Will submitters ever able to check status?

Nearly 5 years? Is that like in internet time?

I've been editing nearly 4 1/2 years, and I can remember when the RDF would fit on a Bournelli disc <crotchety voice>Ah, yes, we were using punched-papyrus-tape for the logs, and people were always saying, "I didn't cool my own site, that was just a dimpled Nubia..."

<diving behind an obelisk for cover>

sorry, you will have to spell that one out to me as I don't get it?

Dave

I'm interpreting hutch's post to read: "are you *sure* it's been 5 years?"

ODP began in June 1998 as Gnuhoo, so the Project as a whole has only been around 5 years. I've been with ODP for the past 3½ years (Mar 2000), so some of my ODP history knowledge is what I've learned from others, including hutcheson, or from reading background information and forum threads.

For the first few months, editors were literally creating the directory from scratch as they personally used search engines to locate sites and list them. Submissions were *few* and far between - gone almost as soon as they arrived. I'm *guessing* this period lasted at least 6 months, probably longer. The original editing guidelines came into being in 1999 as I recall, and with submissions coming in more frequently, quality control was becoming more of a factor. By the time I started in 2000, submissions were arriving steadily, and the spam tree targets were already feeling the first pinches.
- My guess is it's been 4 years - not 5 - you've been asking for a change. If you submitted in early '99, I suspect your site would've been jumped on pretty quick. If it was later that year, who knows.
- Were you submitting your site as a new one, or as an update? If you submitted anything but an update, we probably figured you were just trying to get additional listings on top of the one you already say you have, in which case we got rid of the duplicate(s). That, or it's a cat that doesn't get many visits from editors.
- Something else I haven't thought of since I should be going to bed at this hour.

If your sole purpose in joining ODP is to edit your site and your site only, I can understand why your application may have been rejected. If you can *honestly* say you're interested in sharing your knowledge by editing many sites *equally per the editing guidelines*, we'd be happy to see you apply again. (One editor once posted they'd applied 10 times. A single rejection doesn't mean you can't ever apply again; that's a myth.) Volunteers who aren't honest and choose to abuse their editing privileges do get found out and dealt with on a case by case basis, up to and including login termination.

My brain is shutting down for the night, so I may be missing something. My apologies if this post is lacking in key points, tact, politeness, proper grammar, spelling and/or punctuation.

Off to find my pillow.

He was making a joke because you have a mighty funny way of counting time. Your site was originally added in October 2001 (that's less than 2 years ago in Real Time) so he probably figured you must be counting in some fantastical Internet Time if you think you've been trying to move/correct the listing for 5 years. I'm sure it feels like it's been that long to you but it can only have been 21 months at a maximum that you've been trying.

I have be told (on this forum) by an editor that the changes would occur as of about Friday last week. Guess what.......still no change This is the main reason I have such little faith in the "Humans do it better" motto.

Click to expand...

You were told "probably". Guess what? Shifting data around on servers is never easy so it turns out it's going to be longer before the public pages are in sync with the editor side again. How does that equate to humans doing it badly?

[edited to add: I actually started this post before mngolden's was there but I kept reworking it]

I have been (still waiting) trying (for nearly 5 years) to get my listing URL changed

Click to expand...

Your site was reviewed for the first time on 25/Jul/2001
and was listed on 07/Oct/2001

Doesn't seem 5 years to me.

RE: Your site was reviewed for the first time on 25/Jul/2001

Hmmm, are you certain of that? I believe my site MAY have been submitted the first time under a different URL, which I later managed to get changed to it's existing URL. I would put money on that I have been listed much longer than 1.5 years.

Either way, I would think that 1.5 years is long enough if humans really do it better

In regards to: did I use the change listing form, yes quite a few times.

Hmmm, are you certain of that? I believe my site MAY have been submitted the first time under a different URL, which I later managed to get changed to it's existing URL.

Click to expand...

I'm absolutely certain.

Given that you (a) do indeed still cover VBA stuff on the site and (b) have never given a clear indication on the sites themselves which one is the primary one, it isn't surprising that an editor would decide that you were already correctly listed in the VBA category using the other URL.

Hi Motsa

Given that you (a) do indeed still cover VBA stuff on the site and (b) have never given a clear indication on the sites themselves which one is the primary one, it isn't surprising that an editor would decide that you were already correctly listed in the VBA category using the other URL.

Click to expand...

Not suprising to editors at least. This is the whole crux of the problem. "Humans do it better" should perhaps be changed to "Humans should do it better"

These sorts of issues (and others) are no doubt encountered day after day. Why can't the editors have template emails that state why a listing is not to be included in these instances. DMOZ seems to have a policy of "never tell them anything and if you do, talk in riddles"

Dave

It's up to editors to decide whether or not they will respond to a feedback message. I used to reply maybe 50% of the time. Most of the time, I've regretted having replied to a submitter's email so now I tend to reply very, very rarely.

Motsa didn't reply in riddles.

Dave, are you through trying to wheedle any more changes in title/URL/description/location for your site? Do you really believe that your experience with one site's listing now qualifies you to post all over about how bad ODP is? You could have kept your efforts to a single, easy-to-ignore thread, but you have spread your bad karma all over Resource-Zone and worn out your welcome. You came, you inquired, you got things changed, now, please, leave on your own terms. :arrow_left: final warning

kctipton, I would suggest you read back through this entire thread. As has been pointed out by some of the more mature editors, the comments here are constructive and are NOT intented to show "how bad ODP is?". Some of the statements here are also in jest (hence the smilies).

While some editors may choose to stick their head in the sand and ignore any critisism, other do not and take comments on board. It is these editors that will end up improving DMOZ greatly.

I myself have even gone out of my way to help by supplying a list of sites that probably do not belong in DMOZ. This list made up a large % of the category in which they were in.

You should NOT take experience, thoughts and critisms of other personally.

Motsa, It would seem your choice to rarely reply to emails would be the norm? Why would it not be feasable to impliment my suggestion?

Dave

>Motsa, It would seem your choice to rarely reply to emails would be the norm?
Absolutely yes: theoretically, practically, and heuristically.

>Why would it not be feasable to impliment my suggestion?
Because nearly always, responding to totally inappropriate submittals does not contribute to, and actually interferes with, building the directory.

If a listable site is submitted to the wrong category, it should be sent to the right category: no communication with the submitter or webmaster is needed. (This is, of course, the most common case).

If an unlistable site is submitted, the editor wants to dispose of it as quickly and painlessly as possible. Communications with submitters who respond with threats of violence is not painless.

How do we know which submitters are violent psychopaths? We don't. To avoid the problems of communicating with them, we have to not communicate with all submitters. That is and will have to remain the norm.

How do we know which submitters are violent psychopaths? We don't. To avoid the problems of communicating with them, we have to not communicate with all submitters. That is and will have to remain the norm.

Click to expand...

I guess you don't, the same as anyone who does business via email doesn't know. But why do editors have their email for all to see if they are in fear of violence? Why do you all respond on this forum?

Because nearly always, responding to totally inappropriate submittals does not contribute to, and actually interferes with, building the directory.

Click to expand...

Sending out a standard letter to suite the problem, should only help build a better directory. If submitters were better informed they would know what to do, or what not to do next time.

I honestly believe that it is the lack of communication that causes so many issues. It is people that are ignored and left in the dark that normally become frustated and angry.

It seems like this is not going to change though. Unfortunately I believe that editors are being their own worst enemy and creating problems where there is no need.

If editors believe that TWO way communication is such a bad thing then this very forum is probably doomed.

Dave

>But why do editors have their email for all to see if they are in fear of violence?
Um, that's why they DON'T have their e-mail for any (even other category editors) to see.

>Why do you all respond on this forum?
Because those of us that value two-way communication can engage in the activity we value without risking our e-mail address.

A forum is much more effective than e-mailing an editor in any number of ways:
1) Any editor can respond--no dependence on random chance getting an editor that is currently active and willing participate in this purely voluntary activity.

2) No editor can feel pressured to respond.

3) It is harder to play one editor off against the other when all know what everyone is saying.

4) The psychotic rants, if any, are out in public -- less personally threatening to editors, easy to moderate out.

5) Did I mention an editor can respond without exposing an e-mail address?

6) Submitters get quicker responses--from whomever is online at the instant, rather than waiting for any one editor (who may after all be on vacation) to respond to e-mail.

7) Many questions may be repeated over and over; we hope the open forum benefits lurkers as well as the specific person who asked the question.

8) We've recently found it useful to have a forum completely separate from dmoz.org -- somewhere we can check the status of dmoz.org even when dmoz.org and its e-mail forwarding system is down; someplace to enquire about in the internal forums when IT is down...

Remember, most spam submitters CAN'T create a listable site. If you don't have a store, you can't very well create a Shopping site no matter how creative you are! If you wouldn't have a business without your website, then there is no business for a website to be about, and you can't possibly create a Business site! If you are just copying celebrity photos and biographies from other sites, there is no reason to suppose that you'd be capable of creating unique content, even if you wanted to. If you're a "hotel directory" with carefully concealed affiliation, we aren't EVER going to tell you we're on to you! Or if you're a MLM "rep" with no representative capacity apart from that supplied by a mirror website, what could we possibly tell you about how to make your site listable? "First scald and de-louse your sow's ear..." No, that ain't ever gonna be silk!

The vast majority of rejected sites fall into one of these categories, all of which we would class as "non-guidelines-compliant, malicious spam."

There are other classes of site rejections that, I agree, might profitably reported to the submitter. For example, http://stupid_twit.cjb.com is obviously a redirector, and I wouldn't mind telling Mr. Stupid up front to give us the real URL and not bother us with the popup-shotgun vanity URL. Again, http://taxonomically.clueless.realtor.com might be submitted over and over to the Mosquito County category, when it's already properly listed in the more specific Podunk category. We might save trouble for both us and the realtor, who might be an honest man and knowledgeable in his own field without understanding the ODP taxonomy. He might even stop if he realized his site was already listed.

The first technical difficulty, IMO, of all automatic-reply systems is making sure that there is a positive-action system for marking "reportable rejections" (and probably, a positive-action system for marketing no-response-to-anything-ever sites) that editors can easily learn about and very quickly use.

Solving the "how can the ODP give spammers quick knowledge of when, how, and where their spam is being spotted" problem may provide the material of happy dreams for some submitters, but it certainly can't count as constructive criticism. Instead, ODP will have to solve the "whack-a-spammer-with-special-hammer" problem WELL in order to have the basis for a viable automated "reply-nicely-to-nice-submitters but leave the spammers guessing" system. And Information Theorists will have already noticed that such a system, if not VERY carefully implemented, will by its behavior leak the "we're on to you, vile spammer!" datum (which is the most valuable information spammers can get, and therefore the information that is most vital for us to keep confidential).

RE: Um, that's why they DON'T have their e-mail for any (even other category editors) to see.

Sorry, my mistake I should have been clearer. Many have their own sites clearly visible where their emails can be obtained.

RE...automatic-reply systems ...

I'm not suggesting an "automatic-reply system". I am suggesting a bunch of email templates which would address the issue at hand. The *editor* simply selects the appropriate one and clicks send. I can certainly see your point on not given any details etc to spammers, but again you would have a template that would be sent to the spammer stating as little or as much as you like.

I think this forum is also good, but it's not well known. Even an email to suggest they come to the forum (this could be automated) would be better than totally ignoring someone. It's very annoying (and rude IMO) to have a form where people can send email and then get totally ignored.
At the VERY least it should have a statement the states they will most likley NOT get a reply.

Dave

Even an email to suggest they come to the forum (this could be automated) would be better than totally ignoring someone.

Click to expand...

Usually when I get an abusive/threatening/stupid email, my response is to send them here. Otherwise I reply.

I don't get much public email but I currently reply to 75% of it.

Hi Neil

That is good, I'm glad that not all editors ignore replying.

It is however a shame that any help, response or otherwise from DMOZ comes down to luck though

Dave

Original question was: Quick question, does anyone know if submitters will ever get the option of checking their own status?

It's been answered exhaustively already.

have you any idea....

pvgool said:

Yes, and it would bring the ODP servers to a grinding halt.
Have you any idea howmuch computer capacity will be needed for such a function.

Click to expand...

....actually I DO....and if done right, would not be that much of a strain on well configured servers running the latest apache or iis and maybe using .net
or php. As for the sql querying, a well formulated query based on what
Sunanda said...the reference number...you could actually just have an xml parser output that would take less time and not gobble up resources for nothing...the browser would display it on the other end nicely....amybe with a back button just to go back to the previous page.

end osf story...what other excuses are there not to mkae things work properly???

ps - if you need a developer that would love to help in making things go faster let me know...you have my email...i would volunteer some time towards it...and know enough about all web technologies to be versatile for any job.

Try me! ; )
L.A.

hutcheson said:

I think it's fair to say that the (official) ODP doesn't object to submittal status being given TO MOST SUBMITTERS. (Yes, there are definitely exceptions!)

There is a great gulph between that and saying that the official ODP is willing to invest the programming effort (and server hamsters, if needed) to make that happen, while automatically avoiding automatically giving out status to spam submitters (which is not a simple thing to do).

If it were done, something like sunanda suggests (or even e-mail to address given on original submittal, after being checked against e-mail address given on status request) would handle the security at the user end.

But, as I say, the ability to NOT give statuses to detected abusers is one of the important aspects of the human-powered system. And I've given some thought to that aspect, but it's clear that it's not easily doable, and not yet clear that it is practical.

Click to expand...

why not get these ODP guys to contact google, and offer some sort of partnership...you would be surprised at how quick google would not only offer their cluster technology, and massive online resourcees, but would work themselves into making things a little quicker, seeing as they have invested interest in things....then maybe all the other companies would offer up some money too...and get the ball rolling...and guess what...all of a sudden...
we accept enough from all of them to remain objective but to promote quicker access.