Webmasters complaining

After spending many years developing websites and trying to understand the DMOZ, I finally wrote a brief article with my take on DMOZ and complaints from webmasters.

http://www.kylewilliams.com/webmaster/dmoz-advice.asp

Here's the last paragraph from the article, which I think is the most important for unhappy webmasters to read.

"My take on the DMOZ directory is that it has unofficially and unintentionally become a listing of sites where webmasters have put their passion into their creation. Lately, webmasters have been creating quick content-based sites with hyphens in domain names for the sole purpose of making money and ranking on search engines. I am in no way saying that hyphens in domain names or making websites primarily for money is a bad thing. What I'm saying is DMOZ is not about money. They are about unique quality. And perhaps the webmaster needs to take a second look at their own work before criticizing DMOZ on denying their website. Perhaps the webmaster needs to stop thinking about AdSense for a minute and start thinking about whether their heart is in the website they've created. The DMOZ has been around before the Internet was as commercial as it is now. It's nice to see they are keeping their same non-commercial values."

Yes, you are absolutely right. But I’d like to add that there are a good many webmasters who *have* created their sites with passion. Unfortunately, passion alone won’t get you into ODP. For those who have worked with passion, being rejected or waiting many months to get listed is a significant emotional let down.

Perhaps we should start a support group SWFODPL – “still waiting for an ODP listing” or “RODP – Rejected by ODP” . We might even create a website for each: swfodpl.org and rodp.org. But those two sites probably *would* get listed, undermining our ultimate mission. ;-)

On a serious note, I don’t think ‘commercial’ status is an issue for most editors. If it’s a good site that offers valuable information, it will eventually find its way into ODP.

I don't buy this - the ODP is owned and hosted by Netscape, is it not - they reserve the right to change whatever rules as they see fit - when they see fit.

One excellent site

Well I have edited category here and can tell you - you are right about it....
I also have found excellent web site and suggested to different category...I mean EXCELLENT with no banners and not even links....Did not get listed.... For the reason - it is free, VERY competative and will downgrade many big sites...

don't buy this - the ODP is owned and hosted by Netscape, is it not - they reserve the right to change whatever rules as they see fit - when they see fit.

Click to expand...

Basically that is true, of course. To show us how they think about the ODP, Netscape/AOL published a Social Contract some years ago, where the first chapter is "The Open Directory Will Remain 100% Free". Since that was the "best ODP feature" in a oting some years ago the ODP would loose most of its senior editors when goin commercial. So I bet they will stay with their contract. Otherwise they would have a directory but not the editing force. And the ODP is not worth much without the editing force.

Vaddy, your attempt to tar and feather the entire ODP seems to have acquired a definite focus.

By your confession, there's only one editor that knows about this site you speak of, and that is ... you. Who can do something about this site, but doesn't? And so, who is at fault if it doesn't get listed? Who is corrupt? Who is maliciously sabotaging the directory?

I cannot know whether you are telling the truth or not. I can know whether you are being honest or not -- I just don't know which way you're being dishonest.

Do something about the site. Or stand self-condemned as a uniquely corrupt editor.

That's the way volunteer organizations work. What gets done, gets done because the people who do it, think it matters.

hutcheson

I think all that you said is complete rubbish.

As an ex ODP editor, I became frustrated and left the ODP when it became obvious to me, that certain highly ranked editors have an agenda of their own.

From memory there are claims in the editors guidelines that quality supersedes quantity - this is obviously not true.

I can point to MANY poorly edited listings and even threads that have been poorly edited.

I used to look at which editor had done the edits, only to find that they were responsible for regions, or even metas.

Add to this - that some of the sites I have designed don't seem to get listed anymore - and my suspicions are increased.

Every website I design should be listed on the ODP as they clearly meet the requirements. No cheating here my friend.

The ODP says its job is to record the internet - my suspicion is that some of the editors like to act like little gods - as its the only power they've got.

The ODP needs to clean up its act and start to promote its existing editors based on their efforts x quality. Rather than how many greens they tick off.

windharp

I don't have time to read the social contract just now my bet though is that it reserves the right to change the terms and conditions without notice or providing reason bla bla bla....

It's a bit like when a politician say "We have no plans to....."

Regarding that you had a completeley different complaint in your first posting in this thread (which I answered to), please stop trolling.

As an ex-editor you should know that most "not listed" sites that were suggested and deserve a listing are just still waiting to be reviewed.

As an ex-editor you should know the difference between "poor edits" and "abuse", and should know some of the reasons that entries are in a poor state (for example: in the early times of the ODP quantity was the main goal, so it lacked quality. The guidelines emerged to state the different criteria).

Regarding the "poorly edited threads" - since the ODP is no forum and Resource-Zone is just an inofficial external forum, I can see no connection to "abuse in ODP".

If you have a specific complaint, file an abuse report. As an ex-editor I am sure you can find out how that works. But please stop trolling around, that does not help anybody.

Regarding the social contract: Instead of speculating about things you have not read, you should take some minutes to read it before you post.

windharp

I think I'll reserve the right to do what I want, when I want and without your permission.

What you said about quality simply does not add up.

One of the simplest guidelines is not to use a word in a thread in the description of your edit.

Take a look here: /Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/England/North_Yorkshire/Scarborough/Travel_and_Tourism/Accommodation/Bed_and_Breakfast/

Tell me - were these edited in the pre-guideline days - or did a troll do it.

I admit I am no native english speaker, and so I might be lacking a few details...
I can spot a typo in the last entry in the category.
The "AA 4-diamond family hotel" could be left out, I agree. But if this hotel differs from the others regarding that criterium, I can see why it could be included as well.

But otherwise those descriptions look fine to me. They have a part describing the object the site is about and a part describing the site. Well balanced.

If I understand you correctly, you are complaining that you spot repetition of the category path in the entries. What exactly do you mean? Describing accomodations without using "hotel", "guest house" and similiar words creates sentences no human wants to read, so you can't possibly mean that. Everything up to and including the "Scarborough" part is not even repeated once. Sorry, but I can't follow you here.

Well there is a different category for hotels - so hotels in that list, are in the wrong cat.

The word accommodation is in the thread, so should automatically be avoided in the description.

I couldn't get to the page - keeps timing out.... So can't give you a full break down at this time.

But from memory - the word accommodation is repeated through the descriptions at least 3 times. It's poor editing.

And trust me. Your English is very good. Especially compared to my German.

Just a little tip so that you're more clear here -- when you keep saying "thread", what you mean is "category". A thread is something like this, a collection of posts about a topic. What you're talking about is an ODP category.

Most of the descriptions are pretty good to be honest. I agree that there is some inconsistency in classification between the B&B and hotels categories - but that could be because the owner submitted their site to the B&B category rather than the hotels one. And a lot of those small guesthouse type hotels are basically B&Bs anyway.

Occasional repetition of category words in complete sentences is hardly a big deal - and certainly not something I'd be massively concerned about.

I've corrected the last entry which had a spelling error, and sorted it and the other "hotels" to the hotels category though.

Thanks for the heads up,

Andy

Its no biggie provided you don't own one of the b&b's.

The way some search engines produce results, means that words such as accommodation in the ODP description, can give an unfair advantage to the edits that include that word. The only way to create a fair balance is to either remove accommodation from those descriptions, or add it to the others.

Like I said - no biggie if your not in that business - but if one of your competitors is getting a higher ranking on search results - only because the ODP includes accommodation in the description. That is unfair.

I don't run a BB - or any accommodation - but I do see the effects of the ODP edit has on search engines. Just seems unfair to me.

If you think an ODP description has any type of effect on search engines you are wrong. If the description were anchor text that might have some effect but it is not. As far as the search engines are concerned - an ODP listing has the same effect as any other link. You can verify that in any of the Search Engine forums from the people there that know. Have a great day!

Timeout, pointing to bad edits is easy. Figuring out how to fix them is not always quite so easy. Fixing them is a lot of work. The first year I was an editall, I remember at one point there were five or six projects cleaning up work I'd done earlier.

The editors we want aren't the ones that are always carping about the imperfections of other editors, but the ones that are always learning how to write better descriptions, and passing that information on effectively.

I personally use fewer repeated words than Mr. Skrenta and Mr. Keating do; but the community has tolerated those two editors for some years anyway: in part, no doubt, because achieving my own level of concise expression is not the work of an afternoon.

Is this site really free?

Hello

Thats really true that every one wants money (return) from sites. well, is this site free: <advertisement removed, this is not the place for it> I mean what do u think about this site. No charges at-all

As for dmoz submission, i think it is quite hard now as some of the directories were controlled by selfish editors sometimes.

When you say "directories", which ones are you referring to Yahoo? Looksmart? JoAnt? We really shouldn't discuss them here.

In the ODP, it has always been impossible for the whole directory or any single part to be controlled by any single selfish editor. However, it has sometimes been possible for a single editor to stir up a lot of trouble by making vague accusations and vicious innuendos, sort of like you've been doing here. And sometimes it takes awhile for the center of such social problems to be tracked down -- especially in the smaller language communities if the person is being sneaky as well as vicious.

But as far as "controlling content" in the directory, it's impossible. That's one of the strengths of the ODP organization -- and apparently a unique strengths, since carpers almost invariably speak as if they had never seen and couldn't possibly imagine any structure other than a "committee of mini-Fuhrers". (Their assumption may really be based on other experience: the other directories I've seen all seem to have a single-point-of-human-failure design. But the ODP never has had that problem, due to the wisdom of its founders. One of the community axioms has always been "no editor owns any category.")