Too Slow

February 10, 2003

Sorry but DMOZ is always too slow. no arguements. Certainly not my connection. I know its volunteer this and free that but it should at least work 50% of the time and it doesn't seem to work that much.

The site is by far the most important to get listed as from an SEO's point of view. Yet more than half the time it "times out" or is under "too much" of a load.

Google should give the ODP some much need cash to buy some servers so we can use the best and most influencial site on the web.

pls sort it out.

Rant over.

dfy · February 10, 2003

>> Sorry but DMOZ is always too slow <<

Too slow for what? Too slow to satisfy SEOs? I'm sorry but that's not what we're here for.

>> Google should give the ODP some much need[ed] cash <<

That would be great, but since the ODP is owned by AOL/Time Warner and not Google, it seems rather unlikely. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

hutcheson · February 10, 2003

The editor side works fine, which is critical to the Project.

The public side is apparently under attack by what is in effect a simulated-DDOS attack (or cooperative DOS attacks.)

Staff knows about the problem, and says there are hardware and software enhancements coming.

uzs980 · February 10, 2003

Have you tried the mirror http://ch.dmoz.org/ yet?

February 11, 2003

sorry if my orginal post was too short (written in a rage) I use ODP regularly and ALWAYS use it correctly. I understand that the editors do a good job and get loads of spam. Problem is that I find editors (no offence) tend to be somwhat righteous in their opinions like only the select few get to be an editor.

Thanks for the info on why the systems so slow hutcheson. I have had lots of problems with ODP as it either "under a heavy load" or just times out on submission.

>> Too slow for what? Too slow to satisfy SEOs? I'm sorry but that's not what we're here for. <<

no too slow to work. Is that not a point of a website to WORK. DMOZ is the MOST important site on the internet. No amount of money can get you in unless your site is up to scratch. From an SEO's point of view an ODP listing is vital.

When it takes days to submit a site then I will complain. The latest attempt (still unable to submit) is for my dad's website. This has massive financial implefications for me and the longer it takes the less money we make. Currently we need to money and therefore this makes it even more frustrating.

motsa · February 11, 2003

I have to point out that even if you were able to submit instantly the first time you tried, it could still take months to get reviewed and listed.

February 11, 2003

I know it takes months. But only from the point that it was submitted! I been trying since Monday but to no avail. Mind you if the queue is not growing then it won't be a problem.

Saying that I seem to be the only one who's having problems

February 11, 2003

"The editor side works fine, which is critical to the Project."

Well, I don't know about that. I haven't been able to do any work for the last two days - I sometimes can get logged in, but processes stop working in the middle with a "page not found" error. <img src="/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

theseeker · February 11, 2003

mamabear, sent you a private message with some info that might help.

February 11, 2003

>When it takes days to submit a site then I will complain. The latest attempt (still unable to submit) is for my dad's website. This has massive financial implefications for me and the longer it takes the less money we make. Currently we need to money and therefore this makes it even more frustrating.

We aren't here for the express purpose of making you money. From our point of view, your site is neither more nor less important than that of some teenager's Britney Spears fan page. From the point of view of the ODP, our consumers are the searchers, not the webmasters. If you were looking at this properly from an SEO point of view, then what you should be doing now is be looking at pay per click Google Adwords or such. In all seriousness, if your business model depends on an ODP listing, with the queues being backlogged in a lot of areas here by over a year, your business model is flawed. Particularly when you consider the possibility that in a year from now when an editor did review your site on that day you might have the bad luck the server would be down or unreachable, and the editor would see the 404, quickly delete your submission, and just move on to the next site in the queue. Relying on getting an ODP listing is not wise business strategy.

February 11, 2003

rfgdxm you proved my point better than I ever could.

"Problem is that I find editors (no offence) tend to be somwhat righteous in their opinions like only the select few get to be an editor."

Your post proves this and I'm afraid you also read far too much into won message post. Either I already have prejudices towards ODP editors or i'm missing something.

As someone whose time is constantly limited, in working hours and in my own person time, i fear people such as yourself abuse their position to make large posts rubbishing mine. Unable to spend the time to "defend" myself I feel it's time to make a stand. Oh and finding that you are editor to this category I fear this post will never reach the "air".

NOTE: I live in hope that the internet reamins democratic even if the rest of the world isn't. (topical)

February 12, 2003

Hmm, I just submitted The New Zealand Association of Credit Unions website: http://www.nzacu.org.nz/ to

Business/Financial_Services/Banking_Services/Credit_Unions/Agencies,_Associations,_and_Vendors . <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

It was a humbling and frustrating experience. I was unsuccessful and there was no way for me to know if I had succeeded but gotten a time out, succeeded but gotten a DNS error or whatever. I went in from the editor's side and found the submission was not there.

Sorry about that. We need better resources and more software engineers. Don't have them. I suggest writing hate mail to AOL/Time Warner/Netscape about it. I mean after all, there's no point in beating and berating the poor overloaded packhorse about its shortcomings is there? Should be yelling at the person responsible for care, feeding, loading and stabling.

As to attitudes toward editors, well we are a special bunch, and proud of it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> If it were that easy to become an editor, our success statistics would be a lot higher in reviewing new editor requests. There are a surprising number of university graduates who are totally unable to correctly select, spell and arrange a collection of words into a logical sentence structure. When we consider that this paragon of paragraphing must also be able to read, understand and divine the intent of web site creators and distill that information into an intelligible and pertinent sentence, the pool of talent is much smaller. Now winnow the few remaining so that thieves, charlatans, fakes and single-issue leeches don't wriggle onto our editorial staff and you have the ODP editorial crew. The proud, the competent, the few!

That doesn't help you much, and in fact it may have been annoying, but 'ya gotta dance with the one that brung ya' and I'm loyal to my editorial compatriots.

May I suggest that you write a description that is absolutely and totally within every ODP guideline and category submission requirement? May I also suggest you save it in Notepad or somesuch? May I suggest that you try submitting it when it is the middle of the night in California?

February 12, 2003

The issue tobstar is that you came in here with a complaint about the ODP being too slow and unreliable (whic, BTW I agree with you on), but then go on first to argue about the importance of the ODP to SEOs, and then start framing things in terms of editor abuse. As far as the implications of the ODP to SEOs, for an editor here to allow SEO considerations to influence their actions in itself is going to be abuse. As for the issue of the slowness of the system, and from that going into suggestions of editor abuse, please note that of all people in this world who'd like to see the ODP work faster, ODP editors are at the top of that list. The ones who use the ODP the most are the editors. If you wish to complain about the slowness of the ODP, Netscape is who you want to send that to. Over here, you are just preaching to the choir.

And, while I am at this it seems like a good time to debunk a myth. Namely, how "important" and ODP listing is for search engines. I'm not an SEO, but hang around a lot in a webmaster forum where there are lot of SEOs, so I understand this issue well. In almost all cases, an ODP listing doesn't mean much for search engines. For example, for Google an ODP link is treated the same as any other. Most ODP pages have a low Google PageRank, and tend to have lots of links. This means getting listed on them doesn't help much for your Google rankings. Quite literally, I know teenagers with home pages that if you get a link on would help with your Google ranking a lot more than an ODP link. However, many webmasters don't realize this. Made worse by the fact this myth about the importance of an ODP listing is unfortunately widespread. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> SEOs with a clue worry very little about the ODP. Particularly in light of the fact that the time frame to get a site listed in the ODP ranges from a few hours to a few *years*, depending on luck. Obviously, only a fool of an SEO would rely much as part of their strategy getting a link that may not happen for a year or 2. An SEO needs to be able to get links quick, and with certainty. Neither of those is guaranteed at the ODP.

February 12, 2003

thanks rfgdxm sorry i got so personal in my earlier mail. I just had to vent my anger and frustration at the ODP and unfortunatly you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I must say you guys in here have been great and understand where i'm coming from.

In response to your mail, you obviously understand how SEO works but I must disagree. A listing in ODP can make a massive difference to a website PR and therefore traffic. We all know about LINK LINKS LINKS, put quite simply how are you going to get traffic if you got no roads to your site. Thing is the ODP listing is like a motorway/highway. It also means that your site follows the ODP guidelings ie. seal of quality.

anyway must get on i speak bout/debate this stuff all day long and now all I want to do is drink lager and watch England humiliate the Aussies for once (i hope).

February 12, 2003

S'alright. This ODP slowness issue is actually something that the editors beef about more than the public, because the editors have to use the ODP a lot, while for most of the public it is just an every now and then thing. As for an ODP link making a massive difference in Google PageRank, you might want to poke around the ODP a little more on a system with the Google toolbar added to OE. I have seen ODP cats with a PR as low as 2, and a lot of links. Getting listed on that page at the ODP ain't gonna help much with Google. There are some ODP cats where what you say is true. However, the truth is that most of the ODP cats don't have all that high of a PR.

May 9, 2003

On the issue of an ODP Link's value being over-rated I really don't see how you could make such a statement with a straight face <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

An ODP link is much more than simply an ODP link due to the way the ODP data is distributed and used by smaller search engines, not to mention the Google Directory.

Say you get the ODP link and get posted to 50 small search directories (never mind that the numbers are probably way off!) this appears to the large search spider as 50 different links (especially if the small directories format their pages differently from each other), all obtained by getting the single link to ODP.

This is why ODP is such a valuable link to get and why the editor's responsibility is so critical. Some editors try to slough it off with west coast flippancy by stating that the customers of the directory are the people doing the searches not the web sites. However, the people won't do their searches if the sites aren't here. In fact, the directory, the searchers, and the websites all form a cooperative group whose individual goals are best achieved if their mutual goal (that of getting relevant search data to the searcher) is achieved.

hutcheson · May 9, 2003

Some things editors can control, and we try to care -- passionately -- about those.

Some things editors can't control, and we try to ignore them.

Speed of the servers, on the public side, falls DEEP in category #2.

Staff is involved, and -- as has been mentioned before -- progress is being made. We all -- editors and webmasters -- can learn to bandage brick-shaped bruises on our foreheads, or we can get something else productive done while we practice patience.

May 10, 2003

There's no doubt DMOZ is now so slow it's virtually unuseable. Caching relevant pages locally is no answer since the data can't be downloaded.

None of this is a reflection on the editors.

Where you are in remiss is your failure to point the finger of responsibility and to suggest remedial action. DMOZ is now owned by one of the world's biggest corporations, so excuses about inability to afford more servers/bandwidth are absurd.

I keep reading marketing spin about DMOZ helping businesses "realize optimal value from their knowledge assets", which in plain English means there is money being made directly out of the Open Directory.

Clearly insufficient is being re-invested and that's a decision made by people with names and email addresses which you should be publishing, together with a request that your massive user base send polite expressions of dissatisfaction.

Emails/letters to the internet press would also surely help? Remarkably, a quick search of the news sites shows little or no public controversy over the apparent disinvestment in DMOZ by Time Warner/AOL/Netscape/Omnicorp.

Don't the editors - assisted by users - have the wherewithawal to make this a public issue?

dfy · May 10, 2003

>> excuses about inability to afford more servers/bandwidth are absurd <<

If you'd looked around before posting here you'd have noticed several people talking about the server upgrades that are under way *right now*. We know there is a problem, and something is being done about it. Until the upgrades are complete, you'll just have to sit tight and wait.

May 10, 2003

I did look around before posting.

I saw editors pondering resignation back in early April. I saw promises of "new servers" spread over several months, with no updates or any sign of their arrival.

I saw excuses like AOL/Time Warner etc are a "company in a bit of a pickle".

Come off it. If Indymedia can run over 90 virtual servers on a budget of precisely zero then shedding tears for Omnicorp is a risible excuse for the poor DMOZ performance.

I also saw precisely the same call as mine - who is making these decisions and how can they be influenced?

DMOZ claims over 50,000 editors, not to mention users. That's a pretty large lobby. If it fails to act, there's really no reason for Omnicorp not to continue treating them with what looks suspiciously like contempt.

theseeker · May 10, 2003

I keep reading marketing spin about DMOZ helping businesses "realize optimal value from their knowledge assets", which in plain English means there is money being made directly out of the Open Directory.

What marketing spin? Where did you read this? The Open Directory makes no money. How can it? It's data is free and it has no ads.

If it fails to act, there's really no reason for Omnicorp not to continue treating them with what looks suspiciously like contempt.

I think somewhere in this conversation you've really lost me. Who is Omnicorp? What do they have to do with dmoz.org?

It has been said already that servers are being upgraded and new servers added. This is not so simple a matter as everyone seems to believe. The Open Directory was not designed to use more than one server.

It was designed, many years ago, to run with the minimum of investment, equipment and staff. But the founders did not expect the growth we had. They designed for an eventual 1000 editors and 1 million sites. 50,000 editors and 4 million sites later, one person must redesign the site to work on many servers.

It won't be done a couple of days. The RDF server, which is one half of the important part of the structure, has been upgraded, and the RDF has been produced regularly for quite some time now. The editor portion, which is the second half of the important part, will be next.

The public side is the least important part. The Open Directory could easily get by without public submission and public visitors. In fact, the main reason for poor performance on the public side is because current resources have been channeled to editor only sections.

There's never been any doubt that the ODP would have to fight longer and harder for any technical and monetary assistance. It takes time, but it is happening. People without patience don't last long as editors.

May 10, 2003

1 - Omnicorp is a handy euphemism for CNN/AOL/Time Warner/Netscape, who are slowly buying and, it would appear, wrecking everything in sight, through underfunding in this instance. They own DMOZ.

2 - I never said, nor implied, that DMOZ itself was making money. Others are though, through the excellent data it provides, when available.

You maintain that -

"There's never been any doubt that the ODP would have to fight longer and harder for any technical and monetary assistance".

Yet I see no sign that such a fight is taking place at all. Nothing on any of the newswires and nothing on this forum.

As a frustrated user I simply reiterated earlier suggestions, namely that DMOZ editors, users and supporters should be actively lobbying those who hold the purse strings. A rousing chorus of "thank you's" for more funding by "Omnicorp" from the 50,000 editors would be a PR coup for them. In contrast, that many emails from concerned users demanding to know why adequate funding is not forthcoming might serve as a wake-up call.

tuisp · May 10, 2003

I would have thought it was clear that an upgrade of the whole system was in progress. It has already begun, and it will take some time to complete. As told in this thread by theseeker, such an upgrade is not trivial, it's not only a matter of changing the machines.

As an editor, it seems reasonable to see the outcome of the current process before yelling for more resources <img src="/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />

May 10, 2003

Someone was responding to a terribly old post it looks like <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Things in May are certainly different than in March <img src="/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

hutcheson · May 10, 2003

>Yet I see no sign that such a fight is taking place at all. Nothing on any of the newswires and nothing on this forum.

In the presence of any kind of effective lobbying, that is precisely the sign you should expect not to see, and where you should expect not to see it.

This forum is for the public to communicate with ODP editors: staff seldom, if ever, reads it. If editors have something to say to staff, we use the internal forum. And if people started publishing stuff from the internal forum here, they would be hanged by their entrails from the ODP confidentiality guidelines.

The newswires? Get real. Bombastic boy bands, deposed dictators and dimwitted demagogues, war famine disease and death, bread and circuses, billion-dollar businesses, grand conspiracy theories? The ODP doesn't spring to most people's mind, nor yet engage their curiosity, when they want to read about any of these.

Sign In

Too Slow

Recommended Posts

Guest tobstar

dfy

hutcheson

uzs980

Guest tobstar

motsa

Guest tobstar

Guest mamabear

theseeker

Guest rfgdxm

Guest tobstar

Guest artson

Guest rfgdxm

Guest tobstar

Guest rfgdxm

Guest ShaneMiller

hutcheson

Guest ahrint

dfy

Guest ahrint

theseeker

Guest ahrint

tuisp

Guest momathome

hutcheson

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Browse

Activity