So This Is What Dmoz Is About

theantiguru said:

I have been advised by the gurus not to bother submitting to dmoz as I would have better luck with a linking strategy than having a chance at getting my sight fairly reviewed because of running ads on my sites.

Click to expand...

The reallity is that when the site is reviewed by an editor, that editor would wade through the garbage and search for the meat (real, unique content) and judge the site based on that. It would need to have enough content to outweigh the time it takes to find it though. If the site was such that the unique content it had was so minimal and a surfer looking wasn't able to locate it due to the garbage then what would the point be to the surfer for it to be listed?

The problem would be, finding an editor interested and with tall enough hip-waders and desire to swim around in the garbage to find the content

Thanks for the lovely reply

Your bitter and sarcastic responses only goes to confirm the invalidity of your twisted guidelines and practices. I guess I was given good advice after all.
You made these assumptions of wading through the garbage whithout really reading my question. It seems to me an editor would pay more attention to detail and not become hostile when asked for a simple answer. Not the B.S. just a simple answer. If your comments were meant to be homorous so be it but to me it sure seemed like condescending crap with very little meaning no originality and no meaningful content.

Neither of the responses you got was bitter or sarcastic. I'm thinking you've misread them both as personal attacks or something (which can't be the case since we don't know which site is yours, do we). Both editors were speaking hypothetically -- you need to step back a bit and reread them without that predisposed mindset.

You asked if running ads affects your chance of a fair review and the two editors who answered you answered that question, i.e. we look at the content and try to ignore the ads; if the site appears to exist primarily as a showcase for the ads, then there really is no content from an ODP point of view. There is no specific line in the sand that marks when a site crosses between few enough ads and too many ads -- it's judged on a case by case basis (and we can't tell you about your specific site because we don't give that kind of a review here in this forum).

Whether you see something as "bitter" or as "benevolent" is more your mindset than the facts.

There's an ODP editing community slogan, "We don't care about the site's business model." That's a really really important concept.

And you know when that slogan gets quoted? It is when some new editor is about to delete some website because of his perception about how it makes money. It is quoted to keep a website from getting deleted inappropriately. That fixed and determined agnosticism-and-apathy about the BUSINESS MODEL is meant to focus the editor's attention where it ought to be focussed -- on the INFORMATION contained in the site. And it is meant to keep sites from getting rejected unfairly because of editor hostility against this-or-that form of promotional material.

So you are free to use ads from any source, without worrying about who's prejudiced against THIS or THAT kind of ads. This is important enough to emphasize: the KIND of ad is really always irrelevant--not because of what ANYONE thinks, but because of the community agreement to NOT act at all on what any one of us thinks about it. This procedure is altogether in your favor: it is the way that the community guarantees a fair review of your website.

As for the limitations of our ability to ignore ads -- not only is it based on the very large sampling of surfer behavior that the ODP community provides, it corresponds to the kind of website behavior consistently found intolerable in customer surveys. There's nothing "twisted" there -- just a determination not to recommend sites that surfers will find intolerable. Again, it's only fair (to our users.)

So what in all of those guidelines designed for your protection seems "twisted" to you?

First of all my website does not have or never will have a "business model" behind it. It doesn't produce enough income to even pay for itself. As a business it is a miserable failure. That is not what it exists for. I have fun with it and the ads that I do run offset the cost very little.
The twisted guidelines I was referring to was what I thought the odp was and what it turned out to be. I'm pretty old and have been on the "internet" since I got an external modem on my XT. It had a green screen and there wasn't a graphics card available for it at the time. So all we did was pretty much type back and forth to each other. It was hard to navigate or to find anything and mostly you had to be invited to visit some else's site mostly by word of mouth. Directories got better and for a very short time so did the internet.
ODP has been around for a good long time too, and I think in the beginning before it was there for my protection the editors did a very good job and were extremely enthusiastic about what they were doing I think that YOUR GUIDELINES are twisted and immoral NOT that they aren't clearly stated.
I think ODP has deteriorated considerably over the years because you do consider a website with an ad as a BUSINESS MODEL. Why else would you have such a slogan. What you call objectionable or boring or inappropriate I call harmless. Sometimes I have to wade through endless commercials to see my favorite TV show. Sometimes the stinking preview channel freezes and I have to go find a TV guide. I wish someone would protect me from that.
I never considered pornography or gambling(adult sites) appropriate, useful, original, rich and full of content or even legal in the USA, but the odp does. What content of these sites do you deem useful?This is only one of many guidelines I see as TWISTED. I had no idea until yesterday this type of site could possibly be listed in a directory that you say is for my own protection. But I am an adult and I can choose not to go there. Does the same hold true to every single kid with a connection to the internet? Is it not illegal to provide alcohol or cigarettes to minors? Of course, an adult must serve these items personally to another adult. When the kid clicks on the cute little you must be 18 years of age to enter flash button are you going to be there to protect him or her? Credit card verification is gonna protect them? Do you know where your credit cards are 24 hours a day? Do you have kids? Do you lock your credit cards in a safe when you go to bed? Is a filter on the browser going to protect them? Password protection? Don't make me laugh. Whether you like it or not you are promoting this and making it more readily accessible.
I don't know about you but I worry about that much more than having to navigate through hundreds of Lego block web sites to find the one with the bricks that I am looking for. It's your definition of what doesn't have useful content as harmful that to me is not only TWISTED but INSANE.
I used to have great respect for the "pioneers" of cyberspace but I guess they got tired of devoting their time to a project that obviously lost it's focus and that's a real shame. Your slogan says it all ironically, you say you aren't looking for something and even went as far as to make a slogan like that because that is exactly what your editors are looking for. How in the world do you see that as "protecting" me. Believe me I understand it is YOUR humanly edited directory feel free to do with it what you will it really won't affect ME one way or the other but soon your directory is going to lose all of its credibility(not that much of it is left) and all of your efforts that you all seem so emotion about is for nothing when all is said and done.
But the whole thing that started this was just a question. Is a publisher's Gaggle ad a Gaggle affiliate link or is there a difference between the two. It would seem logical to me that the two are the same. And after "wading through all the garbage" I got an answer. Thank you. I find ads extremely helpful sometimes locating what I am looking for. I find no reason to be protected from them unless they are deceptive, provide me false information or steal information from my computer.
Ok I got an answer,a very wordy answer that is the reason behind this wordy post. I hope I clarified what I classified as twisted. "Um, sorry we rejected your site cause the editor thinks there is too many in that category. Why don't you try translating it into Greek and resubmit it." or "The page loaded incorrectly last Tuesday so it was deleted from the directory." Sorry for the sarcasm, I know you don't hold yourselves accountable enough anymore to provide any explanation of your actions. You guys really do have allot of power over allot of Business Models, but not mine. Enjoy it while you can.
"not only is it based on the very large sampling of surfer behavior that the ODP community provides, it corresponds to the kind of website behavior consistently found intolerable in customer surveys"
What kind of numbers are we talking here. 100? 10,000,000? Do you have any facts to back up such a statement? What age groups? Background? Nationality? Religion? Annual Income? Education? I've never been surveyed and I've been "surfing" since Al Gore invented the internet.
"website behavior" Popups? Tracking cookies? Slow Loader? 28k? 1.5m? Hideous flash intro? I'd rather wade through some garbage. I have a broadband connection and most of the sites I "surf" would have someone on a dial up connection pulling their hair out. Is there a system in place to protect them? Or when the click on a link are they powerless after a few minutes if they are stupid enough to wait that long to look elsewhere. But what about me? That same site might be useful and very pleasing to me. Should that site be banned from the directory and the site doomed to obscurity because of an outdated benchmark?
I have to say this experience has made me much wiser and much to my surprise one of my first web sites is in the directory from when I was into creating games. That's pretty cool. Could somebody else have submitted it?
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I moderate for a couple of forums and usaully the new guy is under suspicion and ignored so really I appreciate you guys taking the time.

First of all my website does not have or never will have a "business model" behind it. It doesn't produce enough income to even pay for itself. As a business it is a miserable failure. That is not what it exists for.

Click to expand...

Sir, so whats the problem ?

What you call objectionable or boring or inappropriate I call harmless.

Click to expand...

If you are old in the internet sir as what you claim, by now you should know that we are volunteers. We follow guidelines.
Examples
objectionable - harmless
Deforestation or Killing Whales ?
boring - harmless
I have seen boring sites listed and they are very family friendly, sir.
inappropriate - harmless
Topics which are irrelevant to Titles
Site of ads no content. As an old internet person do you like sites like that, sir ?

I never considered pornography or gambling(adult sites) appropriate, useful, original, rich and full of content or even legal in the USA, but the odp does. What content of these sites do you deem useful?

Mr. Hugh Heffner of Playboy Magazine does not pay us nor the other Magazines, their sites are of interest to the modeling industry.
Have you been to Las Vegas or Atlantic City ? Do you consider Mr. Trump as illegal in his business ? Sir we just list their sites.

But I am an adult and I can choose not to go there.

Click to expand...

Does the same hold true to every single kid with a connection to the internet? Is it not illegal to provide alcohol or cigarettes to minors? Of course, an adult must serve these items personally to another adult. When the kid clicks on the cute little you must be 18 years of age to enter flash button are you going to be there to protect him or her? Credit card verification is gonna protect them? Do you know where your credit cards are 24 hours a day? Do you have kids? Do you lock your credit cards in a safe when you go to bed? Is a filter on the browser going to protect them? Password protection? Don't make me laugh. Whether you like it or not you are promoting this and making it more readily accessible.

Click to expand...

I do have children, sir. Its how you raise them. How do you raise yours ? Sites are listed but do you see any promotion ? You surf through the internet
they all have them, sir . You can write to Mr. Gates about that or Google Corporate to eliminate the sites and make the world a better place. Can you do that for the rest of the world ? For Parents like us ?

I have to say this experience has made me much wiser and much to my surprise one of my first web sites is in the directory from when I was into creating games. That's pretty cool. Could somebody else have submitted it?

Click to expand...

As an experienced and wise family man you should know what to expect. If you can't buy a Soda what's the big deal sir. Drink water its good for your health. It is always a good and healthy and natural drink.

One of the important points of the ODP is that the editors are surfers and the concensus hutchenson refers to has accumulated from the input of editors past and present.

The protection referred to is that the views of one editor over what is appropriate to list does not penalise websites with differing views. An editor who supports one political party cannot be allowed to prevent sites from other parties being listed. Similarly an editor who hates adverts cannot be allowed not to list a site because it has adverts.

The grey areas (e.g. how many adverts are acceptable) varies according to topic since we are only interested in content. If a topic is well served by websites all offering similar information, then a website thrown together with information copied from the other websites to provide a platform for adverts will almost certainly not be listed. Conversely in an area with little information, a website offering unique content but plastered with adverts may be listed.

So who decides on the criteria? Again the concensus comes in. There can be discussions on a single site, sites of a certain type or even covering whole topics to reach agreement. The guidelines (note guidelines) ensures an overall consistency which will vary throughout the directory.

Adverts may be useful but how do you review and assess them? The best criteria is still the content of the website displaying the ads. If a website has been thrown together to supply a platform for 'Gaggle' Ads, the aim is not to provide a good resource but to earn income from 'click-through' links.

At the end of the day, the ODP is still about individuals combining to produce something for the benefit of everyone. Because it has been successful, it is seen as the 'ODP' rather than a collection of ordinary people and all too often, unfortunately, as something it is not and never has been.

regards

John (an editor extremely enthusiastic about what he is doing )

I'm not sure why you're so upset. You asked about ads. You were given answers, though you seem to just focus on the responses of one person.

I find ads extremely helpful sometimes locating what I am looking for. I find no reason to be protected from them unless they are deceptive, provide me false information or steal information from my computer.

Click to expand...

It's not about your protection. It's about unique content. Ads and affiliate links, by their very pervasive nature, are not unique content. If they're there to augment other content that *is* unique, fine. If the primary or sole purpose of the site is to drive people through those ads or affiliate links, then there is insufficient unique content to warrant listing.

theantiguru said:

Your bitter and sarcastic responses only goes to confirm the invalidity of your twisted guidelines and practices. I guess I was given good advice after all.
You made these assumptions of wading through the garbage whithout really reading my question. It seems to me an editor would pay more attention to detail and not become hostile when asked for a simple answer. Not the B.S. just a simple answer. If your comments were meant to be homorous so be it but to me it sure seemed like condescending crap with very little meaning no originality and no meaningful content.

Click to expand...

antiguru,
Please accept my whole hearted apology if my response offended you. My intention wasn't to be sarcastic nor to make lite of your concerns. My point was and still remains:

It doesn't matter what other [stuff-insert the term that you feel best] is on the site. An editor will block all the other [stuff] out and look at what the actual information says. If it is unique and plentiful enough to outweigh the amount of "stuff" the surfer has to weed through to get to it, then it is listable but if that information is so buried behind the other "stuff" that it makes it diffucult for a surfer to find, my comment would still stand:

What benefit to the surfer would it be for us to have listed it if the information is so buried they cannot find it?

As for my final comment

The problem would be, finding an editor interested and with tall enough hip-waders and desire to swim around in the garbage to find the content

Click to expand...

This was a general statement. I have no way of even knowing what url you are discussing. Editors are volunteers who are working on their own time, I for one am less likely to want to review a site that makes finding the actual relevant content hard to find than one that spills it out as soon as I click the link. I personally would rather skip a site that is going to take a long time to review and move on to sites that are easy to review and accept or reject.

For example: Yesterday I was going through an unreviewed pool and stumbled across a site that was waiting in review. I opened it up and it looked pretty good from the main page. I clicked on the first sub-page link and bang 2 pop-ups (and my pop-up blocking rarely misses pop-ups) so I closed them both and clicked the second sub-page link and bang the same two pop-ups again.
This was a waste of time closing the pop-ups after opening each link, so I noted a warning to other editors of the pop-ups and left it in unreviewed for someone with more time and patience to review it. I was unable and unwilling to perform a detailed review at that time when I had 75 other sites I could be looking at so I moved on.

I apologize if my wording was miss-understood as sarcastic, please know that is wasn't my intention. Hopefully that helps to clarify a bit.

I think there were some significant failures to communicate here: but we may have been cleared up. The "business model" is, very simply, what you do for money (which might be show ads) and how you get paid for it. Your initial question involved both of those issues; I hope we've established that is an absolute non-issue: you have one, we won't ask what it is because it doesn't matter to us.

In attempting to be comprehensive, I did overlook one point: we don't care how much money you make. This is also an extremely important point, which you obviously did not get, and which deserves emphasis. Webmasters come whining to us about "they're so rich and so why don't we drop everything and list them now"; other webmasters whine about "they can't get any income until we list them, so why don't we drop everything and list them now." The answer to both is the same: for the protection of all webmasters against unfair reviews, we do not consider that. So I hope you now understand that all you said about how you got paid, how you hoped to get paid, how MUCH you got paid, ... ALL of that is irrelevant.

And finally, whether or not you HAVE a business model is irrelevant.

The ODP "business model" slogan is for the protection of webmasters against unfair reviews. Having raised the issue of "fair reviews" in the context of ODP "procedures," it's a bit puzzling why you'd go into a tirade about a specific and detailed answer about exactly how the ODP procedures protected you as a webmaster from unfair editing.

That has nothing, nothing at all, to do with protecting the SURFER against ... anything.

I wouldn't say that the ODP DIRECTLY protects the surfer at all. It INFORMS the surfer.

That information may be used for good or bad purposes. We may disagree as to which purposes or good or bad. But we've got a pretty good handle on what "information" is. And pretty much, any information someone is willing to review and classify, can be listed. This also protects you (as a webmaster) against unfair review. I do not have a right (as an editor) to reject your site because it's Catholic, or Athiest, or Socialist, or anything else I might consider pernicious superstition. I don't have a right (as an editor) to reject your site because it advocates behavior I consider disgusting.

So yes, I absolutely could make a list of very very disgusting sites listed in the ODP. So could you.

But the point is, our lists would be DIFFERENT: in fact, very few sites wouldn't be on SOMEONE'S list. The ODP itself features on the ban list of whole GOVERNMENTS (IIRC, communist China and some of the Quran-belt dictatorships.) But the ban is not mutual: the ODP lists websites of parties both communistic and islamicist.

richardc020 said:

In the end, my site which has no reason not to be listed is not.

Click to expand...

And in there lies a bias.

When I first started submitting to DMOZ - I reviewed every website currently listed, compared what they had equally, and the uniquenesses of each site.

I catalog all of those uniquenesses, and then considered all the things 'none of them had'.

Spent a few months working on all of that - and then submitted... and continued to add, and add, and add.

In short - I view from a different stances... "my site isn't good enough to be listable yet" - I need to be best - and then I shouldn't need to submit at all.

Fathom - that is a brilliant answer. What you do makes your site infinitely valuable to the potential users of your site and that gives it the X-Factor editors find irresistible when deciding whether a site comes up to scratch. As you rightly say the best sites often do not need to be suggested at all - they rise to the top all by themselves and come to an editor's attention that way.

oneeye (former editall/catmv)

That is also a practical answer. Several months ago, a webmaster mentioned that he'd had a new ODP listing (which he hadn't even submitted) appear within a month of the time he published the content. And it was content generated exactly according to that approach -- with no thought of the ODP at all.

That's what we like to find.

Hi all,

I think what needs to be understood from this whole thread is that the editors have too much on their plate, and it's causing some to answer in what I deem as a 'tired answer'. My meaning is that editors are tired of having to answer the same old questions time and time again. It is evident in the terminology. I feel for the editors simply for this reason and this reason alone. I know if I was an editor, I wouldn't even come on this forum because I wouldn't have the time!!! and the patience to answer the same old questions.

But I also feel for 'theantiguru' because he posted an innocent question expecting a bright reply with a smile and got responses that (and I know it wasn't their intention) put him on the defensive instantly.

Take the words of 'fathom' because if your sites got what it takes, it will grow on it's own.