The ODP is irrelevant.

1. Most people do not use directories to search for information, web sites, etc.. on the web. Search engines and portals are where the vast majority of searches start and end.
2. The ODP cannot keep pace with the growth of the web. New and existing sites that are relevant and new categories cannot be explored or evaluated quickly.
3.The ODP editors are drowning in sites to evaluate and the volunteers do not have any timelines other than "today, maybe next year.... uh someday."
4. The volunteer editors are not held to any standard for productivity. Evaluating one site every six months or so does not give the ODP relavant listings.
5. Even the 400lb gorilla of search, Google, has started experimenting with the concept of "feedback". I know, I know, the editors will have to look that one up.
6. The whole purpose of the directory is to provide quality, relavant human edited listings. Any relavant listings have to be current. Relavant information is not one, two or more YEARS out of date.

Ok, thank you for your comments.


Was there a question in there someplace?

pbarker3 said:

2. The ODP cannot keep pace with the growth of the web. New and existing sites that are relevant and new categories cannot be explored or evaluated quickly.
3.The ODP editors are drowning in sites to evaluate and the volunteers do not have any timelines other than "today, maybe next year.... uh someday."

Click to expand...

Based on this news Google ETA? 300 years to index the world's info I don't think keeping pace is anything to worry about. DMOZ is going for quality not for quantity.

1. Most people do not use directories to search for information, web sites, etc.. on the web. Search engines and portals are where the vast majority of searches start and end.

Click to expand...

I fully agree, but the select few that choose to use more refined means for searching than simply tossing a word into Google will receive better results. The majority of searchers do not even bother to learn how to use a Google search correctly.

2. The ODP cannot keep pace with the growth of the web. New and existing sites that are relevant and new categories cannot be explored or evaluated quickly.

Click to expand...

Agree, see the other post, Google has the same problem.

3.The ODP editors are drowning in sites to evaluate and the volunteers do not have any timelines other than "today, maybe next year.... uh someday."

Click to expand...

I'm still breathing.

4. The volunteer editors are not held to any standard for productivity. Evaluating one site every six months or so does not give the ODP relavant listings.

Click to expand...

It's not six months, it's four. Keeping the demands on the volunteer editors low, seems to work best for us.

5. Even the 400lb gorilla of search, Google, has started experimenting with the concept of "feedback". I know, I know, the editors will have to look that one up.

Click to expand...

Does not really work that well, I generally receive an off topic canned answer.

6. The whole purpose of the directory is to provide quality, relavant human edited listings. Any relavant listings have to be current. Relavant information is not one, two or more YEARS out of date.

Click to expand...

Probably true, but Google surprisingly has the same problem, many searchs lead to dad or hijacked sites.

*******************************
The bottom line is that if the ODP does not work for your searches don't use it. It is not the best tool to use for all searches, and you have to have the acumen to know when to use ODP, Google, MSN, Yahoo or some other means to find information.

Okay...

Well it seems Google is on your minds. However, it seems impossible to get a quality directory with such a huge gap in the volunteers productivity. If a category has several thousand sites to be evaluated and the editor only has to evaluate one every four months ( I stand corrected ) , how long will it take to clear the backlog? How many good sites will sit in the que waiting for an editor to seperate the wheat from the chaff?

Now I know there are some who take the ODP editor position seriously. They are far more active and evaluate many more sites. But what sanctions are there in place for the lazy editor? Or one who places sites in or not on a flip of a coin? Who edits the editors? There is no accountability. No "great job" for doing the job and no "your fired" for not doing the job.

pbarker3 said:

6. The whole purpose of the directory is to provide quality, relavant human edited listings. Any relavant listings have to be current. Relavant information is not one, two or more YEARS out of date.

Click to expand...

Websites that are still active are defined by most people as "current". Since the percentage of dead links in the ODP compared to active sites is miniscule, I don't think that the evidence supports your hypothesis.

I am guessing (please correct me if I am wrong) that your two or more years comment comes from the time it sometimes takes in some parts of the directory to review a particular site, and you are basing your "relevance" criterion on that.

There are many hundred new sites added to the ODP every day, and a large number of dead ones removed.

While I agree that the ODP is far from perfect, I would suggest that it is as good, if not better, than anything else out there.

The philosophy of volunteering is that whatever anyone can do will help, no matter how much or how little. If we have ten editors who do one edit a month, that is ten edits that the ODP is better for. By firing those editors for being non-productive, the ODP would not benefit for those 10 edits. Since there is no "quota" of editors, firing them doesn't "make room" for any, so I' guess I'm not sure how that would help the situation.

...and as for bringing up Google, that was an analogy you chose to use in your opening post, so the replies just continued it.

2. The ODP cannot keep pace with the growth of the web. New and existing sites that are relevant and new categories cannot be explored or evaluated quickly.

Click to expand...

Really? How quickly did sites for Hurricane Katrina get listed? Within days of the disaster happening. What about the World Trade Center attacks? Days again. Your definition of relevance may not match others, I suppose.

>But what sanctions are there in place for the lazy editor?
There isn't a thing like "lazy". Reason: we don't force editors to do a certain amount of "work". Every action done (even only 1 in 4 months) is better than no action at all.

>Or one who places sites in or not on a flip of a coin?
No problem as long as it is done according to DMOZ guidelines.

>Who edits the editors?
The other editors.

>There is no accountability.
Correct

>No "great job" for doing the job and no "your fired" for not doing the job.
At lot of possibilities to show "great job" internaly.
An editor will only be "fired" if he acts against our guidelines.
If an editor doesn't do the minimum of 1 edit in 4 months he will be inactivated. But can request for a reactivation very simply.

Do you understand what "volunteer" meens?

Actually, I disagree with pvgool, editors are definitely accountable - to other editors. There is a peer review system that allows for any editor to question another editor's work, and procedures in place to remove editors who do not edit according to the standards.

They are not, however, accountable to website owners, SEO experts or the like.

Do you understand what accountability means? Having a number of editors flipping coins ( in accordance with you guidelines, of course ) just means that sites get listed. The good, the bad and the ugly.

how long will it take to clear the backlog? How many good sites will sit in the que waiting for an editor to seperate the wheat from the chaff?

Click to expand...

We don't think in terms of backlog because the pile of suggested sites is not and never has been our priority. Talking about "backlog" presumes that we put some kind of priority on that pile of sites.

But what sanctions are there in place for the lazy editor? Or one who places sites in or not on a flip of a coin?

Click to expand...

Choosing how, where, and how much you are going to edit through random coin tosses is not abuse. Deciding the listability of a site based on a coin toss would be abuse and would be dealt with...but I'm pretty sure even the abusers can come up with a better plan than that.

Who edits the editors? There is no accountability. No "great job" for doing the job and no "your fired" for not doing the job.

Click to expand...

How is it better for us to "fire" an editor who is adding one site every few months? They're not taking up space, preventing someone else from editing there or from applying to edit there. And those couple of edits that they might do over their career are a couple more than would be done without them. As long as those few edits aren't abusive, we're happy to have them.

Ah, I see you're not familiar with the concept of a directory. As always, like all directories, the ODP _favors_ "large, STABLE sites." Stable, by definition, is "a site that has been around for awhile and hasn't changed drastically in value." But that's fine, some people don't use library card catalogs either. The ODP isn't trying to rule the world, and nobody will object if you visit another website without paying dues to dmoz.org first.

Now, I know, (I browse spammers' forums sometimes) that spammers need instant response on their link requests, because they often have to abandon their prior reputation at an instant's notice and start fresh under some other name (and jurisdiction). So if we can't give them that instant response, they run the danger of us telling people about their prior reputation -- and that is problematic.

For them. Not for us, not for surfers. So it's not a problem we'll be addressing soon.

Okay, now I'm a spammer?

How much time and energy could the editors save and put to better use than lurking in forums ready to pounce on anyone who doesn't spout the DMOZ gospel? DMOZ is great, DMOZ is good, thank DMOZ daily for our... what?

I disagree that the backlog is not something you should worry about. Hundreds of sites added daily to the ODP? Thousands of new sites are added to the web every hour! Oh no, it must be all bad! We cannot look at the list! Suggested sites? How dare they!

I am familiar with a directory. I have several around the house. One is called the "Yellow Pages". At the library they took away our "card catalog" and put the information into the computer. But it still is just a catalog.

By the way, the librarian is accountable for bad or arbitrary information: to the authors and the readers.

Just because a group gets together and "volunteers" to do something does not make it worth something.

Do you understand what accountability means? Having a number of editors flipping coins ( in accordance with you guidelines, of course ) just means that sites get listed. The good, the bad and the ugly.

Click to expand...

I would suspect that our definition of accountability is vastly different than yours. You seem to confuse volume of a specific type of work (processing submissions) with accountability, whereas we view accountability as performing edits in compliance with directory guidelines without any inappropriate outside influence.

The coin flipping analogy that you seem so proud of works on insofar as deciding which categories to look at and which sites to review. There is no coin-flipping involved with the listing decision. None. Nada.

The giveaway where is when you mention "standards for productivity" and "editors" in the same sentence. When you post that you are simply declaring that you have no idea how the ODP works, but have decided to try an impose your vision on us, even though you have no standing to do so.

Just because a group gets together and "volunteers" to do something does not make it worth something.

Click to expand...

And just because you come into our forum to snipe at us does not make anything you have posted worthwhile.

Why are you looking for some "gotcha" or other evidence that I am this or that? To simply classify me as one thing or another is brain lazy. Classify something and you no longer have to think about it. You know the characteristics of the class and therefore do not have to consider that the thing might not be as narrowly defined as that.

I am not trying to impose my vision on you but maybe I can get some of you to think. Maybe there is a better way to do things than the way they were done yesterday. Can any editor admit that the system has flaws? Can you turn the light of truth on yourselves and look for ways to do better?

pbarker3 said:

How much time and energy could the editors save and put to better use than lurking in forums ready to pounce on anyone who doesn't spout the DMOZ gospel?

Click to expand...

Would you rather they just ignored you, so you could claim that no editor ever listens to you? You are not being pounced on for failing to spout the gospel. You are being pounced on for making broad, sweeping statements about your opinion about something.

You are entitled to your opinion, and editors are entitled to theirs, I would think, no?

I disagree that the backlog is not something you should worry about. Hundreds of sites added daily to the ODP? Thousands of new sites are added to the web every hour! Oh no, it must be all bad! We cannot look at the list! Suggested sites? How dare they!

Click to expand...

Trying to cut through the sarcasm to a point, here... many, many sites are not listable. Many sites disappear before they ever have any true valuable content. Do you have some evidence that thousands of useful sites are added every hour, or is that another broad generalisation? Please provide backup information for these facts.

I am familiar with a directory. I have several around the house. One is called the "Yellow Pages".

Click to expand...

Horribly outdated - it is full of out-of-service numbers and there are new business that come up every day and there is no listing. Somehow people still find it useful, though.

By the way, the librarian is accountable for bad or arbitrary information: to the authors and the readers.

Click to expand...

Ok, I will go with that analogy. Let's say you have written a book, and the library isn't carrying it yet - do you have a right to demand that the library carry your book? Is the librarian accountable to you for carrying your book in their library? If they don't, they're not very relevant as a library, are they? Last time I used a library, I, as a borrower, could REQUEST that the library obtain a book for me. As I understand it they are under no obligation to do so.

Ah, and the catalog - They file theirs under that strange numbering system, still, I assume, and have it filed under certain criteria that THEY dictate. Do you as an author, or a borrower, have the right to go in and insist that the librarians change the keywords that a partiocular book is filed under?

These are the sorts of things you are demanding from the ODP in order to keep it relevant.

Just because a group gets together and "volunteers" to do something does not make it worth something.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with you. If you do not find it useful, then no-one is compelling you to use it. Others do.

No sane editor will state that the ODP system is flawless.

You simply have not offered anything constructive.

No standing? Right. I am not an editor. Also not a spammer. I do, however, use the directory. But I guess you don't build the thing for the me.

You *are* trying to impose your vision on us, e.g. we keep telling you the suggested pile isn't a priority but you keep insisting that it is. You're not the first zealot to come in here expecting to convert the heathen masses of ODP editors into something they're not.

pbarker3 said:

I am not trying to impose my vision on you but maybe I can get some of you to think.

Click to expand...

The defensive reactions you are seeing is because people are feeling like, instead of making people think, you are trying to make them think in YOUR WAY and that this is the only way they SHOULD think. People often have problems with that approach.

Maybe there is a better way to do things than the way they were done yesterday. Can any editor admit that the system has flaws? Can you turn the light of truth on yourselves and look for ways to do better?

Click to expand...

Yes, the system has flaws. Most definitely.

As for ways of looking to do things better, if you search around on the internet you will actually find a "leaked" internal discussion by editors about how the ODP can be made a better directory and creating a more up-to-date "vision" of what the directory should be. A lot of that is being put in place right now.