Suggestions

Mar 31, 2002

Assuming that the idea that, with power should come responsibility and accountability, is an acceptable premise . I would suggest that the ODP do “something” to make editors more responsible and accountable.

In rejecting (as you no doubt will) the following advice please include explanation regarding how the "public interest" would be harmed if the change in policy was instituted.

Accountability suggestion #1
If you're going to call yourself open, then be open, and provide a link on every category page to a page listing the edit history of that category including a list of sites pending approval--including date submitted.

Accountability suggestion #2
Provide limited (50 words or less) ability for civilians to make editorial remarks (on a page linked from the category page), regarding the performance of category editor. Fact is, many ODP editors are making no effort to maintain the categories they have taken control of and there should be some way to provoke justification. For example: I have on more than one occasion referenced this rather important (considering how many search experts edit at the ODP) category.
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Searching/Comparisons/
The listed editor is apparently AWOL and even after another editor made some changes the category remains embarrassing evidence of ODP disfunction.
See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1640
Ps. Would not the word analysis “compare” better as a word describing this category.

Mar 31, 2002

Hi,

About suggestion #1: Although I like the idea, it has a major disadvantage. It would allow abusive submitters to get their sites listed in each and every category they choose. The thing about the ODP is: we only list sites that are reviewed by editors. I agree that the backlog in reviewing sites is a problem. But listing them (even with a remark 'unreviewed'), would lower the value of the ODP, making it a heaven for spammers.

About suggestion #2: Although this may not answer to your suggestion, it is good to know that editors who don't edit get removed automatically in a certain span of time. This opens up the category he/she was editing in for new editors even more. (Note: the ODP doesn't want only one editor per category, so applying for a category which already has an editor won't lead to rejection because the category already has an editor listed.)

Best regards,
ODP editor jabesse

Mar 31, 2002

HI Arttworks:

I am not an editor but can understand where you are coming from. In some other threads you will see responses which indicate to me that not all editors accept the same amount of responsibility or do the same amount of editing, and for this reason there are stacks of unreviewed submissions. It seems to me that suggestion #1 would add substantially to the work of the editors, and while it would make the process more open, would likely result in even more unreviewed submissions.

But I wonder if a clever programmer could not add a bit to the database which would indicate how many submissions were unreviewed in each category, but not list the sites themselves. I would imagine that having his category with a note like:
"This catagory has 285 unreviewed submissions pending" might be a great incentive to action.

Phil · Mar 31, 2002

I think that jabesse might have misunderstood suggestion #1 - or maybe I did. But showing the number of sites waiting for review on each category page, as Mel suggested, would be very useful. It would give a rough idea of how long a submission is likely to take and it would give an indication (though far from perfect) of whether or not submissions are actually being dealt with. E.g. if the number kept on increasing it would be reasonably clear that, from a submissions point of view, the category is inactive.

It would also help would-be editors to choose a category that appears to need an editor and that doesn't have too big a backlog. I think that too large a backlog and a zero backlog are reasons why some editor applications are rejected, causing the ODP to lose some potentially good editors.

It sounds like a good idea all round to me /images/icons/smile.gif

Mar 31, 2002

> I think that jabesse might have misunderstood suggestion #1

The suggestion included: "including a list of sites pending approval". This is what my answer was based upon. Just a number of unrevieweds however, seems like a nice idea to me.

Best regards,
ODP editor jabesse

Phil · Mar 31, 2002

Fair enough, jabesse. I don't see how it could lead to submitters getting their sites in any category they wanted though. It's probably me who hasn't understood it correctly /images/icons/frown.gif

Mar 31, 2002

OPEN = open source

This is a common misunderstanding.

Mar 31, 2002

Aren't all the editor notes available in the RDF dumps?

darker · Mar 31, 2002

The editor notes are part of the editing history of each listing. They fall under the confidentiality guidelines governing all internal communication, and thus can't be included in the RDF dumps. This is so to protect the privacy of both the submitters and the editors.

Mar 31, 2002

Thanks Phil - Re: the rest

“It would allow abusive submitters to get their sites listed in each and every category they choose.”

The edit history page would be a separate page that could easily be “no roboted” out of spiders reach.

“suggestion #1 would add substantially to the work of the editors”

How so? All the content on the “edit history page” would be created automatically by software.

“...but not list the sites themselves.”

It is important to know what has been deleted as well as what has not been included. Just providing a raw number would be helpful but more information could be, and should be, made available. I think the added benefit of being able to see what kind of SPAM is trying to get listed would also be a good thing.

“OPEN = open source ... This is a common misunderstanding.”

I said “please include explanation regarding how the "public interest" would be harmed...”

please include = YOU please include

This is a common misunderstanding among odPers offering the “we are a private club” defense.

More useless word game fun:
OPEN source, pretend DIRECTORY, deception PROJECT.

“This is so to protect the privacy of both the submitters and the editors.”

The old “protect privacy” dodge--need I even state what I think is being “protected”.

Mar 31, 2002

Thanks Phil - Re: the rest

> The edit history page would be a separate page that could easily be “no roboted” out of spiders reach.

1) Unfortunately, not all spiders respect meta tags and/org robots.txt. If a page can be viewed, it can be spidered.

2) If we would list the sites that have not been reviewed, then they _are_ listed. This is really something we can't do. We'd throw away the added value of the human reviewed directory. Suppose someone wants to sell viagra over his website. He could submit his website to each and every category (even create a script to do that), and he would be listed _everywhere_. It's like the spam messages in your mailbox. The _only_ way we can prevent this, is by listing sites _after_ they are reviewed.

So: a number of unrevieweds: ok; a listing of sites: no.

Best regards,
ODP editor jabesse

Mar 31, 2002

The unspoken objection?

jabesse,

In the first place, I don't think any index is going to even try to spider the raw, SEPARATE PAGE, submission information. In the second place there are many ways to protect information. For example you could simply password protect (or robot IP exclude) the entire directory containing the history pages. With a little imagination a system can be made to work--what's clear here is your objection goes beyond perceived un-do-ablity.

Mar 31, 2002

Re: The unspoken objection?

In the 1st place: I think they will. There are robots spidering everything. Hey, even Googlebot spiders dmoz.org!
[edited]
Proof: http://www.google.com/search?hl=nl&newwindow=1&q=jeroen+besse+verdieping&lr=
4th result proves it even spiders google.com!
5th result proves it spiders dmoz.org!
[/edited]

In the second place:
- IP exclude: robots will appear at new ip-adresses. You'll be runnig behind the facts constantly. So... not an option.
- Password protect: we already have that: People who can enter the site and view what's in the unrevieweds, are called 'editors' /images/dmoz/purplegrin.gif

The un-do-ability is indeed not perceived at the ODP. However, I use my experience as maintainer of a corporate firewall. I can tell you this: running behind facts... :-(

best regards,
ODP editor jabesse

Mar 31, 2002

lizards lying in wait

[please, avoid personal attacks. Your suggestions are welcomed, until you keep a positive attitude and don't insult people. Thank you]
Next Please

wladek · Mar 31, 2002

Re: The unspoken objection?

If you're going to call yourself open, then be open,

We call ourselves open, because
(1) our product is open - everybody can use and modify our RDF dump in any way without limitations other than proper attribution.
(2) our rules are open - all our guidelines are open to read and review
(3) our process is open for thousands of qualified volunteers. Editing logs and notes are open to those who volunteer to edit, including over 150 editalls and metas who can view all logs.
(4)we are open to submissions and we do not require submitters to pay for review or inclusion.

You are free to start your own project, more open or open in other way.

provide a link on every category page to a page listing the edit history of that category

You can always browse/analyse our past RDF dumps and publish a detailed ODP history in your preferred format, including week when any entry was added/changed/deleted.

The only hidden data is who and why did given editing action. We are not going to release this data. We believe our model works well and we are not eager to change its basic rules. Those rules include editor's privacy and 'no one owns category' collective editing style.

... including a list of sites pending approval--including date submitted.

We are not a self-service directory. We do not publish sites just because somebody submitted them to us. Our directory is edited by editors and we publish only edited data.

In fact substantial part of our entries were never submitted. Most our editors actively search for entries appropriate for their categories. OTOH quality of submissions vary. Today I was working on /Regional/Europe/Poland submissions. Over 50% of submissions were apparently misplaced: published in languages other than english (and some of them in language other than english and polish /images/icons/wink.gif ) with content not related to Poland. I do not see any reason to publish them in any relation to this category. Also we do not want to encourage anyone to flood us with misplaced submissions.

Just providing a raw number would be helpful
Sorry, it would be misleading. In 'unreviewed' we store more than just unreviewed submissions. You can find there sites sent from other categories and sites which we found unavailable and we do not know why. Do they disappeared just temporary or maybe they simply moved to other url?

IMHO what could be published are the dates:
(1) when last edit was made to given category
(2) when last edit was made to related unreviewed submissions
(and if there are any unreviewed submissions).

Above options will be considered. Problem is we have a backlog of requested features and most of them have higher priority so do not expect any additional publicly available data about status of submissions soon.

Provide limited (50 words or less) ability for civilians to make editorial remarks (on a page linked from the category page), regarding the performance of category editor.

You can always send feedback to editors. We will consider placing a more prominent link to feedback form on every page.

Fact is, many ODP editors are making no effort to maintain the categories
No editors owns the category. When one editor retires or lowers level of activity others can step in.

the category remains embarrassing evidence of ODP disfunction.
Most entries in cited category were last edited in March 2002 immediately after problem was mentioned at XODP forum (and before this thread was started). All entries are relevant. No unreviewed submissions. If you know more relevant sites - please submit them. Your comments are at least misdirected.

Mar 31, 2002

meta-misdirected

Regarding editing my post: Someone says I am behind the facts and I brake the law by stating he is running from them? This, too easy, use of the censorship whip is part of your accountability problem.

Regarding: “Most entries in cited category were last edited in March 2002 (before this thread was started). All entries are relevant. No unreviewed submissions. If you know more relevant sites - please submit them. Your comments are at least misdirected.”

I did say in my initial post that an editor had made changes... So what is your March 2002 point? The fact that you could not trouble yourself to follow the provided links speaks to your credibility--As does the fact that you can defend this junk.

Listed #2 (out of alphabetical order) http://www.lookoff.com/tactics/reviews.php3
Information provided is dated and completely inaccurate.

Listed #3 http://www.crosswinds.net/~directories/home.htm
Dated information, no real “comparison” information, narrow focus, and the added charm of a pop-up

Listed #5 http://www.payperclickanalyst.com/
SEO pay for click mush that belongs in another category.

Listed #6 http://www.payperclicksearchengines.com/
More PPC junk... 3 pop-ups last time I visited.

Listed #7 http://members.ozemail.com.au/~trashy/search/index.html
A very interesting use of drop downs--otherwise junk.

Listed #8 http://www.searcheasy.htmlplanet.com/
An ODPer site
This sub-page tells all.
http://www.searcheasy.htmlplanet.com/sengine.html#per
loved the exit pop-up.

arlarson · Mar 31, 2002

Re: The unspoken objection?

At the bottom of each public directory page, there is a "last update" date, which approximates the last time a change was made to that category.

Apr 1, 2002

Re: lizards lying in wait

Arttworks, I haven't read your comment, but apparently you got upset because of what I said. I reviewed my post, and maybe you didn't read what I tried to write (English is not my native language).

Please read "You'll be runnig behind the facts constantly." as "We would be runnig behind the facts constantly." I meant to say that it's not possible to make web pages that can't be spidered at all. If we would make something like that, we would constantly have to monitor and change things to prevent it from being spidered. That's why I don't consider that to be an option. I hope this clears things out...

Best regards,
ODP editor jabesse

Apr 1, 2002

Re: lizards lying in fear

jabesse,

I say again,
“With a little imagination a system can be made to work--what's clear here is your objection goes beyond perceived un-do-ablity.”

You write little quips like:
- Password protect: we already have that: People who can enter the site and view what's in the unrevieweds, are called 'editors'

...And than pretend you meant no offense. Fact is, these things you call “editors” are not editing (as unreviewed and junked-up categories prove) but are in fact merely SEO controlling-- Just as my speech (and ability to give back to you the trite word play you so generously gave) isn’t being honestly edited, but is in fact being controlled by unaccountable people with an “agenda” that must remain “protected” from inspection.

Apr 1, 2002

Re: lizards lying in fear

Let's stay on topic here...

This thread was about suggestions. Some ideas were considered nice and/or helpful; some weren't.

If you want to discuss non-se editors of not editing, please do so in a new thread (according to the Guidelines: one topic per thread).

Also, if you want to discuss the reasons why your post was edited, do so in a new thread. (Hint: the "protected agenda" is in fact open for everyone, and it's called 'Guidelines')

Best regards,
ODP editor jabesse

Suggestions

Phil

Phil

darker

wladek

kEditall/kCatmv

arlarson