The problem with ODP

Markos101 · Sep 24, 2004

Crone,

That's beginning to sound like an objective analysis of the situation.

It's not that editors are negative, though I can see why a Web site owner would think they are, it's because we are coming from completely different directions. You think we are a listing service, we think we are organizing and categorizing Web sites for our users. The suggested pool of Web sites is just that, suggestions. There are many avenues that an editor can use to find and list sites. The suggested pool is just one way and often not the best.

Personally, I'd vote to close down the suggest a site link altogether and so would many other editors. I can go out and find a few sites, write descriptions and titles, and add them quicker than I can find one good site to list in the unreviewed pool ...

My guess is this: most editors would go onto Google, Hotbot, or other major search engine, scour the first couple of pages, and then if they find something they believe to be of value, add it.

The problem with this is that ODP simply starts replicating the algorithmic search engines. It appears to me that the point of ODP is that it is a human-picked directory, independent of search engine algorithms. On the contrary to what you say, I'd say 'submit url' suggestions are the mainstay of an Open Directory; humans suggest, humans review. Otherwise, how do you find the sites to review - by looking at other people's directories? By looking in magazines? Or the easy route of using the search engines? How then does ODP maintain the concept of being Open?

And whilst editors are indeed coming from a different direction to the webmasters, it still does not explain the seeming laziness of many editors in reviewing sites. Editors know that ODP is listed on many major search engines. If the public are inhibited in any way from suggesting their sites to the directory, and from having them reviewed in even reasonable time, to me it defeats the information democracy of the internet in the first place. You can understand that whether editor or not.

Mark

old_crone · Sep 24, 2004

I'm sorry, Mark, but you can not call a volunteer lazy. That just is not acceptable to any of us. How much time a volunteer can donate to this project is entirely up to them and has absolutely nothing to do with laziness. How arrogant and dismissive do you think that comment can be perceived by those who volunteer their time, many spending more hours editing than they do at their real jobs?

I can find a lot of sites without ever looking at a search engine. My local phone book for one., my IP for another. There are many different ways if you think outside of the search engine box.

Again, you truly have no clue of what is involved with editing and the time it can suck from your life if you let it.

Let me ask you a question - did you read and follow the guidelines before submitting your site? Are you sure you submitted it to the correct category? Is your site guidelines compliant with unique content or can the content be found all over the Internet?

joeychgo · Sep 24, 2004

I think a big part of it is about attitude old_crone ---

Mine is good. I am glad you guys do what you do - and I know that many do. Hell, this forum doesn thave to exist - Im aware of that.

I have no beef........ I am merely offering suggestions that might help. Ive seen it before in forums where the mods get crabbed at so much, they get the attitude that everyone else just disregards the rules. It becomes an US/THEM thing.

Know what? I bet many dont do it intentionally, or do it cause they are frustrated and want to try another direction. It can be frustrating as a webmaster to see a competitor listed and you cant get listed for whatever reason. Thats why I said COMMUNICATION can be helpful. If the site is in the wrong catagory, tell the submitter to resubmit it to the right one....... Whats so hard about that? you say it takes alot to move it to the right catagory, well --let the guy who made the mistake fix it.

As a whole, I find many editors to be on the negative side -webmasters are not the enemy - Smile guys - you should be having fun and be proud of the job you do --

Markos101 · Sep 24, 2004

In answer to the question; yes, I did read the guidelines. the site submission catagory was suggested to me by a web developer I hired to suggest ways of improving my search engine rankings, and also to improve usability. I looked at all other catagories, and this one seemed to be the one that fits. However, as stated in your FAQ (which yes I did read), because the catagorisation process is discretionary, a webmaster has no idea whether the catagory they have chosen is the 'right' one or not, therefore they can receive a complaint from the editor that they did not choose the 'right' subjective catagory; I have 12 unique articles on my site, written by myself with good grammar and spelling, with content relevant to the site's theme. The property listings I have on my site are unique and plentiful. I have dedicated many months of time to the site. It has links to other, relevant, sites for use to my visitors. It has no broken links. It is easy to use, bug-free, and in my subjective opinion, of value to ODP.

The problem is, I haven't been told yet whether that opinion is matched by the editor, because they haven't reviewed it yet.

As to 'may spending more hours editing than they do at their real jobs'? I'm sorry, but with 65,000 editors, you don't know them all, and it again harks against common sense for me to perceive that statement as correct.

Hope that answers the questions.

Mark

old_crone · Sep 24, 2004

Editors know that ODP is listed on many major search engines.

Yes, we know but we are forbidden to give it any credibility while donating or time to edit in the ODP. It simply is not important to the ODP and that is not arrogance speaking, it's just the plain and simple truth.

If the public are inhibited in any way from suggesting their sites to the directory, to me it defeats the information democracy of the internet in the first place.

That is one reason the suggest a site feature will remain as is. However, I removed "and from having them reviewed in even reasonable time" from the above quote because that is not our mission, never has been our mission, and never will be our mission.

hutcheson · Sep 24, 2004

>Does anybody here think this is the answer of a professional, accountable individual or a very powerful organisation?

Yes, and that is exactly the point. You aren't talking to people who account to you. You're talking to people: pvgool, motsa, leer, jeanmanco, hutcheson, and anyone else who wants to join the conversation.

But you aren't here talking to a large organization. In fact, there simply is not and cannot be any "very powerful organization" such as you imagine! And this is why.

We don't work for webmasters. We don't even work for the ODP! We are volunteers -- we work for our own purposes.

But not only here. Each of us has many opportunities to contribute to society, or even to that ideal we might call "the sum of human knowledge." For instance, I can transcribe important texts or musical works, thus making more information available in electronic form. I can participate in public discussions, like this, to spread information. I can write programs that enhance the availability of information. I can index and cross-link existing information. I can even try to add original content -- by research or personal creativity.

I do these things. I do them because they are my priorities. I choose which of them to do, based on my priorities. I cooperate with other people, based on my perception that our goals are compatible, and my judgment that we can better accomplish common goals by working together. I choose the people with whom I cooperate.

So long as there are people willing to cooperate on shared my goals on mutually acceptable terms, I'll gladly work with them. If I couldn't find any such people, I'd work alone -- just as I did before I knew about the ODP, or PG, or the CCEL, or GB.

Thus do we all. Every single voluntary cooperator has absolute veto over the terms of that cooperation: if the terms are ever not perfectly acceptable to any one of us, then the cooperation is at an end.

I can't speak for motsa, or leer, or jeanmanco, or pvgool. Neither I nor anybody else can impose tasks or goals or priorities or deadlines on them. I can't tell them what to do, or when. All I can do is appreciate how much they (with all the other thousands of volunteers) have done to build a website that has often helped me, my family, and my friends find information: and "return the favor forward" by helping other people find information that's important to them.

These are the people to whom you're talking; these are the kind of people that built the ODP. So, what conceivable place in such a community could this "very powerful organization" have?

Even if there were some "powerful organization" behind the ODP; and even if (through your subversion of its "great coercive power") it tried to impose your totalitarian will on these free persons, then ... I'd be out of there in a New York millisecond, and if I waited longer than that, I'd probably be the one to turn out the lights and close the door.

So, absent the mythical organization (which never existed outside some pitiful pathological psychological fantasies anyway) there's nobody here but us autonomous, voluntarily cooperating persons. And I can't speak for any of the others -- just as they can't speak for me.

Markos101 · Sep 24, 2004

hutcheson said:
>We don't work for webmasters. We don't even work for the ODP! We are volunteers -- we work for our own purposes.

And so here we have an organisation (in that a large group of people are acting towards an apparent common mission) that are working 'for their own purposes'. An organisation which greatly affects the information people read on the internet through SERs, 'working for their own purposes', and this is exactly the point.

ODP shouldn't be doing the job its given; if it is doing the job, it should respect its own influence - or for your sake, individual editors, 'working for thier own purposes', should respect their influence - and give due diligence to those making suggestions for sites.

The buerocracy of ODP - with people getting their sites rejected if they don't adhere to Section 12(b)(i) article (IV) of the ODP rules - and the consequences of having to wait such a long time on rejection is enough to make well-meaning hard working webmasters scream.

If the object of ODP isn't the problem, the adversity of its workings is. I don't need to go on about it. The webmasters who make the internet have spoken. The ODP needs to get its head out of the clouds, take some responsibility, and listen to the needs of the internet-makers.

If it doesn't, it's just a hinderence to the whole point of the internet in the first place.

I've just read in my manual that MSN is only partially affected by ODP; and that MSN is meant to be the next Google. I appreciate volunteers don't give two hoots about webmasters; that they're in their own world, enjoying picking their own sites for their own catagory. But there is such thing as cause and effect, and organisations or groups need to understand this, especially given that ODP affects the very information people read online. Maybe MSN will free well-meaning, attentive webmasters from the monopoly of the well-meaning ODP.

Mark

old_crone · Sep 24, 2004

Know what? I bet many dont do it intentionally, or do it cause they are frustrated and want to try another direction. It can be frustrating as a webmaster to see a competitor listed and you cant get listed for whatever reason. Thats why I said COMMUNICATION can be helpful. If the site is in the wrong catagory, tell the submitter to resubmit it to the right one....... Whats so hard about that? you say it takes alot to move it to the right catagory, well --let the guy who made the mistake fix it.

It's not hard, it's time consuming and time is what this thread is about - how to use it and if enough is being used to pacify Web site owners. And what do you think happens to all the other submissions that frustrated owner made? Who's time is being missused and by whom? Plus, communicating with Web site owners can and often does become counter-productive. Some editors have been contacted and threatened by Web site owners in the real world, not just via email. Abusive submitters may not be the norm but it only takes one for an editor to never reply to one again. The guidelines tell everyone what they need to know. The category descriptions are well written and explain what kind of sites are to be submitted. What more explanation is required? Submit your site and then forget about it. It will get listed, or not, when an editor decides he/she has time to edit in that particular category. There is nothing you can do to make that happen quicker and no amount of communication will change that.

webmasters are not the enemy

Of course not, no one thinks that all Webmasters are our enemy. But when the Webmasters pocketbook comes into the mix, they become ugly real quick and of course, we are then perceived as their enemy

hutcheson · Sep 24, 2004

>My guess is this: most editors would go onto Google, Hotbot, or other major search engine, scour the first couple of pages, and then if they find something they believe to be of value, add it.

Markos, that is an irrational and unrealistic fantasy. I've never done what you describe. And if you had ever actually tried it, you'd have seen that the ODP that actually exists, simply could not have been created that way.

There are innumerable places out on the web where editors have described how they actually work. There's no need for you to "guess", and it is inexcusably arrogant of you to set up your "guess" up as a straw man in front of editors who know what was actually done because they did it.

old_crone · Sep 24, 2004

The ODP needs to get its head out of the clouds, take some responsibility, and listen to the needs of the internet-makers.

Take responsibility for what? Why should we listen to the Internet-makers?

I'm an Internet-maker in more ways then one ... are you listening?

Markos101 · Sep 24, 2004

Look, this is what you're not going to change:

[a] Webmasters need to get listed on ODP to compete with other sites. That isn't going to change, and;
Whilst ODP is a little hobbyist site for those interested in a catagory to plod along at their hearts content in choosing sites that they, personally and subjectively feel is right for that catagory, it has a notable effect on the major search engines and will thus always unfairly bias competition, conflicting with the idea of the 'perfect market' on the internet. That is the cause and effect, and thus;
[c] ODP is always going to be a source of conflict and;
[d] It could be lessened by editors responding to website suggestions in more reasonable a time (over 2 years??), because in this way, webmasters can improve their content if it is subjectively not acceptable to the editor who happens to be there, and in this way, the editors can get more high quality sites to their list, and webmasters don't get unfairly penalised in the perfect market. If that isn't part of the general etiquette, change it. And;
[e] Most people I hope can see that [d] is not an unreasonable request.

Mark

joeychgo · Sep 24, 2004

We don't work for webmasters. We don't even work for the ODP! We are volunteers -- we work for our own purposes.

Would you accept an editor that put that on his application??? I know I wouldnt. It sounds selfish and self serving.

Ive tried to offer some insight- and the us vs them attitude remains. I dont think anoyone here started with the thought of attacking the editors, but trying to help them ~~ But the editors dont need help. They have it all under control. Know how I know this? Becuaus instead of listenting and taking suggestions and trying to improve how things work, those who ahve answered in this thread have used various insulting and demeaning tones and words - so they are telling us they dont need our opinions, they have it under control and dont need our annoying opinions.

Thats one way of looking at things.... its the read I get from reading everything written by the editors.

joeychgo · Sep 24, 2004

Take responsibility for what? Why should we listen to the Internet-makers?

Comments like this are so counter productive.

old_crone · Sep 24, 2004

Webmasters need to get listed on ODP to compete with other sites. That isn't going to change.

Maybe not but it isn't our problem. How can we make that clear without sounding arrogant? It isn't an arrogant statement. It's simply a basic truth.

ODP is always going to be a source of conflict

Again, that is not our problem. We didn't create it, nor can we fix it. No matter what we do it will not please Web site owners.

It could be lessened by editors responding to website suggestions in more reasonable a time (over 2 years??), because in this way, webmasters can improve their content if it is subjectively not acceptable to the editor who happens to be there, and in this way, the editors can get more high quality sites to their list, and webmasters don't get unfairly penalised in the perfect market. If that isn't part of the general etiquette, change it.

The vast majority of sites without enough unique content will never have enough to get listed because the purpose/focus of their sites are not compatible with the ODP's directive and they can not make it compatible.

You are blaming the wrong people for Webmaster being unfairly penalized. Instead blame those who created the problem - the Webmasters for unfairly swamping the ODP with their trash/spam (this comment is not directed at anyone in particular). They created the problem as you perceive it, not the ODP editors. As you said, cause and effect. This is the effect that you get to experience.

The vast majority of sites without enough unique content will never have enough to get listed because the purpose/focus of their sites are not compatible with the ODP's directive and they can not make it compatible.

From our perspective, it is unreasonable because its not what's important to the overall functionality or purpose of the ODP.

old_crone · Sep 24, 2004

Comments like this are so counter productive.

It wasn't a comment, it was a question. How productive was your comment to my question? What color is your pot?

motsa · Sep 24, 2004

Editors really have to learn to avoid statements like "yes ofcourse we know, but we don't care" and also "Hate to be blunt here but what you consider "not acceptable" is meaningless to us." It smacks of arrogance and makes people think you dont care in general... Ive seen this attitude come through in maky posts here...

It's not arrogance. Merely a statement of fact. We've told you all many, many times that (a) the suggestions pool is not our #1 priority and (b) that editors are not required to review a specific number of sites within a specific timeframe or review any given site within a specific timeframe. Telling us that this is not acceptable is not going to change it.

Ultimately, I think there are 2 things editors and ODP could do to dramatically improve things. One, make every effort to review sites as quickly as possible. And second, communication - email a suggested site in 30 days with a status. Let them know specifically why a site is denied. I dont think its too much to have an editor spend an afternoon a month. If you cant do that, then why volunteer in the first place?

RE: One -- again, the pool of suggested sites is not our #1 priority so "as quickly as possible" to us is "whenever we can get to it" which could be years or could be in the next couple of minutes. Trying to put a specific timeframe on it would only force us to make the timeframe something like "We promise to review your suggestion within the next 5 years." How is that helpful? You're never going to see a "We promise to review your suggestion within 30 days." You want a guaranteed review time, you need talk to Yahoo.

RE: Two -- Again, this is all rehashing stuff that has been brought many times before and the answers are still the same. We don't give specifics about rejection and we're not going to start emailing statuses to submitters any time soon.

And whilst editors are indeed coming from a different direction to the webmasters, it still does not explain the seeming laziness of many editors in reviewing sites.

It's not laziness. If I'm doing what I signed up for, I'm not being lazy even if I never, ever.

As to 'many spending more hours editing than they do at their real jobs' I'm sorry, but with 65,000 editors, you don't know them all, and it again harks against common sense for me to perceive that statement as correct.

Meaning you don't think "many" do it or you don't think "any" do? A fair number of people do indeed spend full-time or near full-time hours doing ODP stuff. Some just put in a few minutes every couple of months. Most do a mix of something in between. BTW 65,000 is the total number of people who have ever edited with the ODP, not the current number of active editors.

If it doesn't, it's just a hinderence to the whole point of the internet in the first place.

If it's hindering you, ignore it. No one is forcing you to use it. If everyone stopped using it, we'd either keep puttering on in obscurity or we'd die out. Either way, trying to strong arm us into changing the way we function isn't going to have the desired effect.

Look, this is what you're not going to change:

(a) Webmasters need to get listed on ODP to compete with other sites. That isn't going to change, and;
(b) Whilst ODP is a little hobbyist site for those interested in a catagory to plod along at their hearts content in choosing sites that they, personally and subjectively feel is right for that catagory, it has a notable effect on the major search engines and will thus always unfairly bias competition, conflicting with the idea of the 'perfect market' on the internet. That is the cause and effect, and thus;
(c) ODP is always going to be a source of conflict and;
(d) It could be lessened by editors responding to website suggestions in more reasonable a time (over 2 years??), because in this way, webmasters can improve their content if it is subjectively not acceptable to the editor who happens to be there, and in this way, the editors can get more high quality sites to their list, and webmasters don't get unfairly penalised in the perfect market. If that isn't part of the general etiquette, change it. And;
(e) Most people I hope can see that [d] is not an unreasonable request

Look, this is what you're not going to change:

(a) We don't give #1 priority to the suggestions queue. We just don't.

(b) We aren't going to force editors to review any given site within a specific timeframe or to put in a specific amount of their time towards the project.

Ive tried to offer some insight- and the us vs them attitude remains.

You're offering the same insight as everyone else, which we've already explained doesn't mesh with how the ODP works. This is where the us vs. them thing comes from --> you're trying to tell us how to fix something that we don't think is broken despite us having told you many times over why we don't think it is broken.

hutcheson · Sep 24, 2004

>maybe the bar could be just a bit higher?? Spend one afternoon a month.

Why? How would it help the ODP to eliminate all the people who do eighty hours of editing during spring break, and don't do a single edit for the rest of the semester?

I have a far better idea: that we should absolutely refuse to waste any of our most trusted and productive editors' time looking over anybody else's time clock.

Compared to your proposal, that would allow heavy editors to edit more at, um, the expense of getting more edits from infrequent editors.

>If your catagory is too big to keep up with - then take a smaller one.
There's nothing even remotely resembling your concept of "your category". Nobody owns any category. Hundreds of people can edit any category. We allow people to edit anywhere that we trust them and they express an interest. Even if we don't trust them quite that far yet, we're happy to work with them to build the experience that would support that kind of trust.

And there's nothing in the ODP remotely resembling your concept of "keep up with". We have "contributors". Any editor who can show they can contribute to a category is welcome there. Editors who show good judgment are cordially invited to edit ANYWHERE they think they can do a good job. The more people that want to edit in a category, the more comprehensive it can be.

>If you expect little from people, you will get little from many of them.

The ODP, like all other volunteer communities in existance, gets nothing at all from most people. And, like all other successful volunteer communities, we adopt approaches that are effective in spite of that fact.

So far as I can tell, you seem to be proposing that we take our productive editors aways from work that they do because they enjoy it, and force them instead to implement a personnel management program based around targeting people who will do 10 edits a month because they have to do 10 edits a month in order to be allowed to do 10 edits a month.

On the face of it, the idea just sounds insane, but I think it's a much more insidious idea than that. (I don't believe there are THAT many insane people in these forums, and the idea keeps coming back) I think it's a different form of the same thing the old slaveowners said about slaves -- "unambitious lazy sods, we have to beat them to make them work for our own good." There are all too many egocentric people who are ready to lay down the law for others, and take the benefit for themselves. And in order to justify this, they think of, and treat, others as "inferior races" whose sole justification lies in how they can benefit themselves the "naturally superior" persons.

This is pathological, immoral, abhorrent. And, since editors are the inferior beings you're trying to drive like slaves, the ODP editors' forum is the wrong place to find an appreciative audience.

What we do instead is offer volunteers is an impressive (world-class) achievement and a chance to make it better. The kind of people who find that challenge irresistable are precisely the people whom we want contributing,

I should mention two other things they won't tell you in those BM classes. One is that over a surprisingly wide range of activities, volunteer organizations can do almost anything more efficiently than businesses. Another is that any number of experienced coordinators of volunteer projects will tell you that the more arbitrary roadblocks you place in front of them, the fewer volunteers you'll get. This last should have been obvious even to you, if you hadn't been thinking of us as free human beings rather than as your chattels.

You want to be our boss, or at least, the fuhrer who lays the law down to our boss. But we do not have bosses, and we do not miss them. Instead, we have coordinators, facilitators, and mentors: and we are them."

Markos101 · Sep 24, 2004

motsa said:
It's not arrogance. Merely a statement of fact. We've told you all many, many times that (a) the suggestions pool is not our #1 priority and (b) that editors are not required to review a specific number of sites within a specific timeframe or review any given site within a specific timeframe. Telling us that this is not acceptable is not going to change it.
RE: One -- again, the pool of suggested sites is not our #1 priority so "as quickly as possible" to us is "whenever we can get to it" which could be years or could be in the next couple of minutes. Trying to put a specific timeframe on it would only force us to make the timeframe something like "We promise to review your suggestion within the next 5 years." How is that helpful? You're never going to see a "We promise to review your suggestion within 30 days." You want a guaranteed review time, you need talk to Yahoo.

RE: Two -- Again, this is all rehashing stuff that has been brought many times before and the answers are still the same. We don't give specifics about rejection and we're not going to start emailing statuses to submitters any time soon.

It's not laziness. If I'm doing what I signed up for, I'm not being lazy even if I never, ever.

Meaning you don't think "many" do it or you don't think "any" do? A fair number of people do indeed spend full-time or near full-time hours doing ODP stuff. Some just put in a few minutes every couple of months. Most do a mix of something in between. BTW 65,000 is the total number of people who have ever edited with the ODP, not the current number of active editors.

If it's hindering you, ignore it. No one is forcing you to use it. If everyone stopped using it, we'd either keep puttering on in obscurity or we'd die out. Either way, trying to strong arm us into changing the way we function isn't going to have the desired effect.

Look, this is what you're not going to change:

(a) We don't give #1 priority to the suggestions queue. We just don't.

(b) We aren't going to force editors to review any given site within a specific timeframe or to put in a specific amount of their time towards the project.

You're offering the same insight as everyone else, which we've already explained doesn't mesh with how the ODP works. This is where the us vs. them thing comes from --> you're trying to tell us how to fix something that we don't think is broken despite us having told you many times over why we don't think it is broken.

What a load of self-indulgent, holyer-than-thou, disrespectful, shut-off, unproductive, bunkum. And to think this is the writings of a 'meta' editor - those who actually choose who becomes an editor. Saying things like 'this is what we do - we just do' without reason is the lamest excuse for sounding like someone to be taken seriously I've ever heard.

Why don't you wake up out of your daydream and realise that strength comes from listening, flexibility; and not some concept of rigidity.

!!

Mark

Markos101 · Sep 24, 2004

And motsa - who's 'we'? You? Your postman?

ODP is a conglomerate of individual editors with individual views - you seem to be living some fantasy that you're an all-authority or all-representative view of ODP. Wake up Dorothy.

Mark

Markos101 · Sep 24, 2004

This is a representation of the problem. We have an organisation that effectively monopolises a great deal of PR and the perfect market, and on the other hand it is run by a group of shut-off, holyer-than-thou power trippers who see strength in listing an endless list of rules and turning their nose up at you.

Heaven save the internet.

Mark

The problem with ODP

Markos101

Banned

old_crone

Member

joeychgo

Member

Markos101

Banned

old_crone

Member

hutcheson

Markos101

Banned

old_crone

Member

hutcheson

old_crone

Member

Markos101

Banned

joeychgo

Member

joeychgo

Member

old_crone

Member

old_crone

Member

motsa

hutcheson

Markos101

Banned

Markos101

Banned

Markos101

Banned