The scale of injustice!

Hello editors this one's for you!

As a 'frustrated' webmaster I have joined this forum in an effort to understand more how the ODP works and what to expect in terms of my website being listed in the ODP. As with many other 'frustrated suggestors' I have made a huge investment in my site ensuring that the content provided is hopefully 'unique' and informative. My site is a commercial site which exists in a market dominated by larger organisations. I suggested my site back in June 2005 and have suggested it several times since, all the time improving the content. I still however receive no feedback with regard to its status in any shape or form.

I've read numerous threads from people that have also long since 'suggested' their site to the ODP but have no idea whether their site has been reviewed or rejected. I have read the same general response from the 'editors' that submission status updates is a failed concept and that the ODP is not obligated to provide reasons for a suggestion being rejected etc. I have also read over and over that suggestions made via the Suggest a URL link on the ODP do not join any kind of ordered list and that the pool of suggested URLs is just one pot of potential inclusions that the ODP draws from. My favourite quote whilst reviewing some of the threads here is from spectregunner: 'Our strategy is simple: we generally ignore all webmasters'.

WOW! Isn't that internet racism or xenophobia, I'm sure there is a term.

Surely webmasters (despite their geeky, mechanical, single minded nature) are the single most important source of unique content on the INTERNET. Surely every time a webmaster submits a new URL it's because a new resource of potentially useful information has been added to the WEB. Is it not therefore the most likely place to find new unique content? Surely reviewing these submissions ensures that a category that has a lot of people wishing to be listed gets regular attention and that any abuse is more easily weeded out.

Quite frankly I feel that the attitude of some editors stinks. If the Salvation Army had volunteers like you they'd never save anyone. They wouldn't bother trying to save any alcohoics because 99% of them can't be saved. They wouldn't bother saving any battered houswives because most of them return to their abuser.

So saying 'we generally ignore all webmasters' is akin to turning away the battered housewife.

You volunteered to be an editor, if you no longer have the time or inclination to continue with an open mind then move aside. Remove your tainted view of the web and webmasters from the supposedly unbiased core of the ODP.

Wouldn't the ODP be a much better resource if all sites had to be submitted via the ODP Suggest a URL link. That way every suggestion would be viewed with the same weary eyes.

And finally, is it not futile to suggest that only sites with unique content be included in the directory. A range of similar content about any given subject ensures that there is balance within the informaiton which I am afraid the ODP seems to be sadly lacking.

:icon_idea

>Wouldn't the ODP be a much better resource if all sites had to be submitted via the ODP Suggest a URL link.

I'm glad you raised that question: obviously, not seeing the volume and quality of submittals, you could easily get the impression that they were worth much more than they are. As a matter of fact, over 90% of submittals are spam pure and simple. And most of the really good content developers seem to be too busy developing content to hound the ODP editors. As a result, the proposal would leve the ODP immeasurably impoverished, biased beyond usefulness, as well as impossibly overloaded with spam.

The idea has been floated before, but it's obvious to editors that the way to better listings lies in the direction of de-emphasizing site suggestions.

Sure, site suggestions are good for a little, a very little, supplemental to the more valuable, more general, and less (but differently) biased techniques that editors use to find on their own. And so far, that has been enough to keep from shutting down the site suggestion system altogether. But as a basis for a directory--suggestions are inadequate in scope, quality, and comprehensiveness.

One always has to remember that "webmasters" aren't any kind of homogenous group. There's nothing at all common to that class except that they possess either a copy of FontPlague, or some minimal clerical-class skills. Some "webmasters" create and publish unique content; other "webmasters" publish content provided to them by other people without the skills or interest to do so; still others are just plagiarizing spammers and scamsters.

It would be extremely unjust to treat suggestions from all of those people alike. The trouble is, some times we can't tell which are which without a degree of investigation that isn't warranted by the value of the information which could be given.

'The idea has been floated before, but it's obvious to editors that the way to better listings lies in the direction of de-emphasizing site suggestions.
'

I have to disagree. It must be reasonably simple to weed out the 90% of suggestions that are spam. That would only leave 10% to be reviewed which you add your suggestions to. How can the editors possibly have enough diversity in their interests and browsing habits to ensure a the ODP lives up to its goals?

As for "unique content" futile or not, that is the limitation editors agree to, when they receive permissions from the site administrators.

Not that most of us don't see it as a way of focusing on what's important. And I'm not sure where you might have gotten the impression that a "different perspective" didn't constitute unique content. I had gotten an altogether different impression: in fact, instance, for important historical, theological, political, etc., questions, we generally try to find multiple perspectives. IIRC, I added a Catholic article on Martin Luther, although I thought it was a bit scurrilous--it did represent a widely-held historical perspective, and it did include a fair number of facts stuck in between the innuendos.

>It must be reasonably simple to weed out the 90% of suggestions that are spam.

Oh, a large percentage of them ARE easy to weed out (or ignore). But in many areas there are far more spam sites that are HARD to weed out, than there are legitimate sites. In contrast, some other sources of URLs are much more reliable; other sources of URLs are no more reliable that suggestions, but represent a much broader range of sites.

>How can the editors possibly have enough diversity in their interests and browsing habits to ensure a the ODP lives up to its goals?

By getting diverse people to volunteer. You'd be amazed at the diversity of the community.

It must be reasonably simple to weed out the 90% of suggestions that are spam. That would only leave 10% to be reviewed which you add your suggestions to.

Click to expand...

I wish it were that simple - but for every site that ends up in the review pile, an editor has to look at it to determine if it's spam or not. I've learned that it can be rather difficult sometimes to make the determination. On the other hand sometimes it's really easy.

Here's a few examples -

(1) the Arabian breeder that repeatedly submits their "foals for sale page", even though their main site is listed and I emailed them three months ago to please stop.

(2) the African travel lodge that repeatedly submits their site (under a few different URLs) to Arabian breeders - even though they belong in a different category.

I had to look at both of those in order to determine that they didn't belong. And each time they submit - they take up a little bit of my time.

These occur in a category that I work pretty hard in - and where there is very very little spam - I don't even want to think about what might be found in a category that everyone wants to be in

By getting diverse people to volunteer. You'd be amazed at the diversity of the community.


Ok! This is a subjective point, it really is a matter of persective as to whether the editors really do represent a broad enough spectrum to accommodate the goals of the ODP. And your perspective I'm afraid is somewhat obtuse.

I do feel that the ODP is already littered with spammers and that reviewing more URL suggestions would mean that the sections with heavy spam infiltration would receive more attention and thus lead to less clutter and better organisation.

One of our competitors is listed in 8 sections yet the information that is being linked to is several years old. Does this not constitute spam?? Would I not be assisting the goal of the ODP by bringing it to your attention saving you the need to search for sites that need to be removed?

Surely this kind of problem where static outdated information which provides no value to surfers at all would become far less common if more suggested URLs were reviewed with less cynicism

I'm happy to assist the ODP in highlighting the sites that I have come across that I feel do not merit inclusion in the ODP, or at least have misused the index. This would surely help to improve the quality of the directory!

These occur in a category that I work pretty hard in - and where there is very very little spam - I don't even want to think about what might be found in a category that everyone wants to be in


Isn't that the point? The sections that everybody wants to be in are the sections that need the most attention.

>The sections that everybody wants to be in are the sections that need the most attention.

That is certainly many webmasters' perspective. From an editor's perspective the sections that aren't there yet need the most attention: those, after all, are where the diversity of the editing community have most spectacularly failed to achieve its goal.

But ... the point is, there CAN'T be a single definition of priority. The web is just too complex. What the ODP does is get as many different definitions of priority as possible (within the overall bounds of its mission.) Each editor has a different one: that's a critical part of what "diversity" means.

>But ... the point is, there CAN'T be a single definition of priority. The web is just too complex. What the ODP does is get as many different definitions of priority as possible (within the overall bounds of its mission.) Each editor has a different one: that's a critical part of what "diversity" means.

Surely the ODP's has a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the index?

If you just keep adding mountains of URL's withour proper maintenance of what is already in the index you'll only add to the problems that already exist.

Your list of unhappy webmasters will grow and ultimately the index will become nothing more than a giant haystack.

You continually beat down the webmaster but without us the purpose of the ODP is redundant. Without webmasters there can be no content!

This is why webmaster suggestions should receive a higher priority.

Editors bumbling along reading an interesting article about something or someone and then locating a relating site to add to the index strikes me as a rather clumsy way to build the index.

It's a noble idea that editors are impartial beings of great moral virtue that have kindly volunteered their time to create the one true source of useful information. But from many of the threads I have read only a small percentage of you actually can boast this level of nobility. You tout the democratic nature of the ODP yet your approach is completely autocratic.

The list of unhappy webmasters is the best possible measure of the QUALITY of the ODP. 90% of the sites submitted won't ever be listed, and those webmasters are unhappy -- some of them, like yourself, vocally so. Another several percent of the sites MAY someday be listed, and in the meantime there are probably a few impatient webmasters among them. But I tend to think those webmasters are the ones who nobly volunteer to build sites that represent some of the many true sources of useful information. And, in practice, they tend to be too busy building their own websites, to waste time carping at other peoples' efforts. (Unfortunately, all too often they're too busy even to suggest their sites. So we're dependent on editors and other surfers to give them the visibility they so richly deserve.

Now there are many websites that provide various kinds of resources. But the ODP is absolutely unique in its comprehensive collection of unsuggested, surfer-reviewed websites.

You may not think that's worthwhile. But that's OK. It was worthwhile for the people who did it. And that's really all that counts. They thought it would be worthwhile for someone else -- and for some people it is: I know, because I've met some of them.

If it doesn't serve your purposes, don't use it. There will be no hurt feelings. Nobody will call you names. Nobody will complain about how you spend your time. Nobody will be impatient or frustrated with you.

Always the same response, you are all machines!!

If you don't like it don't use it!

We have to use it because so many other directories use it. You know full well that the ODP is an integral part of the internet and you know full well that being listed helps considerably with G**gle search rankings.

I guess the 'open directory project' is not so open to us poor old webmasters who feel totally sure that our sites have useful content.

Welcome to the demoautocracycracy.

No, you don't have to use it. It is quite easy to find directories that DON'T use the ODP content, or search engines where ODP content doesn't weigh any more than any other links page.

Because the fact is, the ODP ISN'T the "one true source" of useful information. It's an integrated part of the internet in the same way any other site is: it links out to other sites, and other sites link to it. That's all.

And as for webmasters -- I don't know that anyone has ever been rejected as an ODP editor because they had committed acts of webmastering. (Many ODP editors are also webmasters. It's really not that hard: I know, I've done it occasionally myself. The directory is just as open to you as it is to me. And your spare time is your own -- many honest people have never taken advantages of the ODP's openness to help what it does, so we can't criticize you for not offering to help.

It's probably best that way. You have a different idea about what to do and how to do it: the ODP really doesn't offer you either a congenial mission or useful tools.

And that's OK. Your website is useful -- to you. The ODP is useful -- to me. There may be someone else somewhere that finds your website useful, whether I do or not. There may be someone somewhere who finds it useful even though the ODP administration would not allow ODP editors to list it. That's OK.

Welcome to freedom. Webmasters like you and the ODP administration have it: contributors like me have whatever the webmasters will allow us; users have the freedom to choose what's useful.

But you've given me an idea for a political slogan:

"Autocracy to the People!"

I like it.

Interesting thread for me on a few levels. I've just been accepted as an editor here at ODP, in the adult section. I'm trying to learn as much as I can about editing before I start messing with my category.

I'm also the owner of a large commercial website, but also highly informational. My site was removed from the ODP in 2005 due to 2 "dns failures" which seems highly improbable, yet surely true.

My site was the first of it's kind really, and now we have at least 25 direct competing sites. Being dropped from the ODP has turned out to be a huge deal for us. We vanished from Yahoo SERP's because of this. No directory coverage, etc. We review websites, and have over 1,200 site reviews, mostly 2-3 pages long of text. It's taken 4 years to amass all this content. I seriously believe that because my site exists, the quality and level of customer service offered by adult websites has totally increased over these years. Why? Because we're monitoring them now.

I'm obviously on both sides of this argument. On one side, we have a webmaster who has desperately tried (unsuccessfully) to gain a listing, which they feel is deserved, because of the exceptional quality of their website.

On the other side, is an ODP editor who says that 90% of submissions are spam, and although not perfect, their system is this way for a reason. I'm sure it's been a long evolution! I see both sides of this pretty clearly.

Overall, my feeling is that the time spent writing all of these responses, could have been spent checking this guy's site. Is that so wrong? Can we all not admit to that? I can see that it's not possible for *every* webmaster who is unhappy. But if there's time to explain to them, over many posts why things are the way they are, then there's probably time to check if their site is worthy.

Is there no room for wiggle here? People who run major sites in their category *should* have a recourse other than the possible years of waiting. Many business owners would gladly donate a few hundred bucks just to have a decision, ANY decision, within say 48 hours. Is that completely out the question? Someone's gotta pay the server bill.

It's true, one answer about the situation of a specific site would take less time than explaining why we can't. But it wouldn't be at all fair to do it for one poster and not for others. And that would take so much time that we'd hardly have any time left to edit.

I'm not guessing here, nor estimating, I'm speaking from the experience of when we used to do that. My own experience was that a very small percentage of queries were asking for something we could or would do, and a larger number degenerated into arguments when somebody asked for something it was contrary to our policy to do. The small amount of help we were able to give felt good, but not nearly good enough to make up for the rest of it.

One thing is certain: We'll never accept payment either for a listing or for the use of our data. Please refer to the ODP Social Contract for more details about that.

Okay, that does give me a better understanding. Maybe a charitable donation? Something good should come of this. Would it be so bad to promise to review sites who donated $250+ to a charity of DMOZ's choice?

You could have a counter that said "$76,850 donated by disgruntled webmasters to cancer research so far this year"

I'm all for turning a bad situation into a positive one, and it would stop all this chatter! I just had a look at this forum category's page, ohmy. I have no idea how you are all still responding

Thanks again!

Whatever system we would implement, once it is about someone paying money to speed up a review it means:

1) Business sites being preferred and small hobbyist sites not being listes as quickly

2) A need to force our editors to review specific sites.

Both are things we don't want to, so a system like this won't be implemented.

Regarding

Surely the ODP's has a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the index?

Click to expand...

Of course. That is another job that is never finished. Dead sites are moved into the unreviewed pile by a robot every once in a while (and an editor will hunt around for a new URL), but no machine can automatically find sites that have merely changed content, or that have discontinued but are still displaying a "We Quit" sign. There are other tools to help us find those, but all the same, each site has to be checked by a living editor who decides what to do with it. So that's a job many editors devote a lot of time to, and fortunately we are helped by surfers telling us about bad URLs, changed content and the like. In my personal view (like everybody else here I speak only for myself, not for the ODP) the upkeep of the existing listings is every bit as important as the adding of new links. And once again, the diversity of our priorities and interests is the best way to make sure that as much of the directory as possible is covered.

This is why webmaster suggestions should receive a higher priority.

Editors bumbling along reading an interesting article about something or someone and then locating a relating site to add to the index strikes me as a rather clumsy way to build the index.

Click to expand...

Here's a thing that surprises me every time I see it: that people think that fairness means reviewing suggested sites before all others (and usually they mean doing that in a FIFO order). Fairness should be attempting to treat all sites the same, regardless of whether or not they've ever been suggested. Unfairness would be giving preferential treatment to sites whose owners just happened to find the ODP, simply because they found the ODP. In reality, we operate in a random combination of dipping into the suggestion pool and finding sites on our own that is as close to absolute fairness (as defined above) as we will likely ever be.

Would it be so bad to promise to review sites who donated $250+ to a charity of DMOZ's choice?

Click to expand...

Yes it would, it's bribery. It provides an unfair advantage to those who have money to spend on marketing.