What is the point?

chaz7979

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
326
Nice post.

I only see one issue

It's a pity for the owners of non-listed sites, but that's not really our concern. In any case it's not actually something we can do much about, without an unacceptable sacrifice of the overall quality of the directory

I think there must be a way to make everyone happy without sacrificing quality. Obviously that can not be done today, but it should be an aim for the future. There are so many potential good editors out there, its time to find them.
 

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv
Curlie Meta
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
10,093
chaz7979 said:
I think there must be a way to make everyone happy without sacrificing quality.
You asked for our goal.
Making everybody happy certainly is not our goal.
And we certainly are not going to lower our standards by listing sites faster with less checking or accepting more editors without knowing they can do a good job.
Quality is already difficult enough to maintain without making sacrifices for quantity.
 

chaz7979

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
326
I am suggestion you get more editors that can do a good job. I think you missed my point. I said "There are so many potential good editors out there, its time to find them." I never said lets grab anyone and sacrifice quality.

(side note: are my posts hard to understand? Anyone feel free to post or PM me)

Its not that it is a pity for the owners of the non listed sites either, its more of a pity to not have the sites listed for the surfers.
 

chaos127

Curlie Admin
Joined
Nov 13, 2003
Messages
1,344
I am suggestion you get more editors that can do a good job.
I agree this would be good for the directory. Now do you have any constructive suggestions about how this could be achieved (without lowering our standards of course)? :)
 

Callimachus

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
704
People dont surf the ODP.

And how did you come to this conclusion? Unless you are staff with access to the server logs.

I and many people I know use it, simply because it is becoming increasingly time wasting to wade through advertisement and black-hat SEOd search engine listings to find relevant entries. ODP is perhaps more relevant than ever for those seeking specific information without the commercialized tripe that's choking the internet.
 

chaz7979

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
326
Now do you have any constructive suggestions about how this could be achieved (without lowering our standards of course)?

Promote active recruiting?
Place team leaders in place to take time to work with potential editors? (applications that show promise, but are not perfect)

And how did you come to this conclusion? Unless you are staff with access to the server logs.

1. Editors here admit it.
2. Stats are available to the public.
3. You never hear things like "traffic at google up 10% this quarter, while yahoo slips 9%, but DMOZ is close on their heals up 50%!"

Although I will admit that was a blanket statement, and I am not a big fan of blankets. Quote me on this... an extremely minuscule percentage of web surfers use dmoz.org for the purpose of finding useful websites.
 

makrhod

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
1,899
Promote active recruiting?
Place team leaders in place to take time to work with potential editors? (applications that show promise, but are not perfect)
Umm, what makes you think these methods are not used already? I realise it is difficult to express informed criticism when you are not, in fact, informed, so a little background reading may be helpful, (as has been suggested several times already).

And in view of your own steadfast resistance to active recruitment, you are perfectly placed to see this as a hit-and-miss method anyway. :p
 

chaz7979

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
326
You can tell me to read and get informed but, I have read every publicly available page on dmoz.org numerous times. Also As you can see I spend a bit of time on the forums.

Umm, what makes you think these methods are not used already?

I am sure some are, but obviously not everyone, and maybe not enough. I mean, it is obvious that our government is running the country, but something tells me that some them could be doing a better job.

your own steadfast resistance to active recruitment

I am not resistant to active recruitment. Not only have I tried to become an editor, but I have also suggested to some of my close, well suited, online partners to apply.
 

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv
Curlie Meta
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
10,093
> 1. Editors here admit it.
No, we only said that we can always use more good editors. Even if we had 100,000 editors we still could use more good editors.

> 2. Stats are available to the public.
Oh, and were are these stats?

> an extremely minuscule percentage of web surfers use dmoz.org for the purpose of finding useful websites.
Some other people seem to disagree with you.
Look at http://snapshot.compete.com/dmoz.org/
Estimation of people in the USA that visited DMOZ in the month september 2006: 2,154,546
Maybe there estimation is not correct but atleast they base it on measurements they did and not on some guttfeeling as you are doing.
 

informator

kEditall/kCatmv
Curlie Meta
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
1,697
Location
Sweden
chaz7979 said:
(side note: are my posts hard to understand? Anyone feel free to post or PM me

Yes, you could maybe think a bit more before continue posting - making your point in 100+ posts and not getting other members support could maybe suggest that what you think is right is not supported by others. I think it´s hard for only one member of this forum to change/improve how ODP works. :confused:
 

oDCo

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
14
This thread really is very interesting and is providing some useful insight into how DMOZ operates. I'd like to put my vote behind updating some of the help files as suggested by someone earlier mind.

There is, however, a couple of points I'd like to make . . .

pvgool said:
Some other people seem to disagree with you.
Look at http://snapshot.compete.com/dmoz.org/
Estimation of people in the USA that visited DMOZ in the month september 2006: 2,154,546
Maybe there estimation is not correct but atleast they base it on measurements they did and not on some guttfeeling as you are doing.

Using http://snapshot.compete.com/google.com/ estimates that 109,080,418 people have visited Google. That means that less than 2% of the number of people who visit Google, visit DMOZ.

informator said:
I think it´s hard for only one member of this forum to change/improve how ODP works. :confused:

That doesn't that he should stop trying though does it? I thought one person could make a difference . . . it only takes one good idea.
 

makrhod

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
1,899
I tried to become an editor
Yes, but despite reassurance that many current editors of all levels took several attempts to submit an acceptable application, and despite being given friendly encouragement and advice (= "active recruitment"), you declined to re-apply.
As I said, it's a hit-and-miss method. ;)
 

chaz7979

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
326
Some other people seem to disagree with you.
Look at http://snapshot.compete.com/dmoz.org/
Estimation of people in the USA that visited DMOZ in the month september 2006: 2,154,546
Maybe there estimation is not correct but atleast they base it on measurements they did and not on some guttfeeling as you are doing.

Even if those stats were correct, which I am willing to bet they are not. Those numbers are still minuscule as I said.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/t...rge&compare_sites=google.com&y=r&url=dmoz.org

I think it´s hard for only one member of this forum to change/improve how ODP works.

That is sad to think. 1 Person CAN make a difference in this world, but not at the ODP?

you declined to re-apply

I had already re-applied and I was turned down again. Want me to really try again? I will do it just for you. But I honestly have no idea which cat to apply to. I tried the 3 cats I knew most about and I was shot down.
 

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv
Curlie Meta
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
10,093
That means that less than 2% of the number of people who visit Google, visit DMOZ.
Yes, and your point is.
DMOZ and Google are two totaly different kind of sites.

I think it´s hard for only one member of this forum to change/improve how ODP works.
I would say it is imposisble for one person at all.
Only editors and only after internal discussion can change how things work.
I have never seen an improvement for DMOZ being given. We have been shown many improvements for webmasters, but these improvements are about services DMOZ does not offer and will not start to offer.
 

oDCo

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
14
pvgool said:
Yes, and your point is.
DMOZ and Google are two totaly different kind of sites.

I know that they're completely different, the point I was making was that the number of people visiting DMOZ *is* a small percentage of people using the web. Granted, 2 million visitors in a month is a massive number but in the terms of the amount of people using the internet, it's still quite small. I was just using the comparison to Google to illustrate that.
 

hutcheson

Curlie Meta
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
Messages
19,136
Ah, you've made your point. It is of course irrelevant.

Because the ODP is not some kind of marketroid PR empire-in-the-making. It doesn't HAVE to be the most popular starlet in the tabloids. All it has to do is make some unique contribution to human knowledge, for whoever would like to use it.
 

chaz7979

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
326
I dont see how it is irrelevant. If the ODP has the chance to reach more users via some other medium then it should embrace that opportunity. If the ODP continues to spiral in the direction that it is going I fear that SE's will discontinue using all of your hard work. That would be a real shame.
 

ishtar

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
688
chaz7979 said:
I would repsond more, but my comments will be cut out, and my train of thought will look crazy, like it does in my other threads. I give up.
Oh, if only wishing made it so.

Your continued posting in this thread is bordering on trolling.
 

hutcheson

Curlie Meta
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
Messages
19,136
The SEs really aren't as stupid as you assume. They aren't going to be moved, one way or another, by PR efforts in ANY medium. They already know about the ODP--not as a PR project but as an information source. They don't care how many people use it directly.

They'll make their algorithmic decisions based on whether their (extremely bright) techies can figure out a way to use ODP data to improve their search results.

But, in any case, SE use of the ODP to improve searches falls into the category of "clever abuse." It is neither contemplated nor forbidden by the ODP License. (There's a reason it's not called the Open Search Engine Seed Project.) But we're just building a directory. The decisions we make are based on which action builds a better directory. The point is to build a directory.

There are many people working on other media. There's no reason to deprecate their efforts. But there's no reason to compete with them either. For one thing, some of them (Google) undoubtedly do their own thing much better than we could. For another thing (as has often been pointed out) the directory would profit by many improvements, and efforts in other media would dilute the effort given. For another, there's no reason to suppose that a community formed to build a directory would necessarily be well equipped to work in another medium, nor is there any reason to suppose that people who can't contribute effectively to a directory should be excluded from work in another medium. For yet another, there's no reason to suppose that the organizational structure and processes designed around building a directory would be efficient for other media -- certainly Project Gutenberg and Wikipedia, for instance have distinctly different structures although sharing many of the same ideals. Finally, individual volunteers are able to participate in multiple volunteer projects, depending on the breadth of their own personal goals -- so there would be absolutely no point in any one project trying to be everything to everybody. Focus is good.

But variety is good also. It is better to light a candle than to curse the people who are lighting candles somewhere else. If you see a need that the ODP doesn't fulfill -- and there are many of them -- join a project that's working on that. Or form a project: start doing the work yourself, and invite people who share your goals to help.
 
This site has been archived and is no longer accepting new content.
Top