Suggestions - dmoz effeciency

Hi everyone.

I'm a little new to all this, but from researching about search engines and all I find that dmoz has become EXTREMELY important to people and search engines.

I also realize that it is also a little bit unfair. Yes, I understand the "generousity" and time it takes to put something like this together. I appreciate it even though my sites are not listed yet. I am a patient person and I am appreciative.


So short and sweet before the idea escapes my mind.

How about having it easier to become an editor BUT have a requirement of reviewing 10? 20? sites before being able to add their own site?

HOWEVER, they can in fact add their site. Just ONE. Or any rules you want to have.

We're all fighting each other here, but we all want the same thing. A functional internet free of spam.

Put it this way. The number one complaint of people trying to get listed is it's too slow and unfair due to human judgement. (Note: computers and humans both can make mistakes about sites and that will always remain true)

The number one complaint of dmoz editors is "Give us a freaking break! There's a million sites to go through!"

Both complaints are valid. I sympathize with both parties.

However I feel that a solution like I mentioned above may be a good way of neutralizing the complaints. A bit rough, but the idea can be smoothed out.

So now the complaint is "I want to be listed" and the answer is "Get off your lazy rear, help the community and you get helped in return."

I think that's ultimately the most fair deal.

Now of course my immediate concern is what about people just accepting all sites just to get theirs in. Well, now we can dedicate those people who review applications to reviewing performance and banning editors for not taking their duties seriously. I think that's a FAR more beneficial and less superficial job than judging someone they don't know.

Face it. It's like the interview of doom to become a dmoz editor. BUT if these interviews were changed over to "performance reviews" I think more people would be happy and the directory would become more effecient.

Right now it's just completely obvious that dmoz is over its head with demand. I think this optimizes things a bit.

Again, rough ideas. They need to be figured out more. I mean you can put validation and checks for human error in programming. It just may be a little more complex than form validation.....and it may not.

Just my two cents.

Interestng. I, for one, appreciate the thought.

I suspect (but I don't have the data) that the flaw here is that the majority of editors do not get accepted into categories where they can immediately list their own site.

I know that a lot of new editors end up in small Regional categories because that is a great place for new editors to start. It also limits the amount of damage an editor -- intentionally or accidentally -- can do.

I also know of more than one editor, each with more than 10,000 edits, who has never sought or received editing rights in the category where their sites would be listed. There are also editors who have waited, along with other, mor ehtan two years for their sites to be listed. Some are still waiting.

This whole thing goes back to the concept of projecting. People often project what behavior they think eidtors are engaged in. In general, they are wrong more often than they are right.

Good points. I don't know the internal workings of dmoz and its editors.

However, an editor that's successfully reviewed thousands of sites, yet doesn't have their own site listed is even worse! THAT is a crime.

I think there are plenty of good semeritans out there.

For example, if all the people on this forum took the time they are spending reading and writing on these forums and put it into reviewing, I bet dmoz would be pretty up to date on the submissions.

There's a lot of time and energy involved here. I see it. I read about it in newsletters and on other sites.

I think that energy just needs to be directed to complete the task at hand.

Again, like I said, we all have the same goals at heart here and with everyones support we can better weed out the malicious users.

Tom, if you can't think of at least a dozen ways for a sturdy, self-reliant spammer to get around the rule you've proposed, you really aren't ready to walk yourself to the internet elementary school yet. I'll even give you a few to start with:

(1) Lie. You never heard of that site, and you were shocked, SHOCKED to find your e-mail address on its DNS registration.

(2) Collude. "you scratch my site, I'll scratch yours."

(3) Plagiarize: List the first ten sites you can find on MSN or your choice of FFA-approved affiliate link farms.

And so on. The important fact, to my way of thinking, is, THESE ARE THE EXACT SAME WAYS MALICIOUS PEOPLE COULD GET AROUND THE CURRENT RULES.

Think about that. Think about that for a long time. The same spammers that are abusing the ODP currently ... could continue happily abusing the ODP even with your new rule.

That's a pretty useless rule, then, isn't it?

Oh, no, it's much worse than that.

How can a rule be WORSE than worthless?

Think about THAT for awhile.

tom_m said:

For example, if all the people on this forum took the time they are spending reading and writing on these forums and put it into reviewing, I bet dmoz would be pretty up to date on the submissions.

Click to expand...

What you call submissions - we call suggestions. As if I told my friend - "Hey, I saw this great site about purple hamsters! You gotta check it out!" She might or might not be interested in purple hamsters - until she is, she's probably not going to look at the site.

Along those same lines, if an editor doesn't feel the need to add another site about orange widgets or purple hamsters, then any site awaiting review, will continue to wait. Until that editor is interested or someone comes along and says, "Egad! Where are all of the sites about orange widgets? I've got to build this category!"

And, FWIW, as we are not a listing service, we can't be 'behind' - hence no need to become 'up to date'.

DesertJules said:

Along those same lines, if an editor doesn't feel the need to add another site about orange widgets or purple hamsters, then any site awaiting review, will continue to wait.

And, FWIW, as we are not a listing service, we can't be 'behind' - hence no need to become 'up to date'.

Click to expand...

Well I can understand that.

Would I be correct in assuming search engines, Google, and the public has put all the editors and people of dmoz on the spot? Has forced you guys into an authority-type situation that you would otherwise rather not be in?

Is there now a level of responsibility that you don't want?

My point here is -- it's obvious that what has happened is Google and other search engines respect dmoz and give it great weight. So one party is wrong here. Either Google is wrong for trusting dmoz according to you guys. Or you guys don't want your jobs.

It's like all the editors are on some cross everytime I read something they post.

All I did was come in and try to figure out a way to relieve some stress and I was met with ignorance.

I didn't say I had the answer. I just was suggesting ways of helping you guys out! If I personally can't be an editor, then I'd like to at least offer anything that I can. Advice, scripting skills, anything.

If you don't want me posting my suggestions then just say so in plain english.



to answer hutcheson's concerns:

Yes I can figure out ways to swat down those problems.

Collude? - If you have to review 10, 20 or more sites...do you have 20 friends?

In part dmoz's forms are flawed. They aren't getting enough detail and they aren't validating. That's not my problem, it's yours. If I were to setup a system it'd have checks in place. YES I can check for when people are lying. I do it all the time on the feedback forms I setup for my sites.

3 - I never said list sites you see elsewhere, I meant review sites in that were requested. You aren't bringing in your own links. You are reviewing what's already there.

1 Lie- Yes that's a tough one. So is ignorance and power/ego-trips.

think long about that one. then join me in college.

However -- again, with better form validation and checks in place you can get around lying. Kinda like different IQ and psychology tests...they have checks built into them so when you answer another question is checks one of the previous ones.

Anyway, thanks for your replies. It has certainly given me mroe insight to some of the editors at dmoz and how you guys feel/work.

OH.

Here's your collusion problem gone bye bye for good.

RANDOMIZATION.

You just simply randomize which 20, 25 sites they need to review...

voila. next issue?

-- what if they don't do it and quit? Well the sites get shuffled around then from editor to editor each day so you are never presented with the same list. Or work something else out. Gees do I have to do all the thinking?

The number one complaint of dmoz editors is "Give us a freaking break! There's a million sites to go through!"

Click to expand...

Uh, no, it isn't. If that's what you've gleaned from reading this forum, then you've not read enough.

Anyway, thanks for your replies. It has certainly given me mroe insight to some of the editors at dmoz and how you guys feel/work.

Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think it has at all.

If you don't want me posting my suggestions then just say so in plain english.

Click to expand...

You're making suggestions that have either been made a thousand times before or just aren't compatible with how we function and how we want to function. There's really no point in you continuing on in this vein.

I've deleted your lovely parting troll post. I'd say this thread has run its course.

tom, the problems we face are not the problems you are trying to solve. The mission we are pursuing is not the mission you are interested in. And I'm not sure your concept of algorithms is altogether the same as Dr. Turing's.

And that's OK. Feel free to pursue your mission in the way, and with the tools, that seems best to you. And so will I.