Suggesting Web Timeframe

Hello all.

I am visting forum from my date of signup and I found that most complains are about "Site submitted but still not added". Some blaiming from 1 year and some blaiming more than one year. In one reply I found in which "spectregunner" said that "A wait of one year is not exceptionally long." the url is http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=50398

I personally would like to suggest that it should be a time frame for adding even it will be one year or two year. I mean to say the suggesting person will not submit again and will not get worried before time frame.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

Due to the volunteer nature of the directory and the expectations the ODP has of those volunteers, the ODP isn't likely to ever institute a guaranteed time frame for reviewing and/or listing suggested sites. To do so would require that volunteer editors be forced to edit in specific categories and commit a significant amount of time doing so, and that just isn't going to happen.

So what exactly would you do when the time was up and no editor had got around to reviewing the site?

chaos127 said:

So what exactly would you do when the time was up and no editor had got around to reviewing the site?

Click to expand...

It is a very important and in your mood means harshing question. If no editor had got around to review the site then the suggester should allow to appeal again.

If no editor had got around to review the site then the suggester should allow to appeal again.

Click to expand...

To whom?

As motsa has already pointed out above, this is a volunteer organisation; we have no means of telling a volunteer editor to process a particular listing suggestion.

...suggester to appeal again.

Click to expand...

Or do you mean that the suggester should suggest the site again? If so, what's wrong with the current system whereby every site remains in the collection of sites waiting to be reviewed for as long as it takes for some to find the time to review it? This way there's no need to re-suggest the site.

Respected all,

Yes it is right that data always save to editor for adding the web but I am only suggesting if it will happen because when suggester claim and blaim in forum again and again and editors only reply him to wait for....

I know you all people are volunteer and giving your precious times to human beings worldwide and I appreciate it but may be I was thinking in other way..

Regards to you all.

chaos127 said:

Or do you mean that the suggester should suggest the site again?

Click to expand...

No, I means that when a person submit a web then dmoz alot him a ticket number for appeal after timeframe in a thread with the subject of his ticket number.

appeal

Click to expand...

Appeal how? If no-one's found time to look at the suggestion, how are we going to find time to look into any "appeals"? All the editors are volunteers, so we can't magically get additional people or force the current editors to do more work than they already do. If there aren't enough editor-hours to deal with the number of suggestions we receive in any particular time frame, there simply aren't enough editor hours. No review/appeal system is going to change that.

Maybe it should be the responsibility of the volunteers to review exceptionally old site suggestions, especially those that are over a year old?

I can understand that many of the categories do not have any volunteers, meaning the time for a suggestion to be accepted or declined is significantly extended. The trouble with this is that the accepted and declined suggestions have become very bias to popular categories that are more frequently addressed.

Most, if not all, of the computer graphics categories do not have volunteers. This is a big problem for this type of category as it is changing leaps and bounds over very short periods of time. I was shocked to see that in the graphics: 3d: models category that there are geocities pages, virgin free space pages and btinternet pages (approx 16 linking to free pages).

That's all fair enough you say, but their sites are outdated leaving fresher more relevant companies in the dark, with no chance of being accepted within a few years due to the lack of volunteers.

As I am based in the 3d graphics industry I applied to become an editor of this category; however I was declined for no specific reason. The stock decline answers were things such as being too self-promotional or insufficient information, even spelling mistakes.

When applying I am almost 100% there were no spelling or grammatical errors. I provided as much information as humanly possible and if I was being too self-promotional then I would be concerned, especially as I tried to submit two competitor sites. I also made sure that my description almost matched the wording and unbiased approach taken by previous accepted websites. I have, of course, read all the documentation related to becoming an editor and submitting a site.

I can understand the frustration of the volunteers and sympathise for the sheer amount of website reviewing that needs to be done. However, I also sympathise for all the genuine people who want to get their site listed and never get reviewed because no one seems to be interested in that category.

My suggestion is that volunteers review submissions that have been in the pipe work for many months, even years. I understand it can be hard for volunteers to accept and decline sites that are not within their particular field of knowledge or interest.

I have a question that I could not find a definitive answer for. If a site is suggested and is found to be genuine and the description or title is a bit off, can the volunteers not change this to reflect how it should be?
E.g. if I submitted a site called "SUPER AMAZING HIGH QUALITY 3D MODELS FROM BOBSTORE", which obviously is very bias and self-promotional, could the volunteer review the site, see its genuine and change it to "Bobstore 3D Models" or "Bobstore"?
Surely then we wouldn't be in the dark with rejections that are not justified.

Sorry for the rant, just expressing my opinions, thoughts and concerns.

Regards,
Jonathan.

Maybe it should be the responsibility of the volunteers to review exceptionally old site suggestions, especially those that are over a year old?

Click to expand...

When you get right down to it, editors don't have a responsibility to review suggested sites at all, let alone putting a priority on old suggested sites. The only responsibility an editor has is to leave the directory better than when they got there, without being self-interested or abusive in the process.

If a site is suggested and is found to be genuine and the description or title is a bit off, can the volunteers not change this to reflect how it should be? E.g. if I submitted a site called "SUPER AMAZING HIGH QUALITY 3D MODELS FROM BOBSTORE", which obviously is very bias and self-promotional, could the volunteer review the site, see its genuine and change it to "Bobstore 3D Models" or "Bobstore"?

Click to expand...

Very few titles and descriptions submitted with sites actually meet our guidelines so editors not only can but are expected to rewrite them.

Maybe it should be the responsibility of the volunteers to review exceptionally old site suggestions, especially those that are over a year old

Click to expand...

Each individual editor has the right to choose what tasks they wish to perform in order to improve the directory. The minute mandates start appearing, it is no longer a hobby, but a job.

I have a question that I could not find a definitive answer for. If a site is suggested and is found to be genuine and the description or title is a bit off, can the volunteers not change this to reflect how it should be?
E.g. if I submitted a site called "SUPER AMAZING HIGH QUALITY 3D MODELS FROM BOBSTORE", which obviously is very bias and self-promotional, could the volunteer review the site, see its genuine and change it to "Bobstore 3D Models" or "Bobstore"?

Click to expand...

That is what happens on a regular basis. Editors change about 99.999% of all suggested titles and descriptions -- and throw quiet, private celebrations when a suggestion is actually guidelines compliant.

Surely then we wouldn't be in the dark with rejections that are not justified.

Click to expand...

Do you have evidence of unjustified rejections, or are you just venting?

"JonLloyd" said:

especially as I tried to submit two competitor sites

Click to expand...

If you meant the examples within your application, you disremember.

We ask prospective editors for examples so that we can see how well they can seek out and describe appropriate new websites for the category - because that's what editors do. We weren't able to properly evaluate your skills in this regard.

If you try again, please provide three examples, not more than one of which is your own.

Further, our submission guidelines at http://dmoz.org/add.html forbid the submission of related websites. One test of relatedness is that the owner suggests several websites to the same category. In our book, that's one website spread over multiple domain names. We think it's the website owners responsibility to provide the navigation between the various sections, not ours.

Lastly, we're far more interested in content than style. I agree that many geocities etc websites are ugly but OTOH, many have content that is golden. We're very happy to list those.

Thank you for your responses, it's nice to know our titles and descriptions don't always have to be spot on to be accepted. I know it would be amazing for the editors if submissions are bang on, but we're not all perfect (I'm sure many submissions to the ODP are from webmasters that don't speak English making it even more difficult!), at least we try!

Do you have evidence of unjustified rejections, or are you just venting?

Click to expand...

When applying to become an editor I was rejected and given no particular reason at the time, hence being unjustified. Jim later gave me a standard response, saying it could be one of many reasons but this has since been rectified and I have been told a more accurate reason (Thank you Jim).

I was mistaken and suggested two of my own websites and another commercial 3d model site. However, I have been trying to submitting my site for around a year.

This section is full of commercial 3d model sites. Would suggesting 3 commercial 3d model sites to this category be acceptable? Or would it be seen as adding repetitive content. I would not submit my own site, simply because I have recently requested submission to the ODP.

As I explained, I can understand the frustration on both sides. I merely suggested a solution to a problem. I'm sure there are some editors that will see submission enquires that have been sat around for months and feel they deserve a response.

Lastly, we're far more interested in content than style.

Click to expand...

Jim I have sent you a pm with an example site that is void of decent content. I could send many more. If some of the sites in the category are what the ODP are after then I could submit countless sites that display around 5 free 3d models of poor quality. However, we all know that the ODP is about providing content that is rich and highly useful to its users.

This category doesn't do that for me and that’s why I will be reapplying to become an editor

Regards,
Jonathan

Not to be a smartass or anything, but it's not the responsibility of editors to review sites? So what is the editors responsibility, to only manage the sites already listed? How will the ODP grow with that mindset? I always thought that if someone were to apply to become an editor that they were under the understanding that part of their responsibility was to review sites. Sorry if that takes time, but that person VOLUNTEERED to be an editor and should have been willing to do what was required when he volunteered. If things change for that editor and he can no longer do what is required then that editor should resign his position.

Maybe that's why myself and the majority of other earnest people always get denied when we apply to help dmoz, because we're under the assumption that reviewing sites is part of an editors responsibilities. I guess when you assume it makes an ass out of you and an ass out of me.

It seems to me that the excuse for excessive wait times for submission reviews stem around the limited number of editors being overwhelmed with too many submissions. Has anyone ever thought to perhaps allow more editors to contribute to dmoz? I've personally applied to several small neglected categories with no editors and have been turned down every time, and it sounds like the majority of people that apply to become an editor are turned down as well. I even applied to edit the category for my small hometown of 11,000 people and was turned down for that. I guess my knowledge of, and ability to edit my own home town's category is just so limited that no editor beats me as an editor. Yes I'm a little sour about it.

I'm getting a little irritated by the high and mighty attitude held by some at the ODP. It's supposed to be the "Open Directory Project" but it's about the most closed project I've ever seen. There are some great editors and some great people that participate in the ODP, but the ones that respond to people asking for help and insight with "I'm better than you, you're dumb and not worth the ODP's time" attitudes is wearing a little thin for me. And the suggestions of just waiting 5 years and still don't try resubmitting because an editor will get to you when he gets time is absurd in my opinion.

Everyone acts like it's a huge sin to want to have your site listed for the sake of getting your site noticed. Well why else would anyone want their site listed in a directory?!?! Obviously I understand that not every site can or should be listed in dmoz and I fully agree, but to have to wait years to get listed simply because some people don't want to share their prized editing power with others seems a bit selfish to me and only hurts the ODP. I'll never understand the "no editor is better than a new editor" mentality here. If you're so worried that an editor is going to suck why not set up some type of probation period to see how an editor does? Wait, that's kind of why editors have to start off with small obscure categories first isn't it? To make sure they can do a good job before they are given any real control.

Ok Spectregunner and JimNoble, tell me how dumb I am and how much better you are than me then delete my post and ban my account for not giving glowing praise of the way the ODP is running.

sfraise77 said:

Not to be a smartass or anything, but it's not the responsibility of editors to review sites? So what is the editors responsibility, to only manage the sites already listed? How will the ODP grow with that mindset? I always thought that if someone were to apply to become an editor that they were under the understanding that part of their responsibility was to review sites.

Click to expand...

"Reviewing sites" doesn't mean "reviewing suggested sites". Yes, building up the directory is one of the duties an editor has but if they can do that by searching out sites or finding URLs on brochures, sides of trucks, store windows, etc., then that's great. In many categories, that's a better choice than wading through the spam that is suggested. The pool of suggested sites is just one tool an editor can use to find listable sites.

Sorry if that takes time, but that person VOLUNTEERED to be an editor and should have been willing to do what was required when he volunteered. If things change for that editor and he can no longer do what is required then that editor should resign his position.

Click to expand...

Why? An inactive editor isn't taking up space that someone else could be taking.

Everyone acts like it's a huge sin to want to have your site listed for the sake of getting your site noticed. Well why else would anyone want their site listed in a directory?!?! Obviously I understand that not every site can or should be listed in dmoz and I fully agree, but to have to wait years to get listed simply because some people don't want to share their prized editing power with others seems a bit selfish to me and only hurts the ODP.

Click to expand...

If you ever learn and take to heart one thing about the ODP, it should be this: editors choose where and how much they edit. It's the nature of the volunteer system. A paid directory like Yahoo can order its paid editors to review submitted sites in CategoryA. In a volunteer directory like the ODP, editors are not forced to edit anywhere they don't want to and are not required to review suggested sites, period. Our only mandate for editors is that their actions are not abusive and result in a net benefit to the directory.

I'll never understand the "no editor is better than a new editor" mentality here. If you're so worried that an editor is going to suck why not set up some type of probation period to see how an editor does? Wait, that's kind of why editors have to start off with small obscure categories first isn't it? To make sure they can do a good job before they are given any real control.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, even in a small category, a new editor without a clue -- or with abusive intentions -- can cause a lot of additional work for other editors, usually editors at the editall+ levels who are already frequently overwhelmed.

Ok Spectregunner and JimNoble, tell me how dumb I am and how much better you are than me then delete my post and ban my account for not giving glowing praise of the way the ODP is running.

Click to expand...

You obviously haven't looked around this site, have you. LOL The site contains a number of "negative" threads about the ODP. We don't stifle that here. But rehashing the same thing over and over is not helpful to either side. Nor is insulting individual editors.

"Why? An inactive editor isn't taking up space that someone else could be taking. "

Ok, I see now.

It's about not taking up space and avoiding work at all cost.

The very ideas that people that unemployed people that smoke weed in their parents basement at age 40 adhere to.

I change my mind, I want no part of the ODP anymore.

Thanks for the clarification.

Good luck with your directory. Once Google realizes the state it's in it will no longer be relevant or even worth a back link. But that's a good thing as it will require less space and result in a lot less work for you.

Ok, I see now.

It's about not taking up space and avoiding work at all cost.

Click to expand...

Nowhere did I write anything like that -- you appear determined to twist what you read to fit your preconceived opinions. The comment that you quoted was a direct response to your assertion that editors should resign if their activity level drops. Everyone goes through periods of time where they have more time to devote to their hobbies and periods of time where they have less -- or even none. My point was that editors who are going through those periods of low activity aren't preventing more active editors from working in those categories.

I change my mind, I want no part of the ODP anymore.

Click to expand...

Probably just as well given your open animousity of the project.

Honestly, the most threads and complains you will find in this forum will be about web suggested and now waiting.....

that person VOLUNTEERED to be an editor and should have been willing to do what was required when he volunteered.

Click to expand...

I think you're very much missing the point of what the ODP is all about. We're trying to build a useful directory. There are many thing that need to be done to achieve this. Adding new sites is only one of them, and the poll of publicly suggested sites is just one possible source of such sites. Edits volunteer to help improve the directory, and as long as they are doing that we're very happy to have their help -- whatever form their contributions take.

If things change for that editor and he can no longer do what is required then that editor should resign his position.

Click to expand...

An editor is not taking up space in any sense. There's nothing that gives a particular editor sole rights over a category, and nothing that prevents other editors from editing there too. So there's no reason for a less productive editor to resign. One useful edit every month or so may not be as good for the directory as ten edits every day but it's better than nothing.

Once Google realizes the state it's in it will no longer be relevant or even worth a back link.

Click to expand...

I'm sure google already realises exactly what state it's in, and is already acting in accordance with that information.