Editors sound like a bunch of jack ass's on a power trip. Because they can't get a power high anywhere else in their lives. On my request, Jim Noble told me I only had to wait 6 month's. Of course that never went anywhere after 6 month's! He does not seem to want to answer this in his PM that I sent him as well. Wonder why?
Waiting several months for a listing!
- Thread starter russboy
- Start date
Gee, you don't suppose it's your attitude that makes him not want to answer you, do you?
RE: "I only had to wait 6 month's", I presume he (or someone else) told you that you'd have to wait for 6 months before you could ask about your site suggestion status here again (back when we still did status checks), not that you'd only have to wait 6 months for your site suggestion to be reviewed. Two completely different things. No editor would ever give you a review timeframe like that.
RE: "I only had to wait 6 month's", I presume he (or someone else) told you that you'd have to wait for 6 months before you could ask about your site suggestion status here again (back when we still did status checks), not that you'd only have to wait 6 months for your site suggestion to be reviewed. Two completely different things. No editor would ever give you a review timeframe like that.
An editor doesn't have any power any more than anyone else -- you just control what you do on your own keyboard with your own two fingers. We have no way of coercing each other (and we aren't looking for any such way, which makes us different from some submitters who, being on power trips themselves, assume everybody is going the same direction.) But since we aren't, there's no problem at all with our inability to control anyone else.
jimnoble
DMOZ Meta
Because we no longer do status checks perhaps?
#1 power tripping jackass
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
Perhaps if you stopped name calling long enough to listen for a few minutes, you'd actually learn something.
We used to have a program where people could ask for a status check. Presumably you did just that. The interval between status checks was six months. That is what you were told: come back in six months.
We no longer offer that service. There are notices to that effect plastered all over this forum.
Of course, this cannot be checked because you are using a different user name, which allows you to sling mud through relative anonyimity. makes me wonder if you were one of the people who was so ill-behaved that you were banned.
We used to have a program where people could ask for a status check. Presumably you did just that. The interval between status checks was six months. That is what you were told: come back in six months.
We no longer offer that service. There are notices to that effect plastered all over this forum.
Of course, this cannot be checked because you are using a different user name, which allows you to sling mud through relative anonyimity. makes me wonder if you were one of the people who was so ill-behaved that you were banned.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
As I suspected, the six month discussion came about in a site status request thread: http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36787
In post number 6 of that thread Jim Said:
This is very, very far from a promise to review in a given timeframe.
You might want to re-read that entire thread. In addition, you also started an earlier thread on the same subject: http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35119
In post number 6 of that thread Jim Said:
This is very, very far from a promise to review in a given timeframe.
You might want to re-read that entire thread. In addition, you also started an earlier thread on the same subject: http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35119
Oh but it is worth answering the charges.
But the fact of the matter is that DMOZ is a voluntary quasi-academic project to catalog unique web sites, offers no services at all to webmasters, puts no pressure, targets or priorities on individual editors, and is not a promotional tool. You pay nothing to suggest a site, you get nothing in return. One day your suggestion might be listed and that is a marketing bonus that is an unintended by-product of the project. And to be frank it is not the crock of gold failed webmasters seem to think it is. Go ask in webmaster forums about how people get No. 1 results from search engines without a listing.
So we are jackasses for taking part in this project? No, we are sometimes jackasses for putting up with crap and abuse from those who have no concept of what it means to take part in an unpaid global community project, no chance ever of grasping we do it to help fellow Internet surfers find unique information, not for profit or any reward beyond satisfaction of the contribution. No possibility of comprehending that when someone gives you the opportunity to maybe benefit from their labours freely given that it is incredibly rude to berate them when they don't respond to your concept of when and how those labours should be given.
But fortunately, whilst the jackasses are undeniably the ungracious and loutish who sometimes lurk around this forum baiting editors with their incredible lack of manners, we, on the other hand, bear no grudges and, if your site qualifies, that behaviour has no effect on if and when the site is listed. Good innit.
Sometimes it might sound like that. One reason we stopped the status checks - people thought we had power we didn't have. Like power to force a fellow editor to review a site within a certain timespan. Like power to predict when a site might be reviewed. Like power to predict the outcome of a review. And all sorts of other powers. None of which we have, and we all know that. Trouble is, there are lots of webmasters who do not believe that and the confrontations were getting tedious. So now we get labelled as arrogant and on a power-trip for failing to provide information that is clearly completely useless except for spammers keen to know if their latest scam has been rejected.
But the fact of the matter is that DMOZ is a voluntary quasi-academic project to catalog unique web sites, offers no services at all to webmasters, puts no pressure, targets or priorities on individual editors, and is not a promotional tool. You pay nothing to suggest a site, you get nothing in return. One day your suggestion might be listed and that is a marketing bonus that is an unintended by-product of the project. And to be frank it is not the crock of gold failed webmasters seem to think it is. Go ask in webmaster forums about how people get No. 1 results from search engines without a listing.
So we are jackasses for taking part in this project? No, we are sometimes jackasses for putting up with crap and abuse from those who have no concept of what it means to take part in an unpaid global community project, no chance ever of grasping we do it to help fellow Internet surfers find unique information, not for profit or any reward beyond satisfaction of the contribution. No possibility of comprehending that when someone gives you the opportunity to maybe benefit from their labours freely given that it is incredibly rude to berate them when they don't respond to your concept of when and how those labours should be given.
But fortunately, whilst the jackasses are undeniably the ungracious and loutish who sometimes lurk around this forum baiting editors with their incredible lack of manners, we, on the other hand, bear no grudges and, if your site qualifies, that behaviour has no effect on if and when the site is listed. Good innit.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
I almost hate to tell you this, but:
That won't happen either. Once suggested a site remains in the pool until and editor decides to review it. Adding and removing sites from the pool, simply because the webmaster is being, well, we won't go there. Suffice to say, it is a waste of volunteer resources, so we don't offer that service, either.
Six months ago, the editors didn't know that one month later that they would vote to stop doing status checks; if we could have seen the future that far ahead maybe there would have been some way to let you know in advance. Since there wasn't, then we didn't.
enough public-spirited surfers interested in the subject
Is this statement describing an editor, or a visitor of the directory? If you are indeed referring to the visitors, may I ask if this statement is suggesting that the behavior of the site visitors is tracked and recorded? If so, does the visitor traffic in a certain category of the directory dictates how that particular category is handled by the editors? Just intrigued! No rush to reply any or all questions.
hutcheson said:
Is this statement describing an editor, or a visitor of the directory? If you are indeed referring to the visitors, may I ask if this statement is suggesting that the behavior of the site visitors is tracked and recorded? If so, does the visitor traffic in a certain category of the directory dictates how that particular category is handled by the editors? Just intrigued! No rush to reply any or all questions.
The statement describes "surfers," like it said. Sorry about the confusion. My definition of "editor" IS simply this: "public-spirited surfers who are interested enough in some topic to build a collection of links for it." I didn't make that specific.
The editing in a category is driven by the interest of the editors. That's all. Visitors who firmly believe a category has been neglected -- can cure that by becoming an editor and making that opinion count through action. Visitors (whether approved editors or not) who don't believe enough to act -- don't have a vote to count.
This is why the SERP-perp ODP myth of the "powerful editor who doesn't do anything" is so absurd. Influence is the result of past actions, not status. Power is simply opportunity to act, and if not wielded it disappears. If inaction is power, the person who never even APPLIES to do anything, is the most powerful of all!
The editing in a category is driven by the interest of the editors. That's all. Visitors who firmly believe a category has been neglected -- can cure that by becoming an editor and making that opinion count through action. Visitors (whether approved editors or not) who don't believe enough to act -- don't have a vote to count.
This is why the SERP-perp ODP myth of the "powerful editor who doesn't do anything" is so absurd. Influence is the result of past actions, not status. Power is simply opportunity to act, and if not wielded it disappears. If inaction is power, the person who never even APPLIES to do anything, is the most powerful of all!
A thought provoking assumption indeed. I don’t believe that one’s indecision to act diminishes any said powers. It may just be the opposite. In so many instances, power is awarded, not earned. Some times, it is even a life long endowment, never to be relinquished. Just a humble observation. No need to respond.hutcheson said:
>I don’t believe that one’s indecision to act diminishes any said powers. It may just be the opposite.
You must be thinking of some organization like the SS or Mafia (or Microsoft) where, as you get "higher" in the "company". you can tell more people what to do (and shoot them or throw chairs or fire them if they don't do what you want. And you always tell how high you are by how many people you can kill.
But the ODP isn't that way. It's all worker bees -- you do what you think is important, and the bee next to you does what IT thinks is important. Which boils down to -- reviewing sites, basically. (A few dozen volunteers also review applications and set editor permissions. But once an editor receives permissions, so long as he doesn't abuse the fundamental rules (i.e. doesn't harm the directory), there is no mechanism for telling him what to do. So your "hierarchical" power doesn't exist.
Your only power is what you've been empowered to do yourself. And what can you do? There are, let us say, twenty million websites out there. Can you exercise power over them? Nonsense. Two hundred sites reviewed would be an EXTREMELY busy day for most editors. So even the most active editor fails to review twenty million websites daily. And that ... that is no more than you can do yourself! And, whether or not you review a site, you cannot tell another editor to review it again (or not to review it).
So the only difference between you and the inactive ODP editor is ... a useless credential: you both fail to review all of those 20 million sites every day.
And the only difference between you and that ACTIVE ODP editor is not the sites you both don't review, it's the sites the editor DID review.
And does reviewing ten thousand sites give an editor power (to tell anyone else what to do?) No, the only power an experienced editor has, is the same as the inactive editor has: the privilege of reviewing sites on his own monitor and typing descriptions with his own fingers. The same twenty million sites are there, waiting for both of them. The same temporal limitations are there, keeping either of them from reviewing more than a few hundred sites.
Oh, sure, every affiliate doorway spammer in the planet is off nursing a grudge saying, "yet another day in which THE editor selected MY site, out of all those twenty millions of sites, NOT to review! And that only because, out of the billions of the people of the planet to have a personal grudge against, HE picked ME! He's oppressing me personally, and my website technologically, with his super-ODP-editor powers!"
But the fact is, there are too many spamming jerks, and there are not enough ODP editors, and they do not have enough buckets, to carry all those grudges. And if there were enough buckets, there wouldn't have been time to carry the grudges AND add well over five million categorized listings. And it's never just one editor, it takes hundreds or thousands to carry each grudge. And how do you synchronize grudges -- you have the Captain tell the infantry whom to begrudge what, eh? But there's no orficers with that privilege.
You must be thinking of some organization like the SS or Mafia (or Microsoft) where, as you get "higher" in the "company". you can tell more people what to do (and shoot them or throw chairs or fire them if they don't do what you want. And you always tell how high you are by how many people you can kill.
But the ODP isn't that way. It's all worker bees -- you do what you think is important, and the bee next to you does what IT thinks is important. Which boils down to -- reviewing sites, basically. (A few dozen volunteers also review applications and set editor permissions. But once an editor receives permissions, so long as he doesn't abuse the fundamental rules (i.e. doesn't harm the directory), there is no mechanism for telling him what to do. So your "hierarchical" power doesn't exist.
Your only power is what you've been empowered to do yourself. And what can you do? There are, let us say, twenty million websites out there. Can you exercise power over them? Nonsense. Two hundred sites reviewed would be an EXTREMELY busy day for most editors. So even the most active editor fails to review twenty million websites daily. And that ... that is no more than you can do yourself! And, whether or not you review a site, you cannot tell another editor to review it again (or not to review it).
So the only difference between you and the inactive ODP editor is ... a useless credential: you both fail to review all of those 20 million sites every day.
And the only difference between you and that ACTIVE ODP editor is not the sites you both don't review, it's the sites the editor DID review.
And does reviewing ten thousand sites give an editor power (to tell anyone else what to do?) No, the only power an experienced editor has, is the same as the inactive editor has: the privilege of reviewing sites on his own monitor and typing descriptions with his own fingers. The same twenty million sites are there, waiting for both of them. The same temporal limitations are there, keeping either of them from reviewing more than a few hundred sites.
Oh, sure, every affiliate doorway spammer in the planet is off nursing a grudge saying, "yet another day in which THE editor selected MY site, out of all those twenty millions of sites, NOT to review! And that only because, out of the billions of the people of the planet to have a personal grudge against, HE picked ME! He's oppressing me personally, and my website technologically, with his super-ODP-editor powers!"
But the fact is, there are too many spamming jerks, and there are not enough ODP editors, and they do not have enough buckets, to carry all those grudges. And if there were enough buckets, there wouldn't have been time to carry the grudges AND add well over five million categorized listings. And it's never just one editor, it takes hundreds or thousands to carry each grudge. And how do you synchronize grudges -- you have the Captain tell the infantry whom to begrudge what, eh? But there's no orficers with that privilege.
Alucard
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 5,920
Far from it. In the ranks of people who do something connected with the web, there are:
1. ODP Editors
2. Ex-ODP Editors
3. Future ODP editors
4. Web professionals who understand what the ODP is about, submit their site, and then move on to other ways of promoting their sites.
5. Web professionals who submit their site once, and then try to push like hell to speed up what they see as a slow process
6. Spammer jerks
My guess would be that the vast proportion of people are #4.
The problem is that the vast majority of submissions come from #6, since they have no clue about how the ODP works, or don't want to, or do understand it, but want to bomb it.
The frustration as an ODP editor is that you spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to deal with #6, which short-changes the good folks that are #4.
1. ODP Editors
2. Ex-ODP Editors
3. Future ODP editors
4. Web professionals who understand what the ODP is about, submit their site, and then move on to other ways of promoting their sites.
5. Web professionals who submit their site once, and then try to push like hell to speed up what they see as a slow process
6. Spammer jerks
My guess would be that the vast proportion of people are #4.
The problem is that the vast majority of submissions come from #6, since they have no clue about how the ODP works, or don't want to, or do understand it, but want to bomb it.
The frustration as an ODP editor is that you spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to deal with #6, which short-changes the good folks that are #4.
Did you even read the whole message? What’s up dude? Why is it that you think ODP owes you any explanation? You or some one else suggests a website for inclusion in the directory. It is a suggestion. Nothing more. I get suggestions all day long to act on things that I may or may not consider appropriate. Just like that, an editor may or may not take your or for that matter anyone’s suggestion into account. Can it be any simpler than that? Please understand, I have no affiliation with ODP other than having a privilege to post a message in this forum. I believe that you do understand the process quite well, but your frustration has clouded your reasoning. Sit back, relax. Read a little. See who is in the directory and why. See if your suggestion meets or rather exceeds the unique content already listed in the category. If it does, which is quite apparent that you very strongly believe that it is so, let an impartial person evaluate your assumption. Would it be to hard for you to fathom that this impartial entity may be an ODP editor?MrTim said: