Unhappy with DMOZ

Eric-the-Bun · Jul 5, 2006

This is the problem. DMOZ is not a stand-alone website anymore.

Not many people use the DMOZ website compared to all other websites/search engines using DMOZ data added together.

This is about all how you perceive DMOZ. The most important aspect in DMOZ is Quality and you are suggesting that Quality does not matter.

Many good projects have got off the ground and achieved good results through someone saying 'hmm, thats not very good, I could do better' or 'as they have missed doing x, someone should do it'. The one requirement is that 'someone' has to do it. I don't know of any volunteer projects that have done well based on someone saying 'stop what you are doing, do this instead'.

To produce what you suggest can be done with an automated script to produce a telephone directory like file - in fact website addresses could be auto-generated by a script and then tested to see if there is a site at that address which could then be spidered for the pages...

hmmm, when can you start?

motsa · Jul 5, 2006

But I think the majority of editors would not be as motivated as now if that was the case....most like the idea that their work is visible on many websites.

Hey, I joined without knowing what the ODP was, let alone how many sites used its data. I would keep doing what I do as long as it exists, regardless of who uses or doesn't use the data.

The idea of offering paid suggestions has been suggested many times over and just isn't going to happen. Most of your other suggestions have been made many times over as well and have been discussed to death, both here and in other forums.

Try to list all websites and give them categories...and maybe descriptions. Don't do anything more apart from making sure no spammy websites or criminal websites are listed.

Writing descriptions is a very small part of the editing process that doesn't take a great deal of time. The time-consuming part is the review process and nothing short of reducing quality and making it a more-or-less automatic process will make that go faster.

It is naive to believe one or a handful of editors can handle the responsibility of selecting a few websites they deem as good.

That's what "human edited" means, humans actually selecting listable sites.

I know you are taking the piss...but backed by some big organizations and search engines, this is possible...

Actually he wasn't. He was being serious. Build a better directory and you'd have volunteers flocking to you in droves. You'd also get spammers flocking to you in droves.

You're asking the ODP to be something it isn't. And you're blaming us for what Google and Alexa do with their data. You need to talk to them about that, not us.

hutcheson · Jul 5, 2006

>once you are trying to establish an alternative to an existing system you need to do "marketing" and convince people.

That's why open source communities don't tend to set up "alternatives" to "existing systems" -- everyone cooperates to make the existing systems as good as they can be.

That way, "we don't NEED no steekin' marketers!"

We can focus on facts, and leave the manipulators of perceptions to rot in their own self-delusions.

dermotz · Jul 5, 2006

Eric-the-Bun said:
This is about all how you perceive DMOZ. The most important aspect in DMOZ is Quality and you are suggesting that Quality does not matter.

No, I am not saying Quality doesnt matter.

But I can give you a list of really good websites that have not made it into DMOZ for several years due to the system that gives editors too much power of not adding websites that are good. There is too much "personal" taste involved in that and there are not enough editors for the categories to avoid that. There is no way to "complain" about a declined website. I am sure if several independent people would look over websites to decide whether it should be added and the majority of votes is used, a lot more websites would be included.

If there are 100 really good websites, some editors just add 30 to keep the list short..........for instance. Some people just take advantage of their "authority".

hutcheson · Jul 5, 2006

>I am sure if several independent people would look over websites to decide whether it should be added and the majority of votes is used, a lot more websites would be included.

If the problem is not enough editors to review all the sites, getting three editors to review each site would CUT the amount of actual work done by 50-66%, since each actual review would have to be done two or three times.

Pardon my mathematical naivete, but I fail to see how that's a positive step. And pardon my psychological naivete, but I fail to see how anyone could think that would be a positive step.

dermotz · Jul 5, 2006

Whats wrong with charging money?

Whats wrong with charging money for an "express" inclusion/consideration.

I think dmoz could do well with some money, no matter wether for investment in infrastructur or to organize meetings/trainings or to enable a more efficient organzinational structure ?

Charging money does not mean not being a non-profit organization anymore.

I am sure some people would spend lots of money on having a website included faster or at least have some sort of proper feedback and the chance to have it added after some changes or whatever was the reason not to be added.

jimnoble · Jul 5, 2006

We've discussed this so many times that we won't discuss it any more. If you want a pay for entry directory, there are plenty out there.

motsa · Jul 5, 2006

[It's not necessary for you to start a new thread to discuss every suggestion that you have so I've merged your new thread with this one]

If there are 100 really good websites, some editors just add 30 to keep the list short..........for instance. Some people just take advantage of their "authority".

Editors don't edit to "keep the list short". We're not looking to add just the top 20 or 30 sites on a topic. Our goal is to list all sites on a subject that meet our listability guidelines, whether that ends up being 30 or 300.

Whats wrong with charging money for an "express" inclusion/consideration.

It's not up for discussion. It's built in to the ODP social contract.

dermotz · Jul 5, 2006

hm....on the one hand you complain dmoz drowns in work as there are too many site to review, not enough editors, but on the other hand you do not want to invest in a better or more complex organizational structure. Sooner or later you will have expenses...

Imagine you would employ some people full time, they could have an eye a bit better and maybe help to make things move into the right direction.

And why not "make" people edit some categories more then others once in a while to balance the pending queueus?

there are many non-profit organizations run by voluntary people who can not always just do what they like but what is in the interested of the whole organization.

you could develop your software so that some sort of "managers" can have an influence on handling the queues of unreviews sites and allocate the work more evenly....just as an example.

it is clear that this must avoid a yahoo like behaviour where the quality of results suffers due to a dependence on "premium" website submitters.......

motsa · Jul 5, 2006

hm....on the one hand you complain dmoz drowns in work as there are too many site to review, not enough editors,...

Actually, no, we don't complain about that. Non-editors do.

... but on the other hand you do not want to invest in a better or more complex organizational structure. Sooner or later you will have expenses...

Our organizational structure is fairly complex -- adding pay-to-list options would create to a logistical nightware without actually adding anything of any real benefit to the directory.

Imagine you would employ some people full time, they could have an eye a bit better and maybe help to make things move into the right direction.

We already have editors that do that. Admins and metas and editalls...

And why not "make" people edit some categories more then others once in a while to balance the pending queueus?

Because we won't. And because the pool of unreviewed sites is not and never has been our biggest priority.

there are many non-profit organizations run by voluntary people who can not always just do what they like but what is in the interested of the whole organization.

Exactly. Which is how the ODP functions now.

you could develop your software so that some sort of "managers" can have an influence on handling the queues of unreviews sites and allocate the work more evenly....just as an example.

There is no "work" to be allocated. Editors are limited only by their desires. If someone desperately wants to edit a given category, they will do it -- if they don't have the experience now, they'll work their way up to it. They don't need a software overlord to tell them where to edit.

it is clear that this must avoid a yahoo like behaviour where the quality of results suffers due to a dependence on "premium" website submitters.......

And how would that be avoided? The minute you introduce fees, you're putting the quality in the hands of the people who can pay.

I'm always surprised by people who think that (a) paying a few editors would result in more editing being done than is being done by thousands of volunteer ones and (b) paying for a listing will result in more relevant listings.

dermotz · Jul 5, 2006

motsa said:
And how would that be avoided? The minute you introduce fees, you're putting the quality in the hands of the people who can pay.

I'm always surprised by people who think that (a) paying a few editors would result in more editing being done than is being done by thousands of volunteer ones and (b) paying for a listing will result in more relevant listings.

It can be avoided if the money never reaches the editors, if it direcly flows into an organization that is independent. Yahoo is a company that depends on express submissions, if some people add lots of paid websites they will be less strict as they know they spend lots of money in future too...that Yahoo's problem.

There would be 2 unreviews-website queues:

1. the normal queue, without payment
2. the express queue that is reviewed quicker, but the same criteria plus proper feedback to website owners.

gloria · Jul 5, 2006

And why not "make" people edit some categories more then others once in a while to balance the pending queueus?

Ok, say you become an editor for a dating category. Would you like to be "made" to edit in Health/Dentistry or a Healthcare Employment category in order to "balance the pending queues"? How about a travel or real estate category?

dermotz · Jul 5, 2006

gloria said:
Ok, say you become an editor for a dating category. Would you like to be "made" to edit in Health/Dentistry or a Healthcare Employment category in order to "balance the pending queues"? How about a travel or real estate category?

No, but related (sub)categories.

gloria · Jul 5, 2006

People who edit in the original category are already editing in the related (sub)categories.

hutcheson · Jul 5, 2006

>And why not "make" people edit some categories more then others once in a while to balance the pending queueus?

Once you grasp the concept that volunteers are working on what they think is important, you'll stop thinking they ought to work on something else, and all your frustrations will go away.

Once you realize that have no right to control them, just exactly as they have no right to control you, you will be freed to work on what you think is important. I enjoy the freedom I already have, and wish you well in your endeavor to achieve freedom for yourself. But the key is to stop trying to control others, and focus on self-control. That way, and that way only, you'll have a master that really understands and appreciates you.

shadow575 · Jul 5, 2006

dermotz said:
And why not "make" people edit some categories more then others once in a while to balance the pending queueus?

Trying to 'make' someone who is volunteering to do something they really don't care to do will have one result-loosing one volunteer.

dermotz said:
you could develop your software so that some sort of "managers" can have an influence on handling the queues of unreviews sites and allocate the work more evenly....just as an example.

The whole principle behind being a volunteer editor is that we work in small areas that we enjoy and for some of us we take on larger areas that we may or may not enjoy but we do so because we enjoy the overall experience. Having someone force a plate underneath the door for us to consume every morning would only cause a 'jail break' of volunteers leaving the project.

The problem is actually that some believe that the directory exists to be a listing service for sites and that since it doesn't do what they want it to it is somehow flawed when it isn't.

motsa said:
Hey, I joined without knowing what the ODP was, let alone how many sites used its data. I would keep doing what I do as long as it exists, regardless of who uses or doesn't use the data.

My situation is very similar. To date, I still only have 2 sites one for my kids and one is my editor site, neither of which concern me with how many links they get or who links to them. They are there and anyone who needs them can look at them. So it really doesn't matter to me who uses the data, out of the few hundered sites that use the data I can name probably 5 without looking.

Not a listing service
Not a business/job
Just a volunteer project that we enjoy helping with

Eric-the-Bun · Jul 5, 2006

Have you considered that the availability of editors for any particular category reflects the importance of that category out in the real world?

For every n,000,000 people interested in a subject, a proportion will create a websites and a smaller proportion will be interested in listing sites on that subject for the ODP. The greater the value of n, the more editors we are likely to get for that subject. From our point of view we are running a continuous poll on what is popular based on where people want to work.

If no one is interested enough in the subject to meet the requirements to work in the category, then diverting people from more popular areas seems pointless. Hopefully it means that the people interested in that subject are well served by other mechanisms and thus it is more sensible for us to keep on adding sites on the wide variety of more popular subjects.

regards

motsa · Jul 5, 2006

It can be avoided if the money never reaches the editors, if it direcly flows into an organization that is independent.

Erm...how does that avoid the problem? An express queue is an express queue; it puts the power (by getting listed more quickly than other people) in the hands of the people who can afford to pay for the privilege of a speedy listing. That seems eminently unfair to me and would lead to a lopsided directory. Why is the site of someone who can afford to pay more worth reviewing than the site of someone who can't?

Do you really think that volunteer editors would edit more just because someone paid? Unless I'm paid to edit (e.g. as in Yahoo), I edit where I want to and I don't think there are too many editors who would deliberately choose to edit the priority queue you describe here and, since we're never going to force volunteer editors to edit in specific categories, that pretty much shoots that down.

spectregunner · Jul 5, 2006

This editor happens to think that one of the great strongths of the directory is that the person with the million dollar website has to wait just as long as the hobbyist with the free hosted website -- and may end up waiting even longer!

Nope, the day someone tells this editor that a given site has to be given a priority edit becuase they paid for the right, is the day that this editor's account begins heading for timeout.

And I know that I am not alone!

hutcheson · Jul 6, 2006

The testimony is pretty consistent. The ODP is what it is (for better and for worse) because of the editing community -- which consists of people attracted by the ODP mission and its processes.

The current ODP mission and processes, that is. Another mission, or drastic change in processes (EVEN if that were desirable) would not be a step forward: it would completely disperse the community -- therefore it would necessitate starting all over to build some other community.

Well, there's nothing wrong with building some other community, for some other mission. There not even anything wrong with contacting some other existing community that offers exactly the mission you're interested in. (Has NOBODY ever heard of Yahoo!?) But this compulsion to destroy the ODP community, whether with or without lifting a finger to start building a replacement, is (to say the least) neither technically constructive nor socially beneficient.

Unhappy with DMOZ

Eric-the-Bun

motsa

hutcheson

dermotz

Member

hutcheson

dermotz

Member

jimnoble

DMOZ Meta

motsa

dermotz

Member

motsa

dermotz

Member

gloria

dermotz

Member

gloria

hutcheson

shadow575

kEditall/kCatmv

Eric-the-Bun

motsa

spectregunner

Member

hutcheson