What to do after 2 waiting 2 years

Hi,

hutcheson, as I said I agree and accept the rights of editors, based on the volunteery spirit of dmoz.org to review whatever they want or not to review anything at all.

I just wish to note that such extreme freedom leads to THIS thread wich you'll agree is not useless at all, is it? There IS a casus! At least I think so.

I'd be very cautious to call all people asking here "Why?" and "What?" an ignorant crowd. Spammers do not Register and Post in forums They SPAM

You personaly tend to be just a little bit peremptory even though fundamentaly right and I read your postings with great pleasure


Regards,
Plamen.

Spammers do not Register and Post in forums

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how many actually do.

motsa said:

You'd be surprised how many actually do.

Click to expand...

*applauds*

I really think that because Dmoz is free, they don't have to do anything, and because we are using that service, it is unjust of us to be demanding.

But what do I know?

*goes back to lurking*

~Polly

You'd be surprised how many actually do.

Click to expand...

A significant number of people register in this forum, just to post advertisements or links to their URLs. Their posts are nothing to do with DMOZ. These types of spam get deleted very quickly. I'm not sure why they think it's worth the time.

Hi,

When I clicked "Send" I realized that what I said about spammers is not true at all. Too late. Sorry. You are quite right of course.

Anyway, I am sattisfied with what I've read here and answers given by you Editors were clear enough and very helpfull. Thank you.

I'll apply (already did) for editor to see how it looks from the other side of the front line See you. Soon or later. I already forgot

Regards,
Plamen.

Good Thread

Hello,
I have just spent 20 minutes reading this thread and it has had a great number of good points that make it a easier to understand what DMOZ is and how / why it works the way it does.
I would like to summarize :

1 - DMOZ is voluntary so we as website publishers can not demand anything from them other than they keep editing at least the minimum.
2 - DMOZ can not take every editor that applies because that would increase the risk of compromising the directory and not the quality of the directory
3 - Site Status have been removed because once as a website publisher will continue to publish regardless of your "status" thus not necessary.
4 - Google uses the DMOZ directory and therefor DMOZ is influencing 80% of all Internet searches to some extent.
5 - (this is me) DMOZ is not seem to fully recognize the repercussions of its policy of distributing the content of the directory. There are countless reproductions of the directory thus further influencing the Internet searches being made.
6 - For commercial sites the submission process has an effect on business but for non commercial sites it is a great service and almost never a disservice.
7 - SPAM is one of the biggest factors in delayed submission / site reviews. No one can really imagine how much spam submission the world's largest open directory gets in one day (1000's)
8 - The Internet is evolving
9 - People are not perfect so stop demanding that they be so. Sometimes submissions are disgarded sometimes spam gets through
10 - We help the editors by suggesting sites and reporting abuse. DMOZ is an interactive directory.

So my question is who will decide the path of evolution of DMOZ? or does anyone see the need for DMOZ to evolve?

The ODP administrators will guide the editing community in deciding the evolution of the ODP. Webmaster concerns are not going to be a significant factor in that discussion. Editor efficiency IS a significant factor: the better editors work, the more surfers are given (and, incidentally, the more webmasters are pleased.)

That the ODP IS influential is a matter of some satisfaction for editors: exactly how it is influential is not under our control -- and THAT is a matter of policy and principle. Everyone is free to choose the influence the ODP will have on their own web surfing, and their own tools designed to assist surfers.

4 - Google uses the DMOZ directory and therefor DMOZ is influencing 80% of all Internet searches to some extent.

Click to expand...

There is a repeated question that comes up --> Since Google uses the ODP (in some manner - though I highly doubt it's an 80% influence) - then the ODP editors have a requirement to improve the quaility and/or quantity of editing, otherwise Google results will be skewed.

Have you considered that the staff at Google knows what it's doing, and if they felt there was something wrong with ODP, they would not use the results. I'm sure they are well aware the DMOZ is not a complete index of all that is out there, and that it's less than perfect, and they factor that into their usage.

hutcheson said:

The ODP administrators will guide the editing community in deciding the evolution of the ODP. Webmaster concerns are not going to be a significant factor in that discussion.

Click to expand...

Remember that the web exists and so does DMOZ because there are webmasters. I am not referring to commercial websites but those billions of information sites that make up the internet. By ignoring these individuals DMOZ is ignoring itself.

bobrat said:

Have you considered that the staff at Google knows what it's doing, and if they felt there was something wrong with ODP, they would not use the results. I'm sure they are well aware the DMOZ is not a complete index of all that is out there, and that it's less than perfect, and they factor that into their usage.

Click to expand...

Google is now a public offered company and has an obligation to it is share holders so I don't consider it innocent anymore. But it is not just about Google, but MSN and other search engines. Engines work by content and DMOZ supplies vast amounts of it.

Nobody expects DMOZ to be perfect but more or less true to itself. That is to say if there is an open project then all discussions about that project should be open too. This forum is an example of that. But is it enough?

Remember that the web exists and so does DMOZ because there are webmasters. I am not referring to commercial websites but those billions of information sites that make up the internet. By ignoring these individuals DMOZ is ignoring itself.

Click to expand...

The concerns of webmasters, when they are acting as webmasters, is to have their own site(s) promoted. And that is what DMOZ ignores, and must ignore - else it will lose all legitimacy. The reason they want their sites promoted is often commercial (which makes it easy to ignore), but sometimes it is driven by a want to inform about something. We have many such webmasters as editors in the ODP: people who run a site about their home town, or their favourite sport, or the illness they or somebody they love suffers from. That's one of the most common (genuine) reasons why somebody would want to become an editor. Sure, they will also publish their own website in the process -- they are expected to, as long as they treat it the same way they would any other site in the category.
However, even if there is no commercial interest whatsoever involved, webmasters cannot be allowed to push their own agenda within the ODP. If somebody's only concern is to have their own views heard, then their concern is not ours.

if there is an open project then all discussions about that project should be open too.

Click to expand...

I would contest that statement. What would be the point in having a discussion about things that only editors are able to know anything about, outside the editing community? Everything that is public can be discussed in this forum (though some things have been discussed to death and are therefore not taken up again). Those things that are not public are pointless to attempt to discuss. The obvious rejoinder would be "if it's open, everything should be public", but that is a misinterpretation of the word "open", I'm afraid.

I agree to most of what nea is saying. The point I would like to make from a webmasters point of view is this: I have published some really quality content only because someone paid me. The more that content is found the more clients I will have the more content I will publish.

The legitimacy of DMOZ is not in question, but lets face the facts that DMOZ is distributed content that is why everyone wants to be in it. Once you are in DMOZ you appear in hundreds of sites... In my opinion if you distribute your content and have links to all the major commercial search engines on your site you are obliged to offer more transparency.

I used to be an "anti-establishment" person but then I realized without money the Internet would not exist. The fact remains that that a website that has quality content has quality content regardless of the intention of the publisher.

In today's atmosphere of suspicious content the fact that DMOZ editors come and go and there is no public record of who is doing what the legitimacy of DMOZ is deteriorating.

Just recently there was a case about the legitimacy of WikiPedia when a web user posted that a certain individual was a member of the nazi party. The person is an actual activist for free speech. He was able to track down the culprit because the wikipedia does keep track of who edits the pages.

I am not saying that the same should apply to DMOZ but sometimes doubt does enter my mind.. especially when there are apparently "hidden" elements of the directory that only editors know about.

My personal experience has been good in the fact that editors have responded to my questions and are quite helpful in this forum. But the submission experience is so vague... the selection even more so.

was able to track down the culprit because the wikipedia does keep track of who edits the pages.

Click to expand...

As does ODP of course; it's just that the detailed editing logs aren't made available to the public. However, all editors can see them and they can be consulted whenever abuse reports are being investigated by the metas.

In my opinion if you distribute your content and have links to all the major commercial search engines on your site you are obliged to offer more transparency.

Click to expand...

The ODP is far more transparant than Google, Yahoo, Looksmart or any of the other major players. Try getting into a dialogue with any of them! The fact is that no one is going to let outsiders come in and disassemble their organisation to find out how it works. Each organisation aims to provide a facility to the best of their ability and 'market forces' determine how it is received.

Before applying to join the ODP, I did an investigation on my own account and followed dozens of 'leads' of anti-DMOZ threads years back to 1999. I found no one who put forward a believable account of DMOZ wrong-doing and ended up being surprised to find that an organisation with some 50,000+ ex-editors had so few who claimed a bad experience. In fact it was my perception of the quality of the people inside the ODP compared to that of the detractors outside that convinced me that joining would be worthwhile.

The other aspect I took on board was that the ODP is not and will never be complete. It is 'travelling hopefully' to its real destination - Quality - not an impossible destination of quantity.

For me an important aspect of openess in the ODP is that anyone who has the right skills and attitude can become an editor and contribute. The ebb and flow of editors should, in a way, be reassuring since new enthusiastic editors come along and cast an eye over the work of their predecessors.

At the moment, if the ODP has value in the marketplace, it is because it is doing what it does in the way that it does it ( ? ?) and being the best at it.

regards

I'm going to sound like a real suckup saying this, but:

Am I the only one who has stopped using Google and started using Dmoz? It's just so much easier to find what I am looking for.

I believe that the whole "Dmoz influences Google" argument should be taken up with Google, not Dmoz. I mean, if Dmoz is doing such a terrible job, Google shouldn't use it anymore, right? So it's not Dmoz's problem, it's Google's. Go whine to them about it.

Also, the whole money vs. free thing:

I am going to say that, yes, free websites are often more reliable. That may be because I have no access to the money websites, as I have no credit card or bank account, and my parents believe such things are a waste of money.

Those are my two cents. Spend them as you wish, as long as it's not on pay-per-view websites.

~Polly

Maybe someone has blacklisted your site?

If you look at his previous posts (go to his profile and select all his posts) you will see

Anyway, our spanish site was listed a year ago

Click to expand...

.

The commonest reason for not being listed is because no one has reviewed the site yet.

To be blacklisted you have to be really bad and MikieMike doesn't strike me as that sort of person at all - in fact quite the reverse.

regards

Eric-the-Bun said:

To be blacklisted you have to be really bad and MikieMike doesn't strike me as that sort of person at all - in fact quite the reverse.

regards

Click to expand...

Thank you eric. Like I said I have had a good experience with DMOZ and my websites, as I have a few in DMOZ already, are listed and eventually get listed... it just takes time.

I don't really want to "defend" myself but I would like to explain why I am writing.

I have joined this conversation because I have been in the Internet business for many years and I am just concerned about the content distribution of DMOZ. From this thread I am getting a lot of good feedback from the editors. Like the fact that there are logs kept for changes and that there is an internal committee and "regulatory effort" with records.

I use DMOZ when I am looking for a site about some hobby of mine or a research about "stuff" that interests me.

As so much is changing now and Google, MSN, Yahoo are censoring in China I am just trying to express my views about open content distribution.

I think that one day DMOZ will come under scrutiny and I hope that it is prepared because it is a worthwhile endevour.

MikieMike said:

The legitimacy of DMOZ is not in question, but lets face the facts that DMOZ is distributed content that is why everyone wants to be in it. Once you are in DMOZ you appear in hundreds of sites... In my opinion if you distribute your content and have links to all the major commercial search engines on your site you are obliged to offer more transparency.

Click to expand...

Actually it is unconditionally perposterous that a resource so many search engines and networks use can allow their editors to do 4 edits "every once in awhile" when this is the holy grail for anyone publishing content. Sure this is volunteer work, but I'm sure there are many active individuals who know how to pick quality sites and be active, happily taking their place. A person should not have to wait 2 years to receive a response.. and there is no legitimate argument that "they should not be waiting", given the weight DMOZ has over Internet search results, whether intentional or not.

Maybe the Submit a Site option should just be removed if submissions are going to stay in limbo indefinately.

zerosum said:

Sure this is volunteer work, but I'm sure there are many active individuals who know how to pick quality sites and be active, happily taking their place.

Click to expand...

This would be true if a not so active editor would block other people from becoming editor for the same category. But it isn't. Every category can have many editors. Those so called "active individuals" just have to apply to become an editor. But they don't or they want to become editors for the wrong reasons.

zerosum said:

given the weight DMOZ has over Internet search results, whether intentional or not.

Click to expand...

If DMOZ has such a weight, which to my opinion is much less than webmasters believe it to be, than DMOZ must be doing a very good job. Why else would all those search enigines want to use DMOZ data.

zerosum said:

Maybe the Submit a Site option should just be removed if submissions are going to stay in limbo indefinately.

Click to expand...

This has been discussed by editors. Although the pool of suggested sites is on average of low quality the suggestions are still a place to find listable sites and in some parts of the directory it even is a good resource to use. As long as the suggestions are of use to us editors we will accept them.

Actually it is unconditionally perposterous that a resource so many search engines and networks use can allow their editors to do 4 edits "every once in awhile" when this is the holy grail for anyone publishing content.

Click to expand...

Since you made christianity as an example, have you volunteered to be a reader of the gospel, in which they force you every week to read the bible ?

Sure this is volunteer work, but I'm sure there are many active individuals who know how to pick quality sites and be active, happily taking their place.

Click to expand...

By all means they can apply. But it is the same as securing a job spot at Lockheed Martin, with which they screen the applicants on their qualifications.

A person should not have to wait 2 years to receive a response.. and there is no legitimate argument that "they should not be waiting", given the weight DMOZ has over Internet search results, whether intentional or not.

Click to expand...

When you try and buy a coffee at your local Starbucks outlet on a busy day.Have you ever fall in line and thought of a legitimate argument that I should not be waiting for just a cup of coffee when there is a convenience store right across the street where you could buy a coffee without being in a long line.

Maybe sometimnes the answer to our prayers is on ourselves.