The scale of injustice!

>2. We Give Back to the Web Community

We license our content as free with attribution back to the ODP. We will make the most comprehensive, user-friendly directory possible, so the content and taxonomy will be widely used and distributed. We will do our best to list web sites in a fair and impartial manner, and consider all user requests and suggestions for improvement.

We will make every effort to build a high quality and comprehensive directory. We will make every effort to evaluate all sites submitted to the directory.

Surely the only honest way to achieve the evaluation of all sites submitted is to ensure that every site goes through the same procedure> I.e. every site should be submitted using the Suggest a site link on the ODP.

That way sites like my own which should IMHO be listed in the following category.

http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Business_and_Economy/Shopping/Pets/

Could replace the following dead or incorrectly categorized entries.

http://www.faithfulfriends.co.uk/ - dead link
https://www.petplanet.co.uk/shop/index.htm - dead link
http://www.paw-mark.co.uk/ - wrong category

http://www.pets-corner.co.uk/ - been closed down
http://www.ukpets.co.uk/ - it's a directory!
http://www.woodhatchparrots.co.uk/ - dead link

Unless you pay close attention to the suggested sites, these failed links which make a mockery of your goal of providing useful links will remain and no maintenance will be done. Thus devaluing your presense.

We provide a place in this forum to report such problems

http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5453

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.

Click to expand...

Well in the area I edit, there are only a few submissions a year and I go and find the sites myself. The web masters of these sites don't know anything about SEO at all and otherwise would languish in obscurity.

So the next question is 'why are there so many editors working in relatively quiet sections when busy sections are deluged with submissions. Surely the ODP should move resources to the areas of most activity'. You may also wonder what sort of person would want to work in a category covering some obscure topic that seems to you to be totally irrelevant. Surely the editor could be better deployed elsewhere? Well, that editor would wonder why anyone would bother with other areas when they could be investigating the joys of that little category.

The problem here is that it is a volunteer human-edited directory and the problem with humans is that they tend to volunteer for what they are interested in. The number of people interested in shopping with no outlet for their interest is a lot less than the equivalent number interested in (say) a pop-group. Hence a category for these has a greater chance of attracting an editor than a shopping category - leading to a base level of perceived unfairness.

An editor interested in a single category is likely to put in quite a bit of effort to build up a resource and process those relatively few submissions they get quickly and hunt up and locate other sites on their own initiative. This of course increases the level of perceived unfairness. There are many editors that have wider horizons but they also have a large area to cover.

Now I am a 'narrow-horizon' editor who joined the ODP to create a resource for my hobby that I think the web is missing. At the end of the day, there are benefits for many people - I've the personal satisfaction of having done what I wanted, the ODP has a category or two that are better than they were, surfers have a better resource in that area and webmasters in that area would probably be delighted if they knew or cared. However 99.9999999999% of webmasters will be disatisfied because I am not working somewhere else.

For the good of my soul and to show my appreciation of the ODP, I do work in another area (slightly commercial) but find it hard going. Understandably this won't make 99.99999999% of webmasters happy either.

I don't have the skills to be able to edit everywhere or the inclination to do so. If the ODP adopted a system that redeployed me to edit in particular categories, I would be very frustrated, riddled with angst and not very productive and outside of my abilities I would be more of a liability. One or two webmasters might be happy with that but again 99.99999999% of webmasters won't be (and even worse, I'd be unhappy as well).

My perception of the ODP is coloured by my view of it as a resource site whilst web masters views often relate to the use of the internet for commercial purposes. This is where frustrations creep in - they are willing to pay for a listing but I am not interested in earning money but only in pursuing my hobby. Whilst I respect that as businessmen they are doing their best to run a successful business, the ODP was not set up for that. Many editors feel that the ODP is seen as being important precisely for that reason and therefore to alter the arrangements to satify commercial urgings would actually be counter productive.

At the end of the day, the question is one of resources and the type of resources available. While the above is true for me, every editor is different and would have a different approach/attitude to me.

regards

All good points. Maybe we need a blanket statement to cover this repeating topic? Something like "It's this way because it's this way and there's no other way, sorry."

Also perhaps the ODP has outgrown the statement at the bottom of the page?

"This site is here as a service to submitters and is maintained by a group of editors."

I'm hearing it's not really meant to be a service to submitters, just that people can feel free to submit?

Eric,

I joined this forum in order to better understand the inner workings of the process behind the ODP in order to try and improve the likely hood of my site being listed.

I realise now that the ODP is eccentric in its methods. I also realise that no amount of moaning about the state of things is going to change anything or improve the chances of my site being included. You've heard all the complaints and suggestions a hundred times before and quite frankly you are sick of them.

My time has not been wasted though as I believe I now understand how to correctly suggest my site which I think is something that is lost on many many people trying to get listed in the ODP. I only found the forum by chance and maybe that is something else that could be addressed.

So I'll play the waiting game and resubmit my site every few months and hopefully, eventually I will get a listing.

But thank you for your cosidered response, I feel a few of the editors are a little sarcastic and somewhat rude, but who can blame them eh!


Sean

Socks Manly, "This site is here as a service to submitters and is maintained by a group of editors." is at the bottom of the pages on this site, not the ODP pages. This is an unofficial site, created by and run by editors, not the ODP and not AOL. Granted we probably shouldn't say "submitters" but...

Ahhhh I see. That makes a bit more sense to me. So much to learn, so much to learn..

seanthesheepuk said:

So I'll play the waiting game and resubmit my site every few months and hopefully, eventually I will get a listing.

Click to expand...

Oh, please don't! If you've suggested your site, you've done all that you can. Repeated suggestions may be viewed as spamming the Directory, which can have dire consequences.

At best, you simply overwrite the previous suggestion - which, if the editor chooses to review sites in date order, will keep moving the site to the bottom of the pool.

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

Are we really doing the surfing community a big favour by adding another 300 sites that offer webdesign services, whose company name starts with the letter D?

Or, would an editors time be better spent researching, say, bird flu informational sites, or finding new information about tropical storms and global warming, or adding some more historical perspective to the "political scandals" category?

Most editors priority would probably be something like the latter options.

>> resubmit my site every few months <<

No. That will be seen as "trying too hard".

Please suggest your one site, just once, to just one category.