Site-reference.com blasts DMOZ.
- Thread starter peapodgrrl
- Start date
Thanks Blue- and I can sympathize with your points (Side note- fame and glory were not my point- reaching a broader audience with ODP info was).
I wanted to pursue our discussions in an intelligent fashion, however when one of your Meta’s (who should act as a leader) throw’s out a condensing and childish remark (perhaps I took it wrongly, but I too am human) such as this one:
“So if you know of a magical supply we haven't noticed, do let us know!”
it also makes me feel that my presence in this forum may be a waste of my time.
Shadow: I pointed out earlier that I respected what you were trying to accomplish here but also noted the system may not be perfect. Likewise, by no stretch of the imagination is SR or myself as an editor perfect. I found your comments to be insightful and very constructive. I will definitely investigate them further and implement where appropriate. In the end the only thing we can do is learn and improve. Thanks!
Nic
I wanted to pursue our discussions in an intelligent fashion, however when one of your Meta’s (who should act as a leader) throw’s out a condensing and childish remark (perhaps I took it wrongly, but I too am human) such as this one:
“So if you know of a magical supply we haven't noticed, do let us know!”
it also makes me feel that my presence in this forum may be a waste of my time.
Shadow: I pointed out earlier that I respected what you were trying to accomplish here but also noted the system may not be perfect. Likewise, by no stretch of the imagination is SR or myself as an editor perfect. I found your comments to be insightful and very constructive. I will definitely investigate them further and implement where appropriate. In the end the only thing we can do is learn and improve. Thanks!
Nic
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,485
Nic-
I think you are spot on target for offering a good platform for constructive discussions, and when time permits may even participate if the will have me over there.
Don't take the comments that chaos127 as negative, I think it is a sincere request for more good volunteers to join up and I would strongly concur with that request. Personally I think your presence in this forum has been very productive so far, at least for a few of us. I for one have found your forums and on the surface (I admit to only having read a few posts thus far) to be an objective external forum for public interaction and am glad to have discovered that. There is much than can be accomplished with enough constructive discussions, we just have to avoid being caught up in an emotionless posting taken the wrong way.
Please stick around and add input whereever you feel the need. It is appreciated.
Regards.
I think you are spot on target for offering a good platform for constructive discussions, and when time permits may even participate if the will have me over there.
Don't take the comments that chaos127 as negative, I think it is a sincere request for more good volunteers to join up and I would strongly concur with that request. Personally I think your presence in this forum has been very productive so far, at least for a few of us. I for one have found your forums and on the surface (I admit to only having read a few posts thus far) to be an objective external forum for public interaction and am glad to have discovered that. There is much than can be accomplished with enough constructive discussions, we just have to avoid being caught up in an emotionless posting taken the wrong way. Please stick around and add input whereever you feel the need. It is appreciated.
Regards.
I've seen some very rude things said in the heat of the moment by meta editors here. Seen? I've said some of them. We try to keep things civil despite any provocation. Sometimes we succeed. I do apologize for those other times.
Nevertheless ...
I can't seem to figure out how to read that as anything but a worthwhile wish for more good help, and I truly do not understand why you took exception to it.
Nevertheless ...
chaos127 said:
I can't seem to figure out how to read that as anything but a worthwhile wish for more good help, and I truly do not understand why you took exception to it.
I agree. When you have 6 volunteer editors to edit in one state, and 5 of them are limited to editing one small locality, it puts a very large burden of work on the one editor who can edit throughout the state, especially when that same editor is also handling 3 other states,
.Your misunderstanding is from a lack of knowledge,
.Editor chaos127 was absolutely correct, and was just being light hearted.
chaos127
Curlie Admin
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,344
I'm sorry you took my final comment the wrong way -- it certainly wasn't meant as childish or condescending. It was supposed to be a slightly humorous (though perhaps with hindsight a little too flippant) expression of our desire for good new editors, and the difficulty we sometimes have in finding them.
Clearly the more good editors we have to help build and maintain the directory the better. For the past few years at least, the number of active editors has been steady at best, if not declining. We really would like to hear about new ways to encourage new people who would make good editors to apply.
Clearly the more good editors we have to help build and maintain the directory the better. For the past few years at least, the number of active editors has been steady at best, if not declining. We really would like to hear about new ways to encourage new people who would make good editors to apply.
Chaos- no worries, got over it pretty fast. Sometimes it’s far too easy to misunderstand people when talking through a forum or IM (can’t get that personal interaction which allows us to understand a person’s tone).
Blue- sorry but applying for an editor role isn’t in the cards right now- far too many online duties as it is and if I spend anymore time in front of the comp I think my girl would kill me!
Crowbar- I think you’re right (to an extent) that my misunderstanding is from a lack of knowledge.
I also think that’s probably true for most people. And as mentioned earlier it’s understandable that you guys may get agitated when you have to defend the same moaning and groaning all the time.
However…(the big “however”)
…even though 99% of this is may be due to a lack of understanding or just plain old bitterness by people whose sites didn’t or have not yet been included I am led to believe there may be some truth behind a few valid “concerns”.
Now I’m not going to lie to you and say I have done a tremendous deal of research on the ODP, but from what I’ve seen there has been little to 0 (zero) responsibility taken by the Meta’s on points that may have some truth behind them.
(* Not trying to offend anyone here), but from what I’ve seen most if not all “concerns” voiced by the public has been deemed as a “rant or attack or repetitive crap” and been responded to defensively. I am yet to see (sorry if I’ve missed something) a Meta come out and say “you know what, you’ve got a valid concern here and we will do X so as to achieve Y result”. (if this isn't the Meta's role, the powers behind the ODP- Netscape i would think- should appoint a PR person to deal with such concerns).
I’ve seen good help and suggestions from editors and meta’s (including a lot in this forum), but at some point one or more people in charge have to come out and acknowledge there may be some issues with the system, assume responsibility and offer an explanation on how things will improve. (Again I apologize if this has been done and I missed something).
I understand you are not a listing service (as you said Chaos), but the ODP does aim to provide a service to the internet community as I understand from the following statement:
"We will make the most comprehensive, user-friendly directory possible, so the content and taxonomy will be widely used and distributed.” (http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html)
As a very valuable service provider, IMO, the internet community would appreciate if more of the above was done. Plus you guys wouldn’t have to spend as much of your valuable time going over the same ol' “crap”.
Sincerely my opinion,
Nic
Sometimes it’s far too easy to misunderstand people when talking through a forum or IM (can’t get that personal interaction which allows us to understand a person’s tone). Blue- sorry but applying for an editor role isn’t in the cards right now- far too many online duties as it is and if I spend anymore time in front of the comp I think my girl would kill me!
Crowbar- I think you’re right (to an extent) that my misunderstanding is from a lack of knowledge.
I also think that’s probably true for most people. And as mentioned earlier it’s understandable that you guys may get agitated when you have to defend the same moaning and groaning all the time.
However…(the big “however”)
…even though 99% of this is may be due to a lack of understanding or just plain old bitterness by people whose sites didn’t or have not yet been included I am led to believe there may be some truth behind a few valid “concerns”.
Now I’m not going to lie to you and say I have done a tremendous deal of research on the ODP, but from what I’ve seen there has been little to 0 (zero) responsibility taken by the Meta’s on points that may have some truth behind them.
(* Not trying to offend anyone here), but from what I’ve seen most if not all “concerns” voiced by the public has been deemed as a “rant or attack or repetitive crap” and been responded to defensively. I am yet to see (sorry if I’ve missed something) a Meta come out and say “you know what, you’ve got a valid concern here and we will do X so as to achieve Y result”. (if this isn't the Meta's role, the powers behind the ODP- Netscape i would think- should appoint a PR person to deal with such concerns).
I’ve seen good help and suggestions from editors and meta’s (including a lot in this forum), but at some point one or more people in charge have to come out and acknowledge there may be some issues with the system, assume responsibility and offer an explanation on how things will improve. (Again I apologize if this has been done and I missed something).
I understand you are not a listing service (as you said Chaos), but the ODP does aim to provide a service to the internet community as I understand from the following statement:
"We will make the most comprehensive, user-friendly directory possible, so the content and taxonomy will be widely used and distributed.” (http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html)
As a very valuable service provider, IMO, the internet community would appreciate if more of the above was done. Plus you guys wouldn’t have to spend as much of your valuable time going over the same ol' “crap”.
Sincerely my opinion,
Nic
Well, there are two kinds of "concerns." One of them starts out, pretty much like yours does, "there must be nefarious doings somewhere, now what are you going to do about it?" and that kind of concern is nothing more than McCarthyist mudslinging or Michael Moore character assassination. And it doesn't get treated with anything like the contempt it deserves.
The OTHER kind of "concern" comes with specific details: "according to my understanding of the rules, listing X in category Y really doesn't qualify."
And THAT kind of concern, so far as I've been able to see, gets almost as much respect as it deserves -- generally pretty quickly, also. Even when mistaken, it generally warrants an explanation.
Watch the next "concern" that gets bruited in your neighborhood, classify it as type (1) or type (2), and see if you can predict the editor's response.
The OTHER kind of "concern" comes with specific details: "according to my understanding of the rules, listing X in category Y really doesn't qualify."
And THAT kind of concern, so far as I've been able to see, gets almost as much respect as it deserves -- generally pretty quickly, also. Even when mistaken, it generally warrants an explanation.
Watch the next "concern" that gets bruited in your neighborhood, classify it as type (1) or type (2), and see if you can predict the editor's response.
shadow575 said:Please stick around and add input whereever you feel the need. It is appreciated.QUOTE]
Thanks Shadow- will do my best to offer what i hope are constructive points on occasion.
Spent a lot of time here today - yea i'm a slow thinker/typer - and need to focus some energy elsewhere before i start to neglect my duties
Are there things that could be better? Sure. Are they the things that most people come here to complain about? Depends on who you're talking to. The problem lies in defining "concerns" and "some issues". For the most part, the issues that website owners feel exist in the system are not seen as issues (or at least not seen as the same size issues) by editors. Things like providing x day/week/month review times or requiring editors to review y suggested sites every day/week/month or offering site suggestion status information...those are all examples of things that non-editors have named as huge issues that, really, aren't seen as issues by editors. And that's where we have a huge disconnect.
If I go out and find 10 sites to add from looking at billboards and signs on windows, then I'm fulfilling that social contract as much as (if not more than) if I were spending my time weeding through suggestions to find 10 other sites to add.
It's type 1, clearly. No details, just "a feeling" that among all the other emotional rioters out there there's "someone with a legitimate concern."
And what if there were? Your complaint gives absolutely no information about how to find the someone! It is therefore (at best) totally useless, at worst it adds yet another whinge to the overburden that needs to be cleared away before any work that is done -- yet another shriek drowning out the one person with a quiet reasonable voice.
And what if there were? Your complaint gives absolutely no information about how to find the someone! It is therefore (at best) totally useless, at worst it adds yet another whinge to the overburden that needs to be cleared away before any work that is done -- yet another shriek drowning out the one person with a quiet reasonable voice.
This is point exactly guys…
I spent my time putting together what I thought was a valid comment and here’s what I got in return:
1) 2 defensive responses by Hutch
2) Nitpicked at a minor detail from CrowBar
3) The double whammy from Motsa- defensive at first- then in conclusion some text I still don’t understand
Clearly there is no winning here. You have to remember my comments were not aimed at individuals but the system. Perhaps you didn’t agree or may have thought they were incomplete/invalid. If that’s the case why not pursue them in an intelligent manner instead of simply saying i am wrong, don't understand or my points didn't include enough detail? I received no constructive criticism, and I especially didn’t receive any positive comments. I thought this was an open discussion were in the event you don't understand a person's view, you should make an attempt to get them clarify it before throwing a little hissy-fit like hutch did.
One of our long time Site-Reference members pointed out that if people spent as much time helping out DMOZ as opposed to inquiring (or ranting) about it, it would be a much better site.
He’s right and I agree with him. I thought I was assisting by offering some helpful comments but it is now evident to me that they’re not welcomed here.
For that reason, I will bow out of this forum. In all seriousness, I thanks for having me and I wish DMOZ the best of luck- you guys have a great site and look forward to its progress.
Sincerely,
Nic
PS. To Blue, Shadow, DJ, Imocr and anyone I could keep an open and fruitful discussion with I thank you again!
I spent my time putting together what I thought was a valid comment and here’s what I got in return:
1) 2 defensive responses by Hutch
2) Nitpicked at a minor detail from CrowBar
3) The double whammy from Motsa- defensive at first- then in conclusion some text I still don’t understand
Clearly there is no winning here. You have to remember my comments were not aimed at individuals but the system. Perhaps you didn’t agree or may have thought they were incomplete/invalid. If that’s the case why not pursue them in an intelligent manner instead of simply saying i am wrong, don't understand or my points didn't include enough detail? I received no constructive criticism, and I especially didn’t receive any positive comments. I thought this was an open discussion were in the event you don't understand a person's view, you should make an attempt to get them clarify it before throwing a little hissy-fit like hutch did.
One of our long time Site-Reference members pointed out that if people spent as much time helping out DMOZ as opposed to inquiring (or ranting) about it, it would be a much better site.
He’s right and I agree with him. I thought I was assisting by offering some helpful comments but it is now evident to me that they’re not welcomed here.
For that reason, I will bow out of this forum. In all seriousness, I thanks for having me and I wish DMOZ the best of luck- you guys have a great site and look forward to its progress.
Sincerely,
Nic
PS. To Blue, Shadow, DJ, Imocr and anyone I could keep an open and fruitful discussion with I thank you again!
But the point is, your comments were not in any conceivable sense helpful: and if you had thought first, you would have known that they could not possibly be helpful.
They provided no information that wasn't already well known. And you knew they wouldn't, because you knew perfectly well that equally vague (and therefore equally uninformative) insinuations had been made before .
And, being completely devoid of information, they could not have guided us to any useful action.
So, what would you EXPECT to happen?
They provided no information that wasn't already well known. And you knew they wouldn't, because you knew perfectly well that equally vague (and therefore equally uninformative) insinuations had been made before .
And, being completely devoid of information, they could not have guided us to any useful action.
So, what would you EXPECT to happen?
You've made a key point here, and I think it deserves to be seen and understood.
The fact that signs and billboards are at least as good a source of listings as are submitted suggestions derives from and illustrates the fact that dmoz is a list of web sites for users, not a listing service for web sites.
Huh? Um, you've obviously misread my post -- no part of it was defensive. I was trying to be polite and explain why your suggestions for improvement might fall on deaf ears but, hey, feel free to read whatever you want into it.
As for the concluding text, the comment from you that I quoted when I replied appeared to be saying that we should be paying more attention to suggested sites in order to fulfill the mission stated in our social contract. My response was merely to show that we can fulfill the social contract without going anywhere near the pool of suggestions.
That's it, that's all. No hidden meanings, nothing impolite, so I'm not sure what your personal issue is with it.
Shadow
Jim Noble
Crowbar
Thanks for the explanation. I follow the same process when evaluating submissions to my "very small niche" directory plus:
lmocr for providing the base for a different way to analyse editor work load.
When I submitted my site, I remember thinking (less sites, less editors back then but the ratio was probably the same), "why so long if there are so many volunteers?"
Ungrateful sod, wasn't I?
But most people are ungrateful, they don't realize the sheer scale of work involved to present them with the ODP in the first place.
And the ODP helps foster this perception by, in effect, publishing a number which is true in itself, but not relevant in the real world.
Look at the real numbers and they hit hard - I don't personally know any web masters with 133 sites to their name let alone 2.133!
That's a lot of work on a voluntary basis.
I don't believe that people make such an evaluation but I do know that people relate to smaller numbers.
I respect and agree with the statements made that editors do not need to justify themselves in any way.
But influencing a small change in public perceptions, in a subtle way, would surely not be harmful to the ODP?
I'd suggest adding "Current Active Editors" to the ODP home page and I think you will:
Cheers
One read of a six-point list of "possible but not limited to reasons" and I thought "shove it" when I saw
and went to Zeal to try and learn the trade.
Phew, what a relief!
Jim Noble
Thanks, will do together with what Eric said about "checking old posts", once I've got my new site ready for submission.
Crowbar
Incredible that people, in this day and age, can believe a grand conspiracy theory. Bad case of tunnel vision IMHO.
Thanks for the explanation. I follow the same process when evaluating submissions to my "very small niche" directory plus:
- Always check the "whois" record - to see if it's a new site. If yes and it's what I'm looking for, step 2 follows.
- I send them a repair advisory. Generally a thankless task but 5% - 10% gemstones is better than none at all.
lmocr
Thanks to our accountant
for providing the base for a different way to analyse editor work load.- Roughly 10% of the ODP home total = 7.500 contributing editors.
- There are more than 4m sites - let's leave it on 4 million.
- 1.500 editors are responsible for 3.200.000 sites = 2.133 sites per editor.
- 6.000 editors are responsible for 800.000 sites = 133 sites per editor.
- But ODP visitors see 74.719 editors for 4 million sites = 53 sites per editor.
When I submitted my site, I remember thinking (less sites, less editors back then but the ratio was probably the same), "why so long if there are so many volunteers?"
Ungrateful sod, wasn't I?
But most people are ungrateful, they don't realize the sheer scale of work involved to present them with the ODP in the first place.
And the ODP helps foster this perception by, in effect, publishing a number which is true in itself, but not relevant in the real world.
Look at the real numbers and they hit hard - I don't personally know any web masters with 133 sites to their name let alone 2.133!
That's a lot of work on a voluntary basis.
I don't believe that people make such an evaluation but I do know that people relate to smaller numbers.
I respect and agree with the statements made that editors do not need to justify themselves in any way.
But influencing a small change in public perceptions, in a subtle way, would surely not be harmful to the ODP?
I'd suggest adding "Current Active Editors" to the ODP home page and I think you will:
- Reduce submission waiting time upsets because any reasonable submitter would get a completely different picture of editor workload - and unreasonable submitters need not apply, right?
- Strike a chord "wow, that's a lot of work for something so worthwhile, maybe I ought to" with people who want to volunteer their services - get more editor applications.
Cheers