Still no listing since Fall of 2004...

The search function isnt great here so its hard for me to find. Also I come here about once a year and the posts are so darn similar it hard to say if I read it this year or last. I am pretty sure it was in context...something about how the editor wound up editing so many categories when it started out as just a region. Wether in was in context or not, the fact that said editor was overwhelmed was made clear.

Does that comment seem so hard to believe? Do you not think it is possible that there are sub cats going unreviewed? Do you think its impossible that editors feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of submissions?

Wow, you can remember quotes in context from a year ago?

Let me try to explain it this way. I primarily edit in Health, so I'll pick a category there. The vast majority of sites submitted to Health/Dentistry categories are those of individual dentists or individual offices. Those sites will not be listed in Health/Dentistry (it also states this on the category submission pages). At one time, I could only forward the sites to the appropriate Regional category. They had to wait there for another editor to add them. Since I now have access to the entire directory, I can directly add the site - no need for additional waiting.

Does my having access to the entire directory help? I think so, though you might think differently.

I can, I have been very interested. That being said I am pretty certain it was this week that I read it.

No one is arguing that having permission to a whole area isnt a good thing. Your point doesnt touch on my point.

I think you missed this part:
Does that comment seem so hard to believe? Do you not think it is possible that there are sub cats going unreviewed? Do you think its impossible that editors feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of submissions?

-------------------------------
Millions of listings and expanding
7,000 editors and shrinking

On average, a subcat will go six months or so between visible editing actions (but remember, the vast majority of "editing" actions aren't visible). I'm not sure what you mean by "subcats going unreviewed" -- that's not something an editor would say. How many publicly-valuable sites have been suggested and not listed? I'd be no more than 50,000 at most. How many LISTABLE sites have been suggested and not listed? A few hundred thousand, no more than 10% of the total listed. By THAT measure (which is of great concern to webmasters, although objectively it's not a very good one), we've achieved 90% coverage of the web. I think that's pretty impressive.

You mention shrinking number of editors. It's not a very significant trend, but certainly what's NOT happening is a scaling up in proportion to the growth of the web. The most plausible reason I'VE heard for that is that the ODP has done its job too well, and it's just too hard for a new editor to find listable sites that aren't already listed. (They're out there, but they are just so hard to find.) Alternate theories are certainly welcome: you don't have to be an editor, although I'd recommend at least reviewing a hundred thousand or so sites at first, to be able to HAVE an informed opinion.)

You dont really think that you've achieved 90% coverage of the web do you? That is insane to even joke about.

but certainly what's NOT happening is a scaling up in proportion to the growth of the web.

Click to expand...

That is more my point. I guess there are two ways to put it.

it's just too hard for a new editor to find listable sites that aren't already listed

Click to expand...

I doubt it. I have looked at local areas I am familiar with and I am suprised 1. that sites that I know are great are not listed 2. there are dead links and hijacks.

you don't have to be an editor, although I'd recommend at least reviewing a hundred thousand or so sites at first, to be able to HAVE an informed opinion

Click to expand...

I have been online for 10 years now, 4 of which I spent severly ill and doing not much other than surfing and stuffing my head full of knowledge. I have probably seen more sites in deapth than 90% of the editors on your staff.

Does that comment seem so hard to believe? Do you not think it is possible that there are sub cats going unreviewed? Do you think its impossible that editors feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of submissions?

Click to expand...

Certainly there are subcategories that go largely neglected. If no editor currently has an interest in editing in any given subcategory, then it goes unedited until someone does. Some editor may well be overwhelmed by the number of unreviewed suggestions but that's not a pressure that the ODP puts on them. Here's the problem. We don't force people to accept higher permissions nor do we put an emphasis (in general) on the suggestion pool. If an editor is happy puttering away in a small category, they are under no obligation to apply for additional privileges. And if they receive additional privileges, they are under no obligation to keep them. So an editor who is feeling overwhelmed by number of suggestions has put that pressure on themselves (or is allowing the public to lay that pressure on them).

motsa said:

Certainly there are subcategories that go largely neglected. If no editor currently has an interest in editing in any given subcategory, then it goes unedited until someone does.

Click to expand...

That is the only real point I was trying to make. I wouldnt be happy if I worked in any area of an organization and something went 'largely neglected.' But that is just me.

If no one at the New York times felt interested in business one day that sure would make for an entertaining newspaper

This has turned into quite an interesting thread.

I’ve learned a little about how some of you operate and think. I’ve learned that the editors don’t care how nice a site is, how professional it is, how much the site cost to create (which I would also take to mean the man hours put into the site), how much traffic the site receives, how long ago the submission request was made or if the request was made at all. The editors also appear to be a group of under appreciated, altruistic volunteers whose sole reason for participating is to make the internet a better place.

I can easily see now how editors could work their tails off reviewing sites and improving directories within the many categories they have been given access to. Also, I’m sure anyone reading this thread can appreciate the point made that an editor who even reviews a few sites per month is better than no editor at all. So why then are people like myself upset? Is it the fact that my site hasn’t been listed yet? Well sure… that’s a BIG part of it. But wait, my site hasn’t been listed on CNN’s site either (like some genius pointed out) and I haven’t questioned them. Nope, there’s got to be more to it.

Could it be, oh I don’t know…that the DMOZ has horrible people skills? The DMOZ is an organization that sells something, it has a product and it has customers, whether it takes in a penny or not. All the people that use the directory are the customers. The webmasters and the sites they create are the product. Without one of those, the DMOZ doesn’t exist. The DMOZ, despite simple technology that could easy improve it, has chosen to completely disrespect the people supplying the product. Autoresponders could easily be used to keep webmasters informed and let them know that the ODP appreciates their support and efforts. For example it could let a webmaster know that the category they have requested has not been edited for 3 months. It could even ask if that person would like to apply to be an editor. Perhaps it could send an email to all the editors within an access group when a category has sat for a certain period of time without an edit. This could all be set up to run automatically.

Should it really come as a shock to anyone that webmasters take it personal when they are ignored by the DMOZ? Can someone list one other organization, either for profit or not, that will ignore you for 2 years and say that it’s perfectly acceptable… even normal? And please don’t say something stupid, like CNN. CNN isn’t allowing submission requests that I know of.

The following is a response to an earlier post…
Pvgool, it’s SEO 101 to submit your sites to good directories and right now DMOZ is at the top of that list. I knew a woman that smoked Camel no filter cigarettes until they took them away from her at the age of 90 in the nursing home. I also knew a 45 year old fitness fanatic who died while jogging. By your logic, I should stop running and take up smoking. Of course there are sites that do well without DMOZ and sites that don’t that are listed… that proves nothing.

The funny thing is that many people probably became editors for the same reason webmasters requested to be added… because the DMOZ is a huge, widely used directory.

The problem, tombobb, is that you are essentially an honest person (or at least you seem to think like one). As such, it is difficult for you to understand what the dark side is all about.

In a perfect world, most editors would opt for a system that:

-- provides immediate and ongoing feedback to people who suggest sites along with a method that allows people to get a real time look at what is happenign with their suggestion.

-- a system of welcoming editors that had little more complexity than the act of electroncially raising one's hand.

Editors aren't inherently opposed to these thing, but, the policies that have been adopted are a result of what dishonest and unethical webmasters and spammers have (in effect) forced upon us.

Potential editors have to be carefully vetted to prevent the pond scum from getting in and pollluting the entiredatabase.

We cannot give better feedback because, while it may or may not prove useful to the legitimate submitter, the spammers use it to measure their progress and success. If we let them know that we found out about attempt 132.4, 132.5 and 132.6 they will resubmit in a nanosecond with attempts number 133.1 through 133.7.

In terms of communciation, no good deed goes unpunished. If we open the lines of communciations we get flooded with additonal spam, if we shut down the lines of communication we are all the things our mothers warned us about.

Nearly every rule that an editor or person suggeting a site has to follow was painfully implemented as a result of hard-fought battles with the dark side.

Case in point, I'm still cleaning up the mess caused by an editor who, somewhere after about 5,000 edits (and with nice wide permissions) decided that just cutting and pasting text from the websites was the best way to grind out a lot of edits and to add a lot of sites. Hardly a week goes by when I don't run into one of his listings that needs to be cleaned up.

I think I outlasted the one real estage agent, somewhere in the U.S. who claimed to have personal offices in the largest 100 cities within a certain state -- and submitted URLs, mirrors, and a bunch of other non-listable sites to each of those cities. The agent even lied about the locality name where his main office was located, insisting it was in a much larger city a few miles away. He hasn't resubmitted in about a year now (knock on wood).

We won't even get into the other tricks that spammers play, lest we give ideas to young impressionalble minds who might be reading this.

And yes, as an editor with nearly 20,000 edits I occasionally get very, very tired. There are days and weeks when I simply do not have the energy to click on the ODP link on by browser. It is simply too draining, and it is supposed to be fun. So I go away for a little while. Work on my own non-commercial websites, check to see if they got listed (darned editors -- why don't they get to work and review MY sites!!!!) and even do some family stuff (actually rented a few movies this past weekend, first time in about 4 months -- wife was convinced I was about to confess to some major misdeed ).

No, tombobb, I think that in our hearts most of us generally agree with you -- is it just that reality is a harsh mistress.

Regards

Can someone list one other organization, either for profit or not, that will ignore you for 2 years and say that it’s perfectly acceptable… even normal?

Click to expand...

Well that true of Yahoo (unless you pay) - and they haven't even got a forum.

Actually here in the uk there is a whole set of Arts Council funded websites with directories and other services where the wait time can be infinite (and paid for by the taxpayer). The excuses for not listing or offering the services are not amusing ('we only deal with groups in the community', 'we only list uk sites'). Whatever frustration webmasters have with the ODP is nothing compared to mine dealing with these 'quasi-civil servants'.

Could it be, oh I don’t know…that the DMOZ has horrible people skills? The DMOZ is an organization that sells something, it has a product and it has customers, whether it takes in a penny or not. All the people that use the directory are the customers. The webmasters and the sites they create are the product.

Click to expand...

Not really true. The listing of the sites is our product. While it's true that the listing would be impossible without the sites, that doesn't make the sites our product. Your site is your product, not mine.

For example it could let a webmaster know that the category they have requested has not been edited for 3 months.

Click to expand...

The problem with that is that the mere fact that a category hasn't been edited in three months really doesn't tell you anything worthwhile. (And you can see that information by looking at the last update date on the category itself.)

It could even ask if that person would like to apply to be an editor.

Click to expand...

What you're describing sounds pretty indiscriminate so presumably it would be inviting spammers and other unwanted people to become editors. Can't you picture that adding to the work that is already piled on the meta editors?

Perhaps it could send an email to all the editors within an access group when a category has sat for a certain period of time without an edit.

Click to expand...

How would you define an access group? I'm listed at the top of the Health category -- does that mean I'd get an e-mail everytime a subcategory has reached that neglect threshold? How annoying would that be, and it isn't likely to make me run and edit that category.

Should it really come as a shock to anyone that webmasters take it personal when they are ignored by the DMOZ? Can someone list one other organization, either for profit or not, that will ignore you for 2 years and say that it’s perfectly acceptable… even normal? And please don’t say something stupid, like CNN. CNN isn’t allowing submission requests that I know of.

Click to expand...

The problem with that question is that you're assuming that the service we're offering is the listing of sites suggested by other people. That's not our mandate. We offer the ability to suggest your site for inclusion as a courtesy. Building the directory is not the same thing as offering a listing service. Yahoo, now, offers a listing service that conveniently enough results in a directory. But they charge a lot of money for that in order to (a) limit the amount of submissions, and (b) permit them to hire people to edit where Yahoo wants them to rather than where the people want to.

>I’ve learned that the editors don’t care how nice a site is, how professional it is, how much the site cost to create (which I would also take to mean the man hours put into the site), how much traffic the site receives, how long ago the submission request was made or if the request was made at all.

A very good summary (and from my point of view with neutral or even favorable connotation).

>> If you don't have the time to review sites in a timely manner, DON'T BE AN EDITOR. <<

Great suggestion!

Let's kick out the thousand editors that do one edit per week, or less.

Now we just need to find a volunteer that can do 1000 edits each week to make up for the shortfall.....

>If you don't have the time to review sites in a timely manner, DON'T BE AN EDITOR.

What a thoroughly dispicable rule of life. I hope I NEVER have to deal (in ANY way whatsoever) with ANYONE that has that attitude: it's a thoroughly selfish and egotistical attitude which cannot possibly result in any conceivable good to anyone, least of all the person who tries to live down to it.

It should be no surprise that ALL genuinely public-spirited organizations have exactly the opposite approach: They will say, DON'T be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem, pick out something that you CAN do, and do it. The ODP says, pick out a small category, and make it better. Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofers suggests, proofread one page a day. Wikipedia has no "number of page changes a day." The early church preserved a proverb about the value of giving two lepta (the smallest coins in the Roman empire), and the March of Dimes emphasizes the same principle with modern coinage. The Boy Scouts talk about one deed of kindness a day.

It is your attitude, and your choice; but I'd be mortally ashamed to admit--either in public, or to the face in my bathroom mirror--that I had made it.

Look, I understand frustration, and I understand ranting: I was exposed to Jonathan Swift at an impressionable age. But if you're going to make vicious personal attacks, I'd suggest that you make them on the many people who are causing the problem by churning out false and misleading doorway-promotional websites, not on the few people that are doing something constructive about the problem.

>>Not really true. The listing of the sites is our product. While it's true that the listing would be impossible without the sites, that doesn't make the sites our product. Your site is your product, not mine.

The DMOZ provides a service, but don’t be mistaken… the sites people end up at are the final product. That’s like calling Walmart the product. I’ve been to Walmart several times, but never once for just the Walmart experience… toilet paper (product), but not the Walmart experience. Just like at Walmart, people come to the DMOZ to find what they want. If you guys are doing a good job, then there is a lot of high quality, relevant product to choose from. In that respect, it seems like the DMOZ has done a pretty good job. However, maybe the job is just getting too big and not enough people are helping, being asked to help or being allowed to help (I have no idea which one is right).

My last post, which talked about the DMOZ’s lack of respect for the webmasters who request to be added, was met with some valid points about spammers and the dark side. With regards to handling spammers, the DMOZ really has 2 options:
1. Develop filters and db procedures to help flag suspected spammers. (Not a complete solution, but would help a lot).
2. Keep implementing and enforcing policy that alienates and disrespects spammers and hardworking webmasters alike.

I’m sure spammers are a huge problem and annoyance, but they are a very very small minority. Most webmasters, like most people in general, are good. They work very hard to produce a good product and deserve better than what the DMOZ is currently offering.

By now I’m sure you’re saying, “Come on $#%hole, you just want your precious website listed and don’t care what the heck happens to everyone else.” And to that, I say… Correct. I work very hard everyday on our website and when I get ignored for 2 years from an organization who’s sole purpose is to list quality sites, I take it personally. Then when I read a post from an editor saying we’ll get to it when we get to it, don’t hold your breath… I take it personally. Then when another editor comments on how difficult it is to find quality sites to list, I take it personally. And you know what??? That’s perfectly normal. I can’t imagine any webmaster, who works hard putting up a quality site, feeling any different… except maybe you editors who’ve been in the trenches too long.

The DMOZ can keep doing what it’s doing, but please stopped being sooo shocked when hard working webmasters blast you for your policy.

I’m glad Walmart decided to curb shoplifting by installing security tags and detectors to filter out the bad guys. The other option was a full cavity strip search done on every customer. I wonder which one the DMOZ would have picked??????? (Don’t get bent out of shape, I’m just kiddin’)

I’m sure spammers are a huge problem and annoyance, but they are a very very small minority.

Click to expand...

Based on the categories where I edit (and I studiously avoid the really spammy parts of the directory) more than two thirds of all suggestions are unlistable -- and 95% of those are spam.

In many, many parts of the directory, the bad submissions outweigh the good by a 25 to 1 factor.

There are some parts of the directory where the bad outweigh the good by more than 100 to 1.

I wasn’t trying to imply that only a small number of the submissions are spam. I would have no way of knowing, but I would have guessed even before you replied that the number of spam requests would far outnumber the legitimate ones. What I said was that spammers are a very small minority. They just happen to be a very busy, noisy, annoying minority. Just like the large majority of the people using email are not spammers, yet spam probably account for 95% of the emails sent everyday.

I like the analogy of web sites with product. That doesn't make the people who promote those sites customers though, it makes them manufacturers' reps. And we, like anyone else in the middle of any supply chain, do our customers a service by taking what manufacturers' reps say with a large grain of salt.

I like the Walmart analogy too. We pay our editors even less than they pay their buyers and we don't offer health insurance. And an editor who accepts payment or gift from a site promoter meets the same fate as a Walmart buyer who accepts payment or gift from a rep: Instant dismissal.

They just happen to be a very busy, noisy, annoying minority.

Click to expand...

I totally agree.

And only a small percentage of our population are into rape/murder/robbery -- yet we lock our doors at night.

Just like at Walmart, people come to the DMOZ to find what they want. If you guys are doing a good job, then there is a lot of high quality, relevant product to choose from.

Click to expand...

I like the Walmart analogy as this is exactly what DMOZ is doing.
You go to Walmart to buy toilet-paper (or anything else you want).
Howmany brands of toilet-paper does Walmart sell?
Are you as a customer satisfied with the choice you have?
Howmany other brands of toilet-paper do exist?
Are the producers of these other brands satisfied with Walmart?

The same with DMOZ
You go to DMOZ to find information about Real Estate agents in Las Vegas.
You find 20 Agencies and 124 Agents.
Are you as a customer satisfied with the choice you have? I would.
Are there more agents in Las Vegas? Most probably yes.
Do these other agents want to be listed and are they unhappy because they are not listed yet? I'm sure the answer is yes.