Why is Issues of ODP closed
- Thread starter Johnnyg
- Start date
There really weren't any issues to discuss. There were some obvious facts (such as, dishonest webmasters are a perpetual threat to any open content collecting system), and some logical inferences (such as, it takes work from volunteers to deal with the problems of dishonest webmasters; so the system needs to discourage any kind of communication--either way--that doesn't directly help build the directory.)
Beyond that, the details of how webmasters are prevented from having self-serving influence won't be of any interest to webmasters who plan to follow the submittal policies.
Beyond that, the details of how webmasters are prevented from having self-serving influence won't be of any interest to webmasters who plan to follow the submittal policies.
paj_mccarthy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 40
The thread was about all issues of the ODP - I opened the thread up to discussion so that any issues that anybody had with the ODP could be discussed. I started the thread with a few of my own gripes and welcomed others to comment, but it got locked.
Whilst I can understand why you can't talk about behind the scene measures, why close the thread when people have other issues they want to talk about? After all, this whole section is called "ODP Issues".
Just my two cents.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
> After all, this whole section is called "ODP Issues".
Yes, and not Webmaster issues.
http://www.resource-zone.com/guidelines.php
Yes, and not Webmaster issues.
http://www.resource-zone.com/guidelines.php
paj_mccarthy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 40
pvgool said:
So is there anywhere that webmasters can discuss their issues?
The guidelines seem quite strict.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
> So is there anywhere that webmasters can discuss their issues?
There are many of such forums. A good start would be http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Chats_and_Forums/
There are many of such forums. A good start would be http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Chats_and_Forums/
makrhod
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,899
There are a great many forums where webmasters are free to talk about their sites, but this forum has a different purpose, which is to provide information about just one site: http://dmoz.org .
Most forums have rules of one sort or another, and these ones have been developed over time to allow for the most effective use of this "unofficial channel of communications" with volunteer editors.
[Added: Beaten by pvgool twice in one day! And I even have a 7 hour head start.
]paj_mccarthy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 40
pvgool said:
OK thanks, but ideally I would like input from you guys (editors) aswell as webmasters, aswell as those who just use the directory for the purpose it was intended (finding stuff). Is there anywhere that is associated with the ODP that allows this?
Hi there, my first post
A lot of interesting threads on this forum, but my focus thus far has been on reading the numerous threads posted by people enquiring about the site they've submitted or the status of their Editor application.
I wonder how many people do actually use the ODP to 'find stuff'. I never have done... but for sure I am beginning to get more interested in how this thing works.
Furthermore, I also wonder how many people do suggest a site that isn't associated with themselves in any way. The only reason I would suggest a site is because it would have some benefit to myself or my company to have it listed - no doubt this plays a big factor in the sites getting suggested.
One of the questions posted in the "Issues of ODP" thread was: "When a site is rejected there is no communication to the webmaster. Site owners are therefore unaware why their site has been rejected".
Perhaps this should be rephrased: "When a site is rejected there is no communication to whoever suggested it. They are therefore unaware whether the site has been rejected."
I think it's fair to say that a website, whether it's been suggested by a webmaster, site owner or otherwise, may well meet the guidelines of the ODP for inclusion (quality site, original, all this kind of stuff), but whoever suggested it will not know whether it's been rejected or just that an Editor hasn't got round to seeing it yet. So do they wait for a year or two, try it again, or give up? An Editor may not see it at all, or for whatever reason overlook it (intentionally or otherwise). That seems to be the issue with a lot of people.
There must be a reason why many people are enquiring - because they see the value of the ODP and the part it plays in SEO. What if this 'association' was removed, would we care so much about a site being included in the ODP?
I see it almost as 'suggest the site, and then forget about it'. If it doesn't appear, doesn't mean it doesn't meet the guidelines. If it never appears, doesn't mean it wasn't a quality site and that an Editor rejected it. You just may never know.
Anyway, I'm rambling, but I'm sure you get the gist of it
A lot of interesting threads on this forum, but my focus thus far has been on reading the numerous threads posted by people enquiring about the site they've submitted or the status of their Editor application.
I wonder how many people do actually use the ODP to 'find stuff'. I never have done... but for sure I am beginning to get more interested in how this thing works.
Furthermore, I also wonder how many people do suggest a site that isn't associated with themselves in any way. The only reason I would suggest a site is because it would have some benefit to myself or my company to have it listed - no doubt this plays a big factor in the sites getting suggested.
One of the questions posted in the "Issues of ODP" thread was: "When a site is rejected there is no communication to the webmaster. Site owners are therefore unaware why their site has been rejected".
Perhaps this should be rephrased: "When a site is rejected there is no communication to whoever suggested it. They are therefore unaware whether the site has been rejected."
I think it's fair to say that a website, whether it's been suggested by a webmaster, site owner or otherwise, may well meet the guidelines of the ODP for inclusion (quality site, original, all this kind of stuff), but whoever suggested it will not know whether it's been rejected or just that an Editor hasn't got round to seeing it yet. So do they wait for a year or two, try it again, or give up? An Editor may not see it at all, or for whatever reason overlook it (intentionally or otherwise). That seems to be the issue with a lot of people.
There must be a reason why many people are enquiring - because they see the value of the ODP and the part it plays in SEO. What if this 'association' was removed, would we care so much about a site being included in the ODP?
I see it almost as 'suggest the site, and then forget about it'. If it doesn't appear, doesn't mean it doesn't meet the guidelines. If it never appears, doesn't mean it wasn't a quality site and that an Editor rejected it. You just may never know.
Anyway, I'm rambling, but I'm sure you get the gist of it
jimnoble
DMOZ Meta
If a website is listable, we'll list it - though not necessarily in the time scale or category that the owner would like. Poor category choice, title or description aren't reasons for declining a suggestion. We just fix 'em.
The owner can work out whether or not his/her site is listable before even suggesting it by reading our guidelines.
There's thus no need for providing status reports at all. We tried them once and they consumed a lot of effort and triggered a fair number of angry arguments. They didn't contribute to the health of the directory in any way and the only folks they actively assisted were the spammers - so we stopped.
The owner can work out whether or not his/her site is listable before even suggesting it by reading our guidelines.
There's thus no need for providing status reports at all. We tried them once and they consumed a lot of effort and triggered a fair number of angry arguments. They didn't contribute to the health of the directory in any way and the only folks they actively assisted were the spammers - so we stopped.
As a matter of forum efficiency, it's better to (1) focus a particular thread on just one issue, and (2) read what's been written on that issue (including FAQs) before posting.
As for what you might call "potential problems", discussion of them would come in three parts.
(1) Analysis to see if there is an ACTUAL problem. This is something that can be done in public. A good example would be the quality feedback threads, where numerous visitors have posted many many specific examples of problems. (2) Review of the actual instances, to see if there is any pattern. Some of this can also be done in public, at least theoretically, but in practice very few outside contributors have found systemic problems.[*] (3) Review of internal processes to see how the problem can be ameliorated. This is best done in private. But a lot of people skip parts 1 and 2 completely, assume that any problem they can imagine is actually the worst thing since the Arabic slave raids, and start redesigning processes (which they don't understand) to solve problems (which so far as anyone knows doesn't exist). And worst of all, they intend to do this in public, in full view of the spammers whose purpose in life is to _subvert_ the processes they presume to design.
Footnote: Here's an example of the right approach to fixing a problem. Several years ago, one anonymous person started reviewing the ODP every week for a particular kind of abuse (which, I think, was probably his competitors getting what he thought was unfair help). He sent private e-mail (to me) describing exactly how he was looking for possible abusive sites, and what patterns he used to spot their sites quickly. I checked his work, of course, before cleaning up -- but I never caught him in a mistake. He was very low-key, very careful to distinguish between facts and his inferences (even though, unlike most people, his "inferences" were usually valid.)
He did this for some months. As a result, the ODP editing guidelines changed, and we explicitly started not listing a whole class of sites (which we editors SHOULD have recognized as nonlistable, but didn't until he rubbed our noses in it.
This person remained anonymous (perhaps because his site was unlistable and he didn't want to draw attention to it--I don't know.) But I've been grateful to him ever since.
THAT'S what an anonymous directory reviewer can do. And that's OBVIOUSLY how one ought to go about doing it.
As for what you might call "potential problems", discussion of them would come in three parts.
(1) Analysis to see if there is an ACTUAL problem. This is something that can be done in public. A good example would be the quality feedback threads, where numerous visitors have posted many many specific examples of problems. (2) Review of the actual instances, to see if there is any pattern. Some of this can also be done in public, at least theoretically, but in practice very few outside contributors have found systemic problems.[*] (3) Review of internal processes to see how the problem can be ameliorated. This is best done in private. But a lot of people skip parts 1 and 2 completely, assume that any problem they can imagine is actually the worst thing since the Arabic slave raids, and start redesigning processes (which they don't understand) to solve problems (which so far as anyone knows doesn't exist). And worst of all, they intend to do this in public, in full view of the spammers whose purpose in life is to _subvert_ the processes they presume to design.
Footnote: Here's an example of the right approach to fixing a problem. Several years ago, one anonymous person started reviewing the ODP every week for a particular kind of abuse (which, I think, was probably his competitors getting what he thought was unfair help). He sent private e-mail (to me) describing exactly how he was looking for possible abusive sites, and what patterns he used to spot their sites quickly. I checked his work, of course, before cleaning up -- but I never caught him in a mistake. He was very low-key, very careful to distinguish between facts and his inferences (even though, unlike most people, his "inferences" were usually valid.)
He did this for some months. As a result, the ODP editing guidelines changed, and we explicitly started not listing a whole class of sites (which we editors SHOULD have recognized as nonlistable, but didn't until he rubbed our noses in it.
This person remained anonymous (perhaps because his site was unlistable and he didn't want to draw attention to it--I don't know.) But I've been grateful to him ever since.
THAT'S what an anonymous directory reviewer can do. And that's OBVIOUSLY how one ought to go about doing it.
Let's take an example of how a potential issue ought to be handled.
It has often been said that people don't get feedback about their site suggestions. And that's true.
But is it a PROBLEM?
It has often been said that people don't know whether to suggest the site again. But is THAT true?
It's not. The submittal policy only provides for suggesting a site twice. Once anyone has suggested a site twice, they don't ever need any feedback from the ODP again. They know the next time they should suggest their site is the second Tuesday after "never". Because the submittal policy applies in all circumstances, regardless of what feedback the suggestor might have fantasized about receiving.
We can further ask: "has this restriction ever kept a good site out of the directory?"
And the interesting thing is, there CAN'T be a "yes" answer to that question. It's impossible.
Because, if any disinterested volunteer THINKS there is an actual example of a good site not in the directory, then he can just add it, with or without the preliminary of having a site suggestion for it. And if a disinterested surfer thinks so, he can just suggest it, without regard for whether the webmaster has suggested it once twice or never.
And if no disinterested volunteer thinks the answer is "yes", then the answer is "no" regardless of what the webmaster might thing.
It has often been said that people don't get feedback about their site suggestions. And that's true.
But is it a PROBLEM?
It has often been said that people don't know whether to suggest the site again. But is THAT true?
It's not. The submittal policy only provides for suggesting a site twice. Once anyone has suggested a site twice, they don't ever need any feedback from the ODP again. They know the next time they should suggest their site is the second Tuesday after "never". Because the submittal policy applies in all circumstances, regardless of what feedback the suggestor might have fantasized about receiving.
We can further ask: "has this restriction ever kept a good site out of the directory?"
And the interesting thing is, there CAN'T be a "yes" answer to that question. It's impossible.
Because, if any disinterested volunteer THINKS there is an actual example of a good site not in the directory, then he can just add it, with or without the preliminary of having a site suggestion for it. And if a disinterested surfer thinks so, he can just suggest it, without regard for whether the webmaster has suggested it once twice or never.
And if no disinterested volunteer thinks the answer is "yes", then the answer is "no" regardless of what the webmaster might thing.