Site-reference.com blasts DMOZ.

Those are averages across the board, John, many of us are at levels that have many more site suggestions to deal with.

Without naming the particular state, or any exact numbers, how does 10,000 site suggestions handled by 5 permanent editors who can get to them sound? And only 3 of them really active at any one time, and a steady stream of more coming in daily.

Meta editors have a hundred times more site suggestions available to peruse, including those 10,000, which they've pitched in to help us with, . They go where they're needed the most, which is usually everywhere in the Directory. It's a wonder they don't self implode, .

But influencing a small change in public perceptions, in a subtle way, would surely not be harmful to the ODP?

Click to expand...

Well we've tried issuing monthly ODP reports that gives editor numbers and current progress.

A current editor numbers on the front page may have more impact though. I've always thought some people feel that there are already enough editors as a result of the historical numbers.

regards

monthly ODP reports

Click to expand...

Eric, why not make it a "friendly suggestion - be a good idea to join our list" type of approach when web masters submit their sites.
This is the group that causes the most upsets - because they don't know what's happening - and if only 10% read and understand the newsletter that's an immediate "white noise reduction".

And the same 10% would probably develop into a good source of future editor volunteers too.

A current editor numbers on the front page may have more impact though. I've always thought some people feel that there are already enough editors as a result of the historical numbers.

Click to expand...

Agreed, because that's what the current figure communicates.

Was the original objective possibly to communicate the "bigness" of the ODP?
If yes, it's no longer neccassary - people have known for years that the ODP is the biggest.
If no, why then?

Regards,

The question has been asked before, but it's easier for me to search my memory than to search all the forums where it might have been answered.

The answer is simple: the editors who have resigned, drifted away, died, yes, even some of those who have been removed -- did make a contribution to the ODP, and the directory as it exists is just as much due to their effort and contributions as mine. (P. J. Lareau, just to pick out a name, was the first editor to have added over a hundred thousand listings. But he hasn't been active at the ODP for several years. So why should I be counted on the home page and PJ not?)

People who think the current presentation is misleading (or, more accurately, who think the current presentation is capable of being misunderstood by sufficiently ignorant people) never stop to think. If they did, they'd realize that the same is true of any statistical presentation.

So: if a statistical presentation confuses you: GOOD! you're thinking. So ask what it means. And be informed.

But if you think you understand a single statistic, you're almost certainly wrong.

That's the way the universe is, and the ODP home page can't be expected to be different.

Hello Hutcheson,

So why should I be counted on the home page and PJ not?

Click to expand...

Misunderstanding maybe?

I'd suggest adding "Current Active Editors" to the ODP home page

Click to expand...

Didn't suggest replacing the cumulative total.

With both numbers showing the "call to action" to prospective volunteer editors is even stronger, IMHO.
Going to watch football now - see you later.

Regards,
John

I'd suggest adding "Current Active Editors" to the ODP home page

Click to expand...

Well I think that's a very good idea, or at least clarifying what the current "editors" number means. I've added it to my list of things to raise in our internal forums. Don't hold your breath though; we've got far more important technical things to worry about at the moment...

I think it's a good idea too, maybe a Current Editors - 7500, .

chaos127 said:

Well I think that's a very good idea, or at least clarifying what the current "editors" number means. I've added it to my list of things to raise in our internal forums. Don't hold your breath though; we've got far more important technical things to worry about at the moment...

Click to expand...

We already have http://dmoz.org/edoc/editorlist.txt which is public information. To get the number of total editors, just remove the duplicates and then count the number of lines. From a technical standpoint, adding the current number of editors to the homepage is below trivial.

crowbar said:

I think it's a good idea too, maybe a Current Editors - 7500, .

Click to expand...

The actual number based on when the editorlist file was last updated before the crash is 7295.

I don't get to log on every day - so if anyone has posted that SiteReference didn't author the article, they simply chose to publish it - I apologize.

giz said:

>> The Google directory is mirrored more or less from DMOZ + or - 3 months. <<

So, it is possible that Google has ODP's 2007-February content on it already?

That would be real neat. Could save us some editing time, just copy it all over to our server.

Click to expand...

This is still kind of a sore spot I have seen this to be a fact and even brought this up form time to time. How can Google be allowed to use Dmoz data to score millions dollars off the backs of editors who get no payment for their work.

I have seen and heard that Google ranks have nothing to do with Dmoz listings. Netscape, AOL, Google, and Network Solutions.

If Dmoz has no effect on Google ranks then why would you bring Google up in the same breath or sentance.

I have fought for my meager ranks with Google all the way up to three were I have stalled out.

I have not seen nor heard google running to the aid of Dmoz with new and updated equipment or technical assistance to resolve your technical problems.

All conspiracies aside - - - - What's up with this they mirror your content?

Sounds like you do have an effect on some things as I have said before.

How can Google be allowed to use Dmoz data

Click to expand...

Anyone is free to use Open Directory Project data provided they comply with the licence agreement.

I'm not sure exactly what point(s) you're trying to make here, but I'll try to provide some information that may be useful...

1/ The arguments about how ODP listings affect Google ranking refer to the ranking used to determine their standard search results only. We all know that in addition to their results pages, Google also maintain a directory which is a (slightly outdated) copy of the ODP directory (combined with page-rank, rather than alphabetical, ordering). Obviously no-one disputes the direct effect of the ODP on the Google Directory.

2/ Anyone is free to use the ODP data if they comply with the terms of the licence. (This is what the 'open' bit in the name refers to.) Editors edit knowing that this is the case. We encourage innovative uses of our data, and provided that licence is followed it's fine for downstream users to make money off our work.

3/ I haven't head anything about Google offering any support to AOL to help fix the current problems either. That doesn't mean they haven't, but on the other hand, why should they? And from what I have heard, help from Google (or anyone else) after the crash had occurred probably wouldn't do much to speed up the recovery process anyway.

4/ In case you hadn't realised, the post by Giz was a humorous take on the "+/- 3 months" bit that someone else had posted; suggesting that if Google had a copy of the ODP from three months in the future, then we could just copy it back and save us some editing time. That is why Google was mentioned in the "same breath" as the ODP.

Sorry I just did not see the joke with Google. I had already be set off by the time I was reading the replys here.

I just find it hard to laugh at some thing like that.

I was going threw my site looking for dead links and found one site that does not do reciprical links any more and brags about Dmoz and tells every one they should goto Dmoz, removing my link off their site. So in their doing so I removed their link from my site. Woundering if having my link on there site was some sort of Dmoz infraction and this being the reason for removal.

They site now ranks a 7 four more then me. As others blatently copy my site and move up in ranks, using such cheats as #8 font with the same color as the background.

Carma is a $&@#* and it will one day come back to byte them, of that I am sure.

It is just so easy to stick a knife in peoples backs today that allot of people do it with out a secound thought.

I guess I am just old school were people played fair and people wanted world peace, I have not developed the new social skills of screwing one an other over as a practice nor do I intend to up this practice.

I guess I am just old school were people played fair and people wanted world peace, I have not developed the new social skills of screwing one an other over as a practice nor do I intend to up this practice.

Click to expand...

Good for you, timamie261, not all people are cut throats, some of us still have standards, , don't let it get you down.

The blog guy tells it like it is. You should take a look on other forums to see what people think and say about dmoz. :icon_idea

If some people started praising the ODP, I'd really start worrying. But so far, I've been deeply gratified to see, wherever things can be checked, how closely coterminous the class of "carpers" is to the class of "affiliate/doorway spammers."

The world is full of misinformation, Skeletje, usually spread by people who actually have no real facts, so they make up their own to serve their purposes.

We're volunteer editors, we have no reason to lie when we speak to you.

There may be certain security matters we'd just as soon keep to ourselves, but, we're here to try and honestly answer the questions we can answer.

We're very aware of some of the unfortunate things that are said about us, but, we know what the truth is, and that type of hatred and misinformation doesn't affect what we do as editors because it's so far away from the real truth.

You should take a look on other forums to see what people think and say about dmoz.

Click to expand...

I'm puzzled why you feel we "should" do this, and what benefit you think it might provide?
I'm sure there are a great many volunteer editors who do read about the ODP on blogs, forums, message boards etc, but there is no "course requirement" for this sort of extra reading.

The only requirement for an editor is to follow the guidelines and principles of the ODP (which are public documents, by the way), so I can't see the significance to an editor of the negative opinions of non-editors, many of whom are simply angry that the ODP is not what they personally want it to be.
We enjoy editing as a hobby for a variety of reasons, and I think many of us get a lot of satisfaction out of finding good sites to build the directory, and undertaking quality control work so that our users (ie those who use our data) can benefit.

The fact that some people want the ODP to be a listing service so they can get more traffic to their website has nothing at all to do with our purpose, interesting though it may be to see these strident demands resurface time and again.

Seems the article writer knows what they are talking about...lol.

There are blatant factual inaccuracies in the article; certainly. And I hate to pass things like that up uncorrected.

But I think the main point here is, there simply aren't any identifiable common interests between the author and the project -- so there's no basis for discussion.

Which is fine, we can all agree the ODP is useless to him and anyone else with the same purposes, and go on to something constructive.