link to relevant sites. When I find one site to list I can usually find a few more. There is not just one source.

avengers63 said:

I absolutely disagree with the first paragraph. Knowing how many are in teh waiting room with us will give us an idea of how busy the editor is. The busier he is, the longer it we might have to wait.

Click to expand...

Yes, it will give you an idea, no doubt: but our experience -- and I speak as someone who's been moderating ODP forums for years -- is, that it gave the WRONG idea. There is no correlation between the size of the queue and the activity of the editor. And -- this is the more important point -- there is no correlation between the size of the queue and the number of sites in the waiting room: because all sites on the web are always by definition in the waiting room.

For the question about categories with or without editors, number of reviewed, etc. the reason it's useless is that no-one knows what the editor is going to do with that pile of unreviewed. I might take a break form a category for a month, to work on other categories that I feel need more attention. If that category I take a break from had two unreviewed, then you might think they would get dealt with soon, but now they are going to wait for a month. Then when someone takes a look in three week, it looks like I've given up editing that category, but next week, it will be taken care of. No-one can read my mind.

Or lets say a category has 100 unreviewed, and I routinely process 5 per day, so it seem in 20 days, the backlog will be cleared. Another editor looks at that, and tells someone, don't worry, your site will be reviewed in a month. Surprise, I'm going on vacation for three weeks - result, an unhappy submitter, with false hopes.

Or how about a category that no-one has edited for 6 months, should we say to you give up hope, nobody is editing there. What if tomorrow, an editor decides to take an interest in the area, and sweeps into it cleaning up all the unreviewed in a week. We can't predict the future.

As far as adding sites that were not suggested, I have a category where I've added several hundred sites that were never sent to me, in fact most of the category was built that way. I just cruise around in Google looking for other sites that link to these sites,I look for patterns of keywords that help to find them.

avengers63]How said:

using the submissions? Is there another database you use...

Click to expand...

Um, "Google, personal knowledge, hand-spidering links pages, advertisements..."

An editor can use any database, any resource they know about. Editors are encouraged, no, make that "exhorted," to use a variety of approaches.

But that brings us back to a constructive question. The best way to make an ODP listing happen more quickly is to make it easier for editors to find. That includes (but does not stop at) submitting it directly to the ODP. It includes promoting it in the major (and semi-major) search engines; it includes online and offline advertisements (some editors drive around with a notepad, to copy URLs off of commercial vehicles); it includes other directories and links pages.

Note that some of these forms are MUCH less spammy than others: I have yet to see a hotelnow.spam affiliate URL painted on a delivery van!

The important thing is that when a surfer (not just an editor) looks for mousterian widget replicas, your MWR site should show up in all the possible locations. Especially make sure that you show up in venues where haute net cuisine is served and spam is not on the menu! (Note, alas, that the ODP site submittal queues are not all such venues.)

If you're thinking that the ODP is the FIRST step in your site promotion, you're going about it all wrong. ODP SUBMITTAL may be first, but after you do that, you have to get down to serious work.

Ah, these types of threads are fun. (And no, that's not intended to be rude or condesending. )

In no particular order:

How, then, do you go about finding viable sites besides using the submissions?

Click to expand...

We search the internet using different search engines. We "mine" listed site's link lists. We take note of URLs in newspapers, magazines, phonebooks, brochures (my pile on my desk is currently ~6 inches deep.) We follow on-line news and blogs, and some of us search desparately for a pen while driving to note things spotted on billboards or heard on the radio. Everywhere we turn there are URLs calling out for attention and promising the possibility of something neat.

By and far the best sites that I've listed are the ones that I have found myself. In the spammy area of the directory, the majority of stuff is cr@p, and only some of it is acceptable for listing. In areas of the ODP that aren't very spammy, most of the listings are run-of-the-mill. Once in a while I find a real gem in the unreviewed (one where I think "Wow! What great information! I'm so glad this was submitted!") But unfortunately that only happens for maybe 1 in 1000 sites I look at.

I absolutely disagree with the first paragraph. Knowing how many are in teh waiting room with us will give us an idea of how busy the editor is. The busier he is, the longer it we might have to wait.

Click to expand...

I know that in the normal world this would make sense, but really, it has no bearing at all in the ODP world. When we say the wait could be anywhere from 2 hours to 2 years - we mean it. I've listed things in the same category with exactly those durations that sites had been awaiting review. There are categories with only 1 or 2 sites that have been sitting for more than a year. There are categories with hundreds of sites waiting that get targetted for a cleanup. Lucky for you if you submitted the day before the cleanup; unlucky if you submit the day after the group of editors moves on.

The only sort-of-concrete numbers we can convey is that there are over 1,000,000 unreviewed across the directory and that we add 3000-4000 sites a day. Whether or not they came from unreviewed, we can't say. How much spam was deleted and how much new spam submitted, we can't say. Although you can tell where activity has occurred recently, you can't predict if activity will continue there in the future. Asking for waiting times is futile - I can't even tell you what I'm going to work on from day-to-day.

This is one of those topics that get editors frustrated (and lead to posts percieved as rude.) When you spend a lot of time trying to tell the truth and explain how something works and are just not understood, or occasionally called a liar, it's annoying to say the least.

I'd bet that if you spent more time reviewing the sites ... instead of patrolling the message board

Click to expand...

I read and post here at times when I am not interested in editing. It can be good lunchtime entertainment, and uses a different set of braincells.

We, then, would spend less time bothering you, because our sites would be listed.

Click to expand...

Another fundamental disconnect is the perception by webmasters that we are a listing service. We are not. We are a bunch of hobbyists who happen to have pulled together a directory that others find useful. We realize the importance that a lot of webmasters perceive the ODP to be in promoting their sites, but that isn't our problem or concern. We realize that this attitude is frustrating for webmasters, but that also isn't our concern. We realize that this is what leads to the perception of us being "aloof" or "holier-than-thou", but that also doesn't concern us. The ODP has certain goals, webmasters have other goals. Allowing submissions provides a source of sites for the ODP to help further its goals, and just so happens to also further the webmaster's goals - but from our perspective this is just a by-product, not the main intent.

If I weren't too tired, I'd try to come up with a good real world analogy to explain that expecting to be able to impose your own goals on someone else who has very different goals is simply unrealistic. You'll have to imagine it.

I have noticed in the threads I've read that you seem to go out of your way to be as rude, un-informative, un-cooperative, un-helpful, and holier-than-thou as possible.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are occasions when an editor has been less than polite, however, the majority of replies that are construed as rude are simply concise. In order to provide basic information to all the people requesting information, the concise and terse style has developed over time. Any other style has seemed to either draw us into longer discussions than necessary or has led to misconstruing what was said.

Hmmm ... Now let's see how many posts have been added while I typed.

<added>
8

I agree with lissa, this is a very good discussion. The problem is that only a very few people will read it, and therein lies the problem.

All the things you asked for...they have all been provided time and time again. we have the bee-hive analogy, the shoe manufacturer analogy, the fruit grower analogy (just to name a few). Many, many hours have been put into trying to explain things, and just like the READ BEFORE POSTING notice, very few people take the time to read what we write unless it is directly and specifically related to them.

Why don't we help more? Did you see the thread just this week where I tried to offer some assistance to someone in possibly getting a regional listing, and recieved nothing but sarcasm and snide remarks in reply? Have you seen the dozens and dozens of threads where someone doesn't get the answer they want, and then accuses us of all being corrupt (and of course, they never publicly mentioned the 16 fraternal mirrors they were trying to slip past us.)

Have you see all the threads that begin by asking us whey we have blacklisted their site, when it has never been touched by an editor and they don't even have a clue as to where or when they submitted.

Yes, we do get short on occasion, and yes, we all try and strive not to do so. I've seen any number of private mesasges from one editor to another asking "did I go over the top on the following thread......"

And we have all received the semi-private nudges (some would call them hip-checks) from the senior most editors reminding us of our manners. We even have an ongoing thread called Member to Editor relations in which we flog outselves over bad behaviour.

Your question about posting here versus editing is a valid one. I can only answer for myself. I have this forum up on my screen at work all day long. Many times I have a minute or two of free time, I jump in, answer a question or two and bail out. I cannot efficiently jump into a category and properly edit a site in that amount of time, further, the editing tools I rely on to help me do a quality job are on this machine at home. This is a hobby. I have a full time job and two part time jobs. Yet ODP gets a slice of my time almost every day -- either by editing sites, or helping out here. Yet I, like many of my contemporaries, get offended when someone tries to tell me how to manage my time, or suggests that I am not using my editing time efficiently.

So where are we going with this? Well, I hope that you will see that even within our editing community we are not in total agreement on how best to communicate or what degree of communication is correct. We do have a very high degree of concensus in adreeing with th Editor in Chief that we are not here to serve the webmasters, we are not here to process submissions, we are here to build a great directory that helps our surfers. That's really it in a nutshell.

I can also tell you, without breaking any confidences (I hope) that when the submissions were shut down for several weeks due to technical issues surrounding the conversion -- many many editors prayed aloud that the submissions never get turned back on. Our prayers were unanswered, but we still have hope.

Thank you for participating in our forum.

old_crone said:

Google is a great resource as are other search engines.

Click to expand...

A new feature looks interesting:

http://www.google.com/webalerts

Interesting

I just started coming to this site several weeks ago. In no surprise it was to check the status of site I had hoped to add. It was intersting to read some of the posts of both editors and members.

I did (and still do but I understand now) find the editors to be a bit condescending, aloof et al. I began to read opinions of both the editors and members and at the same time become frustrated with a site denial for reasons that made no sense. I wanted to strangle someone.

With this thread, however, and the fact that another editor has offered to look into my case on technical grounds along with my reading of some other editor opinions I have begun to understand your plight. The points that some of you editors have made here are wonderful (insightful really) and should open up some eyes. I hear where your coming from.

Having said that, however, do you think that it is possible to become more relevant, more important and for reasons beyond which were initially intended. As the Internet has evolved, with all the paid inclusion, with the new costs and deacreasing effectiveness of advertising, increased competition, search algorithms etc., your site offers perhaps the most powerful free method to increase search relevancy and hence traffic. There are many people who have invested tons of time, money, sweat, tears, hopes and dreams in order to start their own business.

I'm sure the importance that DMOZ holds now is not comensurate with its intended vision. I'm sure the reason that people, hobbyists, you say, join on and devote their time to this project is for far more noble and important goals than to increase some sites relevancy in a search on another site. The fact remains, however, that you have become VERY important. Again, possibly more important than the original vision but most certainly in a different way. Unfortunately there are dreams and real money at stake in something to you that is a hobby.

This is no impassioned plea on my part. Instead, I find it fascinating on many levels. In the world we live commerce creeps in everywhere it senses possibility. This is unfortunate

Perhaps you have become too relevant, too important with regard to commerce - more important than just a hobby at no fault of your own. This is where the problem lies I think. It is a fundamental problem. I'm sure soon (not soon enough?) for both webmasters and editors of DMOZ alike SEO schemes and technology will evolve allowing you to pursue hobbies, small store owners to worry somewhere else and SEO specialists to harass someone else.

I thoroughly enjoyed your posts.

One more comment about the whole terseness thing - I would like nothing better than to provide more information to people. I used to. I got harrassed in emails and PMs, I very VERY rarely got any feeling that the information I was giving was doing any good.

I became an editor because I wanted to "give something back", and, being a geek, this seemed like a very good way. I want to build a directory of useful sites for end-users (not webmasters) - that is my goal.

One of the things I realised about helping people was that they really don't want to be helped - they just want their way. Here's an example of a typical discussion.

"I need the status on my site"
"It still awaits review in the category, along with 27 other sites. I notice that the editor has been active in the category recently, so you should be reviewed pretty soon. I've taken a look at your site and it looks worthy of a listing in that category."
"Well, how soon is soon? I'm losing money here"
"I really can't say"
"Why can't you say? Why are you keeping this information from me?"
"Look, I can't say because I don't know, not because I am keeping anything from you. Please come back in a while and we'll give you an update"
[One day later]
"Has my site been reviewed yet?"
"No, it hasn't, the editor hasn't logged on."
"Why not? I've sent her an email telling her to review my site, why isn't she doing that?"
"I don't know. I am not in contact with the editor."
"I need my site listed soon!"
"Look this is outside of my control, please come back in a month or so for an update"
[Two weeks later]
"Can I have an update?"
"You were asked to wait a month."
"Yeah, but you answered another request in a day less, so I didn't think it was that big a deal."
"OK, the site still awaits review. A few other sites got reviewed but not yours."
"The editor is biased - she must work for one of my competitors - they are abusing their powers as an editor. I am going to complain."
"Please feel free to - and come back in a while and get an update"
[A while passes]
"Status please"
"An editor reviewed your site and found it doesn't meet the guidelines because your primary purpose is to direct users to affiliate links where you make money and there is no real useful content other than that. Also, you have 3 other sites all doing the same thing."
"How many affiliate links am I allowed so that you will list me? And those mirrors aren't my sites at all - completely different person. You owe me a better explanation why you didn't list my site."
"It is the policy of the ODP not to list those types of sites"
"Then the ODP is wrong. It is a useless directory and will die a painful death.

And so on.

Now, ask yourself - in all this civility (and this isn't too far from how conversations on this board used to go) - what did we exactly achieve? Did I give the webmaster any more information than he/she already had? Did we make the directory any better by this? And, as you said, I wasted a LOT of time doing something which made NO difference at all.

So, when I come on here I am terse - I give submitters all the useful information I can, and don't spend any more time on it than that. If the submitter REALLY wants more information, there are plenty of places they can go to find it - all the reasons that have been given in this thread, for example, can be found in all the OTHER threads that have been started by people who couldn't get their website listed within a timeframe they thought was reasonable and weren't getting the answers they thought they deserved. The thing is - the feeling we get is that they really can't be bothered to look for answers themselves - they just demand, demand, demand and make sniping digs at editors in the hopes of getting a reaction.

They usually do. Does it get their site listed any quicker? No. Does it make anyone feel better about what they are doing? No. Does it change ANYTHING? No, of course not.

Just the facts. ma'am.

There are many people who have invested tons of time, money, sweat, tears, hopes and dreams in order to start their own business.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately there are dreams and real money at stake in something to you that is a hobby.

Click to expand...

OK - I'm going to share a neat secret. Get ready for it. Here it comes!

If each and every webmaster spending hours trying to build and promote their site became an ODP editor and spent just one hour a week reviewing 5-10 submitted sites for someone else, there wouldn't be a problem at all!

No, really! It's the prisoners dilemma. As long as someone is trying to take advantage, one or both persons lose out. If both cooperate, both gain. Until webmasters figure that out and act on it, you're going to be at the mercy of the interests of hobbyists.