Status checks

Hi,


I placed my site <url removed> for the catagory http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Business_and_Economy/Property/International/ consideration in August 2004.


During this time, I asked twice for my site to be checked, on time. It has been almost a year since I submitted my site, and when I returned today to check it's status, I'm now told no status checks are being done!


It has been 11 months since I submitted to DMOZ and there is no sign of it. Can anyone tell me what is going on and what I need to do from this point to solve this problem.


Your help would be most appreciated.


Yours sincerely,


Mark Seaden

Who's seriously been waiting almost a year for his site to be checked by ODP editors and feel he at least has the right to a reply!

Sorry, but all that we know is that editors keep reviewing sites, but we never which ones they'll do next -- they're all going in different directions. And that's a feature, not a problem.

As to rights, this may not be the place to get into a philosophical or moral discussion, but there is certainly nobody who has any responsibility to reply, and the community consensus is that a reply would not serve the community purposes. And as a matter of forum policy, there's an absolute prohibition on that kind of replies here.

eh? I don't understand..

There's no known problem.

There's no way of getting a status report here.

You've already done more than is necessary, and all that is constructive; there's nothing else for you to do.

We no longer do individual status checks.

Editors are editing, and they will edit your entry when they get to it.

There is no way to know who that might be, or when that might be.

If you saw the "confirmation" screen when you submitted then you can be sure that the submission was received and is waiting for someone to look at it.

I asked for information on what to do from here. I didn't ask for a lecture on philosophy - although I get the impression from reading other posts here that a lot of the visitors get the same treatment.

You see, there are two types of folks on this earth. There are individualists, and there are collectivists.

I've come to the conclusion that there's nothing wrong with ODP editors, it's just what we've got here a classic case of individualists meeting collectivists and getting cross wired.

You see, ODP editors from as far as I can gather are total collectivists. They have no moral structure apart from that the greater number represents the greater good, no matter what the 'group' might think. They believe in the abstraction of 'groups' and 'group consensus' and 'group rights'.

In contrast, an individualist looks at the group and asks 'what's the group? how can a group have rights?'. They regard a group as an abstraction. There are no forests, only trees, because the abstraction of the forest only comes from the individual trees.

Collectivists love rules. If they see a problem, then their instant response is 'make a law or rule'. They hence tend to see governments as pseudo-'God', and hence most have no religious or moral beliefs based upon an enlightened self-interest or word of God as self-interpreted. They also tend to believe very much in hierarchy. They believe that they no best - the good of the greater number - and hence will tend to treat those outside of 'group fusion' as outsiders, whom they have the responsibility to look after with rules and hence - and here's the big bogey - to impinge their rules upon. They also see institutions, particularly governments for example, as the very source of rights. If they are source of rights, then they have the right to take those rights away, if those at the top of the collective decide that that is right for the greater good of the greater number. And because they are at the top, and so educated and wise, they honestly feel that they know better than everyone else and it's for everyone else's own good that they imfringe their rules or laws.

Your individualist on the other hand believes in the restriction and limitations of rules on the individual by any government. He or she believes in education by good example, persuasion, and thought and interpretation rather than the coercion by law. Their moral structure is based upon individual self-interest and self-interpreted word of God if religious. If they are religious, they do not regard institutions as psuedo-God (rather like television is regarded by some individuals). Rather, they believe in protecting their own rights as the individual, and therefore do not have any argument with anyone else doing the same. They don't believe in rules or buerocracy - they see them as advantageous only to the elite, and also stifling and inefficient.

Most web site owners, at least those attempting to sell goods or products through the web, will almost certainly be individualists.

Your ODP editors on the other hand I think are looking for something that they can call 'mine, mine, mine' and a community of voluntary cooperation rather than the coercion of employment. They are collectivists, and hence believe in the abstraction of the group, the rights of the 'group', and hence that laws and rules are sacred.

So there we have it. We have the classic cross-wires of individualists trying to talk with collectivists. It's no wonder that so many people seem to have problems getting responses here and the webmaster/editor relationship seems to be totally unestablishable. And it's no ones fault either, just completely crossed paradigms!

Mark

I own web sites. I attempt to sell goods. I edit.

So I am a collective individualist? or an individual collectivist?

The rule that upsets you is made for the individual protection of the editors who previously faced abuse from individual webmasters who could not see beyond their own desire for a listing.

It also protects the individual webmaster from the strange reaction he appeared to suffer when told, "It's still awaiting review". So now no one tells a webmaster that - and the webmaster collective *still* gets upset - go figure.

Markos101 said:

They hence tend to see governments as pseudo-'God', and hence most have no religious or moral beliefs based upon an enlightened self-interest or word of God as self-interpreted. They also tend to believe very much in hierarchy. They believe that they no best - the good of the greater number - and hence will tend to treat those outside of 'group fusion' as outsiders, whom they have the responsibility to look after with rules and hence - and here's the big bogey - to impinge their rules upon.

Click to expand...

Well I had a nice response for being accused of no morals simply because I offer my own spare time to be a volunteer editor but I defer most of what I said to wjcampbe whose response in much better (and productive) than mine would have been.
As for the last part, the last time I checked no one is being forced to suggest sites or post in these forums, we have rules and guidelines but if one does not agree or does not wish to follow them then they are always free to look elsewhere to meet their individual needs.

Markos101 said:

So there we have it. We have the classic cross-wires of individualists trying to talk with collectivists. It's no wonder that so many people seem to have problems getting responses here and the webmaster/editor relationship seems to be totally unestablishable. And it's no ones fault either, just completely crossed paradigms!

Click to expand...

What we have is a common misconception, that the directory (and its editors) exist to serve webmasters. This just isn't the case. The directory is not a listing service for webmasters and site owners and its editors do not exist to list (or even review for that matter) sites suggested to the directory. Those that use these forums for the purpose that they are intended have absolutley no problems finding answers.
Those that *seem to have problems getting responses here* are trying to manipulate these forums into something they are not in order to satify personal needs and when they don't get the answers they want (or no answers at all) then they *have a problem*. Unfortunate as it is, it is their problem not the problem of the directory or its editors.

I asked for information on what to do from here.

Click to expand...

Work on your site, promote it elsewhere, and try to forget about the listing in the ODP. There is absolutely nothing else you can do to get your site listed. When an editor reviews it, s/he will list it if s/he finds unique content on it; otherwise s/he won't. You know that your site is waiting for review, hence you have done all you can do to make sure that an editor will review it at some point.

A lot of people have trouble understanding how a collaborative peer-reviewed project works. Collectivists look in vain for the dictator and body of laws; individualists are baffled by the absence of commercial motivation.

It is a legitimate "third way" of coordinating human effort, and there are certain kinds of projects for which it is demonstrably by far the best way. Comparing the ODP with Yahoo! or other "commercial" directories on the one hand, and "free-for-all link farms" on the other, one should suspect that "internet directories" is such a project.

It can be very frustrating. Individualists wanting special services assume all editors are corrupt, acting solely from malicious motives (and are frustrated that they have so much trouble finding an editor who will do their dirty work); collectivists wanting special services expect to find some kind of rule that they can use to coerce editors to do their dirty work -- or, failing that, contact the lord high dictators to demand an edict be promulgated on their behalf. Frustration abounds.

But to people of the "third race" (extra credit to people who can identify THAT literary allusion!) the ODP is an opportunity to work on something we'd have been doing on our own anyway, with other people who share some goal -- whether that's a useful bit of software (Linux, Gnu, Apache, Mozilla, ...) or an archive of information (Wikipedia, Project Gutenberg) or ... almost any highly-distributable information-based project.

And if the ODP DOESN'T do something socially valuable, then ... all of us (editors and outsiders alike) are free to start another project that does.

Hi Hutchenson

Interesting response. The 'third way' of course is a popular Fabian Society slogan, the medium between totalitarian buerocracy and 'unfettered free market capitalism'. Of course there's always going to be disagreements. What I disagree with however is the use of coercion, particularly with regard media, in order to make people see right or wrong in black and white ('political correctness') is such a term. Collectivists also don't see anything wrong for example with the very unfair education system and tax laws. The education system, the one place where we must all attend at least in the western world anyway, has been gradually biased over time to now become heavily collectivist. Collectivists do not see anything wrong with the highly unfair tax laws, or for example, our banking system which is based upon money that never existed in the first place (it's called 'fractional reserve banking'). Most people however, thanks to our education system, come out with precious little knowledge of these subjects and become frustrated with their lack of ability seemingly to express their individuality. Collectivism also produces centralisation - it has to via the natural law of its structure - and this unfortunately, with the facts of human corruption, can put people in danger of becoming locked in what could be today termed the 'scientific dictatorship' - that is, a society where people are coerced not by physical force (that is simply a mathematical impossibility thank God - there's not enough people to coerce everyone!) but one which acts on internal compulsion; like the education system, brain washing by media and other institutions that on the surface purtain to be belevolent and informative.

I think collectivism is a big danger is our technological world; I don't agree with absolute individualism, but to safeguard everyone (including me) from the dangers of centralised dictatorship, I advocate limited Government to protect those who simply are not able to fend for themselves for whatever reason, with a free enterprise, free market economy and an education system that advocates the teaching of finance so people can translate their dreams into the numbers they need to make a plan and drive it. Unfortunately in a fallen world I think if people learn to use their imagination, and then put it into action, that is overall the most natural organised society. People need risk otherwise they feel dead, but also protection if needs be.

Just to add to that; I don't agree with the Fabianist 'third way', either, which essentially involves state enforced monopoly of large, monopolistic corporations with the protection of the state. I also don't agree with the fact that they use techniques of stealth (stepping stones) and sales techniques (problem-reaction-solution) in order to bring it about on the unwitting, either. People become utterly lost in large organisations, stuggling to see or feel what they are contributing to the greater whole. One of the most appealing aspects of being a lecturer, author or teacher for example is the fact that one is often fully responsible for the quality of the project, from start to finish. Programming is rather like that too.

My least imperfect situation then is limited Government, with small to medium enterprise. The only problem is - what happens when those SMEs merge to become one big organisation? I think in this instance, the big companies should be diced up into several small ones, even if the shareholders remain the same.

Mark

Peer-reviewed collaboration is not a medium between the other poles, happy or otherwise. It is a separate and independent pole: neither political oppression, nor economic motivation, but social (honor-based, gift-driven). (Fabian socialism is, like Marxism, a shortsightedly political scheme, and thus has nothing to do with anything here.) VPR activity has for several centuries been the primary avenue for scientific progress; it's the (idealistic) basis of academic organizations (not always realized); it's the basis for many of what are commonly called "free" churches (although religious organizations may alternatively be economic- or authoritarian-driven).

So, please, take your advocacy of any kind of government, no matter how or wherein limited, elsewhere. The ODP is not a government or an agent thereof. Nor is the ODP any kind of financial system or agent. If you want to discuss governments or financial systems further, then -- go to another venue. Immediately.

>> the ODP is an opportunity to work on something we'd have been doing on our own anyway <<

Now ain't that a fact! The first 30 sites that I added to the first category that I ever edited in, were the 30 sites that, had I made a big website about that topic, would have been the sites that would have gone on the "more info about this subject can be found at..." links page.

I would think that there are many editors that have a category where they are interested in that topic such that the ODP became a place to empty their browser bookmarks file out into public view.

I think you may have misunderstood me. When I said "take political commentary elsewhere", I did not mean "further political commentary will be welcome here only if accompanied by personal attacks."

>> You're a totalitarianist. <<


No; he's Hutcheson ... unclassifiable.

One of a kind. No.... The only one of his kind.

You're an anarchist.

Click to expand...

And you, sir, are a shining example of the reason we were forced to stop doing status checks.

Wow, this is an insight, I though I was just an editor reviewing sites because I enjoy it.

I'm shocked and appalled to find that I'm part of a geo-political anarchist collective organziation! Or was that a communist oligarchy? I don't know what I should do any more, I think I'll give up editing for fear of bringing the world to a crashing end.

My dear lord

This is the very first topic that I've read on this forum. I just hope that the "discussions" are all equally humorous...

One a side note, I applied to be a DMOZ editor about a month ago. Though the specific category to which I applied currently eludes me, it was one that I recognized as severely understaffed by DMOZ (2 of the 10 sites that were listed had broken links).

I figured that the primary goal of DMOZ is to recruit new persons to assist in the ever-growing need of manpower required to index the web. And so, thinking that becoming a DMOZ editor would, at the very least, be an interesting hobby, I spent at least an hour carefully constructing my responses to the questionnaire: creating brief, though apt, descriptions (unlike this sentence) of the websites that I--regrettably--spent even more time hunting down.

I received no reply.

I guess I wasn’t worthy of DMOZ.

Sadness...

Did you receive the confirmation email that you must reply to in order for the application to drop into the review queue? If you didn't then your application didn't even get started. Check your junk folders, some ISPs seem to delete that auto-email as spam.

If you did reply to that confirmation then your application went into the queue. Some areas of the directory have slower times. There is a separate forum here for asking whether an editor application is still awaiting review. Try that out. They don't bite.

thanks

thanks for the info