Treat others as you wish to be treated

Ok, I can see we're going around in circles here and several of you keep repeating yourselves - sometimes is almost like you really don't comprehend our frustration.

Click to expand...

As you don't really comprehend ours. We're going around in circles, repeating ourselves, because it doesn't look like you're actually reading what people are writing. You're wanting things from us that we can't/won't provide.

As a matter of fact I was one of the first people to promote ODP when so many others didn't even know what it was back in 1997, I was attracted to the concept of "open source" and I felt that ODP had something genuine to offer. I even had a website listed in ODP in 1997 and another in 2001.

Click to expand...

A little nitpick: the ODP started in 1998, not 1997.

The undercurrent to this thread, and many similar ones is that there is a segment of people who believe that the ODP volunteer editor community somehow has an obligation to:

Produce a certain volume of work in a certain amount of time.

Publicly report and defend all editorial decisions (since the beginning of the project) and be unfailingly polite to people who begin a dialogue by accusing you of being corrupt, inept, and hopelessly out-of-touch with their version of reality.

Spend inordinate amount of time responding to e-mails.

Protect the honest webmaster and give them unfettered access to the status of their website, while keeping the spammers out.

Provide expedited listings to big websites, while watching out for the interests of the little guy.

Strictly enforce the editorial guidelines for "the other guy" but ignore them for their website.

Take seriously threats of a popular uprising.

Keep any corrupt editors out, but let anyone else in to edit immediately. (Perhaps the application should consist of a single yes/no check box: Are you Corrupt?)

Spend endless hours answering the same questions over and over again for people too lazy to read the FAQ, and whose second question will be: why are you guys wasting so much time here when you should be editing?

<sigh> I really love the R-Z and think that we have really made the ODP processes much more transparent, but some days I just grow weary of people who want to change the OPD into something that matches their vision, not ours.

Nice summary spectregunner!

Frustration? I don't understand. What's to be frustrated about? Make your suggestion and forget about it. No obligation to suggest, none to respond. That's the way it works, always has and always will. There are no duties or responsibilities towards webmasters on the part of editors and never has been. So why be frustrated about something that has never existed and won't change? It is pointless and a route to avoidable stress.

The frustration, my friend, is primarily with people who are thoroughly pissed off with failing to find a strategy to manipulate DMOZ to do their bidding. They are few in number but very vocal in forums where they all group together and wind each up into a feverpitch. One reason I don't visit them and try and explain things any more - waste of time. Three years plus since I became an editor - nothing has changed. Editors edit, spammers whinge, good sites get listed, crap gets deleted.

huge numbers of people on a grand scale

Click to expand...

250,000 happy webmasters in the last 12 months. 100 unhappy spammers doing the rounds making lots of noises on lots of forums. 10,000 delighted active editors.

Two Suggestions for Improving ODP

Alucard said:

Have you wondered why such internet superpowers such as Google have a "closed door" policy and won't reveal the algorithms they use to arrive at search results? Is their "policy of silence" just as wrong as the ODP's? Do you know how frustrating that can be for someone who is trying to get on the first page of results for a particular search term? Why isn't Google recognizing that without the people that build the web pages they wouldn't have a business? They should be servicing their needs, and be accountable to them for search engine placement.... (that is using similar logic you are using, but on Google)

Click to expand...

Actually I have wondered about that but I realize how it works. The difference here is that Google continues to work, websites get listed and people move on. As long as your site is not useless, or broken, or spam it will be indexed and searchable. That's why their policy simply works. The only people knocking on their doors are probably spammers (intentional or not).

Ok. I have changed my mind since many of you feel so strongly about this, you're all volunteers and doing this for a various reasons. So you really don't care about making any commitment of any kind to the people whose websites you are using to create this directory. Fair enough. You all work at your own pace.

What still doesn't add up is the part where you sincerely don't see any need to communicate or provide information (no matter how simple or standardized) to the website creators. Since ODP has become what it is today you will eventually have to deal with this. It doesn't matter if it's free or not, if it's run by volunteers or not. It's just a principle of human interaction. We have to work together, we have to communicate.

It's like saying we'll build a pyramid for the good of mankind for the public, but we don't care much about the quarry workers who cut out the stones. Since they cut out those stones for their own interests we don't have to deal with them at all.

That's very anti-social and won't work forever, well it may for a while but eventually it will bust at the seams. I mean think about it ... just take a minute please. You keep talking about "our wants and our needs" as if we are using you, but do you think about the fact that all the internet is composed of people who have wants and needs? Wanting or needing is not a bad thing in and of itself; it's about discipline and self restraint. Just because I have a website that was submitted to ODP doesn't make me a website promoter who has nothing good to say.

I won't waste much more of your time, I appreciate all the feedback and insight from each one of you - even the harsh ones. Although I might agree with some of your reasoning (as indicated in this post and before) you have failed to understand some very clear points I have made, such as the fact that (a) you paint all website owners with the same brush (b) you feel no responsibility to communicate/inform website owners

This attitude will invariably alienate website owners in increasing numbers and *no don't worry no popular uprising* will take away from the reputation of ODP over time. That's how humans are, we interact, we socialize, we respect each other and if that fails we find it elsewhere.

It's not a big deal, I'll be off this forum soon and you won't even notice, but in a gesture of good will I will suggest two items to improve the ODP. Take it in good faith even if you disagree. Since things don't get done within any predictable timeframe (which is ok - as I conceded above) there should be some simple query or feedback device, even if it's just a standardized form response. And one more thing, there is so much I've learned here that is not even mentioned on the ODP website. That can be misleading and is partly a source of the problem. It should be summarized and added to the main DMOZ site. It would save a lot of people much time and aggravation.

The difference here is that Google continues to work, websites get listed and people move on. As long as your site is not useless, or broken, or spam it will be indexed and searchable. That's why their policy simply works. The only people knocking on their doors are probably spammers (intentional or not).

Click to expand...

This is not a difference. This is exactly the way DMOZ works.
(editors at) DMOZ continue to work
Websites get listed (and as with Google most websites that get listed are never suggested)
If a website isn't broken, useless or spam it will be listed.
The only people knocking at our doors are probably spammers (atleast from our experience we know most of them, but not all, are)

But as we only spend the time we want to spend we can not predict when a site will be listed. But even this fact is also true for Google. They nowhere state when and if they will index your site.

Seems Google and DMOZ both understand how to work efficiently. We only do it both our own way.

As you've been told, repeatedly, there's nothing of value to communicate.

This is not my theory, my fantasy, my uninformed vision of what might be. This is based on six years of careful experimentation, to see what would work and what wouldn't. We tried what you ask for: making a concerted effort involving many editors and considerable review of the value and results.

We know, from long and detailed personal experience, exactly how much it's worth--and it's much less than it costs. That's the end of it. We made a community decision to cut off that massive waste of time and energy. And only mass amnesia can change that fact.

Alienating website owners, is not a problem. The sane, rational website owners can be brought to understand reality, and how it works, and how they can expect it to work: and we'll keep on explaining it, for them. The others are beyond our help.

The popular uprising is not a problem. The ODP IS a popular uprising. Many editors support other popular uprisings. If you have a good ideal (other than "volunteer slaves for any spammer who walks by", which is all you've come up with so far), then you may attract people: editors and non-editors. More power to you! The net is large: there's room for many more popular uprisings.

As for the wants and needs of people, the ODP was formed because someone thought it was the most efficient way to serve one need. Other needs, such as website reviews, web promotion services, etc., can be taken care of far more efficiently elsewhere. So, when I want to serve those needs (and there are other needs I do want to serve), I'll go elsewhere. And when you want those needs served, reason would suggest that you go elsewhere also.

But it's not polite, it's not _rational_, to go to a group formed to serve ONE need, and demand they drop that to serve some OTHER need. You don't expect soup kitchens to treat trauma wounds, you don't expect hospitals to provide indigent housing, you don't expect libraries to provide hot meals. This is not to denigrate any of those needs: it is just to say that it's better for a volunteer organization to focus on the needs that its community can provide efficiently, and let some OTHER community form to provide for other needs. Is the net any different? Hardly. Wikipedia doesn't index businesses in Toxic Meadows, New Jersey; Project Gutenberg doesn't index websites.

Is there anyone on the net that offers website promotion or website review? (Duh...) Then ... there's no need for the ODP to provide those services; any ODP editor is free to volunteer on those other sites also, if he thinks it worthwhile.

That's reality. That's life. The internet is no different.

It's like saying we'll build a pyramid for the good of mankind for the public, but we don't care much about the quarry workers who cut out the stones. Since they cut out those stones for their own interests we don't have to deal with them at all.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's more like saying we'll build a pyramid for the good of mankind but we don't necessarily have to use the stone that was quarried by any particular quarry worker.

there should be some simple query or feedback device, even if it's just a standardized form response.

Click to expand...

See our FAQ here for the answer to that suggestion.

I have exhausted myself in making an appeal to you (or to the those in charge whoever they may be). Thank you for your time and for relaying my suggestions to them

Have a nice day.

I should perhaps mention here that even from the start, the "ones in charge" had deep reservations concerning our "submittal status" initiative. Experience has done nothing except to confirm those reservations.

We have taken your excellent advice to return to our original goals, to serve the surfers of the world as best we can with our resources.

This leaves your mission unaccomplished (by us.) If that mission is truly worth anything, it's a great opportunity for you. Go for it!

I was in a very small minority who wanted to keep status checks. Not as a public service but because it pointed me at loads of spam I could clear up. But since I was in such a small minority I accept and apply the views and decisions of the vast majority of my colleagues (in case anyone was thinking of sending me a PM asking for a check). So no-one I can think of wanted to keep them because they gave any value to the questioner. Because they didn't give any value to the questioner.

Popular uprisings? Lets say every webmaster in the world agreed and decided to withdraw cooperation. Presumably by not submitting their site. No problem, we then search for the sites and list them anyway. We do that now and find it far more productive usually. Might do us some favours in many categories. Please encourage travel agents and dating site owners and real estate agents and get rich quick scheme affiliates to rise up and withdraw cooperation.

Do we treat everyone the same - spammers and the honest and legitimate? No. We refuse to give any information to spammers to help them become better spammers. And we refuse to give inaccurate information and false hope to the honest and legitimate so they are not misled. By coincidence that actually equals the same thing - no status information. Because there is no way of giving accurate and meaningful information.

Pyramids - OK we are building a pyramid. We go out looking for stones but invite people to bring us stones to include. To build the pyramid we need stones of certain proportions and type. Pebbles are no good, sandstone is not suitable, a lot don't fit the engineers' plan. Around the base in the compound we now have far more stones than it will take to build the pyramid. A lot are pebbles which we have asked people to stop bringing but still they come and leave them at one of the gates which sometimes makes it difficult for the builders to get at the stones they need of the right size and type - the pebbles are blocking some of the gates. We have also explained that we may not be able to include other donations or it might take a long time until we get to that bit of the pyramid where that stone might fit. But still there is a constant stream of people asking when we are going to include their stone - when we get to it we say - and then they complain. But they don't understand - if we put the stones in as they arrive we'll end up with an unstable pile that will collapse. If we put sandstone in then it will collapse. What are we supposed to do with the pebbles? And progress on building the pyramid slows down because of the need to constantly stop and tell people where their stone is in terms of if and when it will be added to the construction. So instead we post a notice on the gate explaining all this. And people ignore the notice.

OK you haven't brought us a pebble or a lump of sandstone. It is a great chunk of granite that will fit in somewhere. That is fantastic, thanks. When will we put that granite chunk in? Sorry I don't know when the builders will need it or where exactly it will end up but it is in the compound and as soon as someone needs some granite that size I am sure they will look at it and decide whether it fits the plan.

Pyramids took decades to complete and they have stood for thousands of years. We are not quite thinking of those timescales but we are trying to build the most stable Internet structure in existence to last for the longest possible time. Which is why we are not that bothered about including every listable site within days of it being published. If it is one of the rocks of the Internet then when we come to it in a few years it will still be there waiting to be added.

Meanwhile there are stone merchants standing outside the compound trying to flog us sub-standard stone they can't get rid of anywhere else. And they also want to sell us cheap mortar. They even try and get their cowboy builders into the compound to bodge the job. And the latest trick - sandstone painted in a granite colour and real granite hollowed out and the centre replaced with styrofoam to make it cheaper. We decline their offerings because frankly the resulting structure would be hazardous and fall down in a week like the pyramids started by others who couldn't resist the cheap materials. So they employ sorcerors to put a hex on our builders and constantly implore the Pharaoh to force us to take their wares. But the Pharaoh is wise and ignores them. Some of them think that if they can't get the exclusive contracts to provide stone the only answer is to destroy the pyramid entirely and so they catapult their sub-standard stone over the compound wall. Sometimes hoping it will get picked up by accident and cause a wall to collapse, sometimes hoping to make a direct hit on the work under construction. So we build the wall higher and they complain bitterly we are stopping them destroying the pyramid.

Yep, I like the pyramid analogy...

I think we need to stop using the pyramid analogy before we fall down on our asp.

I didn't think we listed pyramid schemes ...

I used to wonder why the tombs contained servants' bodies. Maybe that was just their anti-spam technique. "Aha! another fine (but very light) granite boulder, attractively painted and garnished with dust. Thank you very much, the Pharoah would love for more of your service (infinitely more....) Join the 'special priority processing line' over here, yes, around behind that screen. Ignore the screams, some people are just jealous of your special status. Aaaaaaaaarrrg......"

some people are just jealous of your special status

Click to expand...

Some people are just jealous of my asp.

Pyramid

is this pyramid sceme or what