Odp Delusion

[hutcheson]

>>if a site isn't listable it's deleted so those ones are off the queue.

 

>I can see there'd be reason to leave a site for a while if an editor thought there was a chance it might be built up to something useful.

 

That is an option; it isn't something that happens that often.

 

>So maybe I should ask how old is the oldest site in the unreviewed queue that hasn't been appraised by an editor yet? Of course that could be difficult to tell as, presumably, if an editor looks at a site in the queue it would be appraised at some level.

 

Beyond what other people have mentioned (there isn't one queue, there are over a half million of them, and site submittal date has nothing to do with site publication date) -- an editor can look at any site at any time using any tool, and there's no way of tracking that. Even when an editor looks at a site through a submittal, if he takes no positive action, there will be no way of tracking it.

 

A few months ago, one webmaster complained his site was getting hit, regularly, every two weeks or so, but no listing had appeared. What was apparently happening was: an editor had been regularly going through the unreviewed in a category, moving the inappropriate submittals (which by experience we knew was most of them) to the right category. The webmaster's site wasn't obviously inappropriate, nor was it obviously listed. So it was deferred for later full review. And HE saw regular visits in HIS logs, and WE saw nothing in ours. (Obviously the editor COULD have avoided leaving traces even in the webmaster's logs, if that mattered, which it usually doesn't.)

[joy]

Just trying to get an idea of what is happening. I don't have any sites waiting to be reviewed, mine are already listed in appropriate localities and none are commercial. I do occassionally suggest other urls. I don't keep track of them coz they're not my sites. More like anonymous donations. I might pick up a specialty mag and wonder if the urls in the mag are on dmoz and sure enough they aren't so I suggest them.

 

I see so much discussion about how long it takes to get a site listed and it seems there is not a lot of understanding by either side of the other. Thought I'd ask a question I hadn't seen asked. Thought it might create 5c worth of clarity about how the system works.

 

What I do see is ODPers not really giving a damn about the frustrations of people trying to get sites listed. It seems to be a recurring theme that if a site hasn't been listed, but it is actually listable, it's because the submitter hasn't given it a proper description or put it in the right category or been patient enough. Or something else that is the fault of the submitter. Always the fault of the submitter. Even the ones who are polite are still often politely defensive. Once in a while someone is lovely, and at this point I would say that person is Oneeye. And by that 'former' in your sig you're probably not even an ODPer anymore.

 

Seeing as any description submitted is likely to be rewritten according to how the editors feel about it a good description is very difficult to guess and not necessarily going to get a site listed faster.

 

Even if you do manage to work out a category to submit to that will be agreed to by an editor it doesn't mean an editor is going to go in and see it. And seeing as the directory is continually being restructured it is somewhat difficult to keep up with the structure anyway.

 

And I don't think patience counts when there are sites that haven't been dealt with for so many years. Submitters are going to be wondering if their site is one of the unlucky ones that hasn't been seen to.

 

I think if submitters understand how the system works it only means they feel as if their site is lucky to get listed in anything like a realistic timeframe. anything up to 6 years if you haven't understood the rules or if you're unlucky enough to submit to a section that doesn't get regular attention is not exactly what anyone can call functional.

 

I think more of an acknowledgement by ODPers that there are some real problems would be healthier that continually blaming the submitter.

[spectregunner]

I think more of an acknowledgement by ODPers that there are some real problems would be healthier that continually blaming the submitter.

 

It is less a case of blaming the submitter, than becoming a slave to the submitter.

 

We never promise to look at a submissin/suggestion within a given period of time.

 

We never promise to make looking at submissions/suggestions a priority.

 

If you understand nothing else, understand those two things -- for they are really the basis of all communication here.

 

So, when someone comes in here and complains that we have not looked at their suggestion on their timeline, their demand for immediate services falls upon deaf ears.

 

We deal with missubmitted sites all the time, we deal with horrid titles and descriptions all the time: it comes with the territory. We don't punish people for incorrect or poorly worded submissions, we simply push the suggestion off in the right direction.

 

The only people we blame are what you should think of as the "professional missubmitters." These are prople who are trying to make money leveraging their experiecne and knowledge of the ODP -- and who frequently cause many more problems than one can imagine. The intelligent ones we can reason with, then boneheaded ones continue to cause problems. The problems they cause impact every one else in one way or another.

 

I simply do not think that the average ODP editor blames the average submitter for anything -- even when we see sites that belong in Alaska getting submitted to Alabama. Hey, they both start with the letter A!

 

What you do see here is very often the worst of the worst. We regularly see people who have a rich history of ODP abuse logging in here and pretending to be a clueless newbie, trying to find out how much we know about them and their history.

 

So rather than get upset at what often seems to be terse responses from the editors here, recognize that there are two sides to every discussion -- and there very well may be aspects that the average visitor is not aware of.

[fathom]

Some helpful guidance [and merely an opinion of a voluntary editor and not an official statement of OPD.

 

Just trying to get an idea of what is happening. I don't have any sites waiting to be reviewed, mine are already listed in appropriate localities and none are commercial. I do occassionally suggest other urls. I don't keep track of them coz they're not my sites. More like anonymous donations. I might pick up a specialty mag and wonder if the urls in the mag are on dmoz and sure enough they aren't so I suggest them.

 

I see so much discussion about how long it takes to get a site listed and it seems there is not a lot of understanding by either side of the other. Thought I'd ask a question I hadn't seen asked. Thought it might create 5c worth of clarity about how the system works.

 

First you need to consider the who and why. Some website in there current form are not listable. However, in the case of a submitter knowing this - they don't often just take that at face value and make there website so "it is listable" they often submit, submit, submit, submit, submit, submit in the hopes that a less experienced editor will list them.

 

Do this 50-100 times per site X that by 50-100 sites X that by the number of categories = ? ... an enormous volume that some volume of volunteers need to address before you get to legit and listable websites.

 

What I do see is ODPers not really giving a damn about the frustrations of people trying to get sites listed. It seems to be a recurring theme that if a site hasn't been listed, but it is actually listable, it's because the submitter hasn't given it a proper description or put it in the right category or been patient enough. Or something else that is the fault of the submitter. Always the fault of the submitter. Even the ones who are polite are still often politely defensive. Once in a while someone is lovely, and at this point I would say that person is Oneeye. And by that 'former' in your sig you're probably not even an ODPer anymore.

 

Well - this isn't completely true. What you see as "not really giving a damn" is bias to the fact that almost "everyone" want a personalization when it comes to listing.... all everyone ever needs is to read the guidelines follow them implicitly and you will be listed - if and when the there is no backlog [which will likely never occur since very few people "read" the guidelines and follow them implicitly.

 

That said: a few years ago I came here with a legit problem - and it was taken care of immediately - which inspired me to become an editor. The system "does work" but there is far to editing here particularily when submitter do not read they [most often] just submit what they want, where they want, when they want... and the editor "MUST" do their job "correctly"... or they will likely not be an editor for long.

 

Seeing as any description submitted is likely to be rewritten according to how the editors feel about it a good description is very difficult to guess and not necessarily going to get a site listed faster.

 

Believe me when I say this: if your title, URL, and dewscription is "per" the guidelines and you submit to the appropriate category - you will likely see "no change". While each editor does have their own style - the guidlines are "extremely explicit" - so you can help the backlog by using them.

 

Even if you do manage to work out a category to submit to that will be agreed to by an editor it doesn't mean an editor is going to go in and see it. And seeing as the directory is continually being restructured it is somewhat difficult to keep up with the structure anyway.

 

Growth and change are always a factor... and while these can have a negative impact - growth and change must occur.

 

And I don't think patience counts when there are sites that haven't been dealt with for so many years. Submitters are going to be wondering if their site is one of the unlucky ones that hasn't been seen to.

 

What does count? If every single person read the guidelines and followed them - the problems would fix itself. Be that as may [people don't read] your patience is needed.

 

I will note in my own experiences - I have logged in on the same day a submitter; submitted - and have yet to have a single listing aceptable "as is"... also note that "review" means I must "review the website" this isn't something that can be completed in a mere minute. Often this rerquires "hours" and in other categories day, even a month with websites of larger sizes.

 

I think if submitters understand how the system works it only means they feel as if their site is lucky to get listed in anything like a realistic timeframe. anything up to 6 years if you haven't understood the rules or if you're unlucky enough to submit to a section that doesn't get regular attention is not exactly what anyone can call functional.

 

Well...

 

I think more of an acknowledgement by ODPers that there are some real problems would be healthier that continually blaming the submitter.

 

There is no blame.

 

If everyone READ the Guidelines!

 

Then OBEY the Guidelines

 

Problem solved.

 

I must and I don't complain about it.

[motsa]

I think more of an acknowledgement by ODPers that there are some real problems would be healthier that continually blaming the submitter.

There are a few things you need to keep in mind when considering the ODP (some of these were mentioned earlier by spectregunner):

 

1. We don't guarantee to review any particular site at all, let alone within a particular time frame. That applies to all sites, regardelss of whether someone suggested them to us or not.

 

2. Editors are volunteers -- we don't tell them where to edit or how often they must edit there. If no editor decides that it is of paramount importance to them to edit in any given category on any given day, then the category remains unedited until someone comes along with the urge to edit there.

 

The only thing I blame "submitters" for is not believing us when we try to explain points 1 and 2 to them.

[hutcheson]

>I do occassionally suggest other urls.... anonymous donations. I might pick up a specialty mag and wonder if the urls in the mag are on dmoz and sure enough they aren't so I suggest them.

 

That's what submittals are for. That's how they were intended to be used. I'm delighted to hear testimonials that they are being used that way.

 

>What I do see is ODPers not really giving a damn about the frustrations of people trying to get sites listed.

 

I'd call that a fair perception but an unfair connotation. It is true that the ODP simply doesn't have a mechanism for "trying" to get sites "listed". We try to tell people that up front: "no site is guaranteed a listing."

 

>It seems to be a recurring theme that if a site hasn't been listed, but it is actually listable, it's because ...

 

Not really. It's because nobody has reviewed and listed it. Oh, true, there are many things a submitter can do to HELP the review process go more smoothly, but there is nothing a submitter can do to impose his priorities on anyone else. (Before or after a site is suggested, editors still can -- and do -- choose to do other things, either at the ODP or on other sites or offline.) But the last, critical, step of a listing happens because sometime, some editor thought that was a reasonable approximation to the most important thing in the world to do. And at that moment when the editor made that decision, millions of sites remained unreviewed because, so far, reviewing them had NOT been the most important thing in the world for anyone who was trusted to review them.

 

Aside: Oneeye will always be an ODP contributor -- whether or not he's active at any particular moment.

 

>Seeing as any description submitted is likely to be rewritten according to how the editors feel about it a good description is very difficult to guess and not necessarily going to get a site listed faster.

 

True. Not "necessarily," but "possibly." And don't forget: even though a listing is poorly done, it may still contain enough information to help an editor quickly send it to the right category.

 

>Even if you do manage to work out a category to submit to that will be agreed to by an editor it doesn't mean an editor is going to go in and see it.

 

Not true. It means an editor will go and see it. What it DOESN'T mean is that anybody's priorities have changed. Everyone's priorities are still exactly the same as they were before. What a submittal does is empower the editor to find a site, easily, at the moment when that kind of sites is his priority. It enables the editor to prioritize based on more information (and that also may possibly, not necessarily, mean a particular site gets reviewed more quickly...and another particular site gets reviewed less quickly. But overall, the more help we get, the faster EVERYTHING goes.)

 

>and seeing as the directory is continually being restructured it is somewhat difficult to keep up with the structure anyway.

 

True; that's an intrinsic difficulty of all indexing schemes. (Library classifications and schematizations of medical conditions are also under constant revision.) That's why (unlike many other directories) we don't discard misplaced suggestions. But again -- misplacing a suggestion doesn't place any obligation on anyone to change his priorities!

 

>And I don't think patience counts when there are sites that haven't been dealt with for so many years.

 

It's not "patience" if you put a time limit on it. It's just "another form of imposing your will on someone else by setting their deadlines and forcing them to change their priorities and activities to suit yourself." And THAT is unacceptable behavior in a volunteer community. But it's not a "problem:" people who do it are justly ostracized, and that's an end of the matter for the people who are actually doing the work.

 

>Submitters are going to be wondering if their site is one of the unlucky ones that hasn't been seen to.

 

Very likely. But the fact is, I as an editor don't know any better than you where the other ten thousand editors are going to work next! And there is no way either of us can get any more information.

 

This may seem like a problem, but it's actually not. What does it matter to you (or to me) where oneeye chooses to volunteer today? Anything he does is gravy! And what right do you (or I) have to tell him how much or what he must do? NONE! And how do I know whether or not jeanmanco will do any edits tomorrow?

 

The "ignorance" you speak of, is an intrinsic part of the design of the ODP process. Could it be designed out? No: any attempt to address that would have unacceptable costs. (I'll mention just three: attempts to impose a Stalinist priority on all reviews would consume management effort far in excess of any conceivable value; would drive away volunteers who see the ODP as a way of exploring the world on the web (that is, the kind of people to whom the current process was attractive); and would catastrophically bias the range of sites the ODP represented, to fit the "party line", whatever that might turn out to be.)

 

>I think if submitters understand how the system works it only means ... is not exactly what anyone can call functional.

 

Exactly! THE ODP IS NOT MEANT TO FUNCTION THAT WAY. And it doesn't.

 

>I think more of an acknowledgement by ODPers that there are some real problems would be healthier that continually blaming the submitter.

 

I like the way you slide from "refusing to accept responsibility for my emotions" into "refusing to acknowledge real problems." Smoothly done!

 

I don't demand that you accept responsibility for how I feel about your work. I don't demand that you work on my priorities. I don't even demand that you acknowledge my human autonomy.

 

But ... I believe my human autonomy exists. And it is not a problem, for me. (Stalin may disagree.) I work on what I think is important. I do not resent the fact that you are free to do the same.

 

On the other hand: are there problems with the ODP? Oh, absolutely, every edit ever made is an acknowledgement that it could be made better, and no reasonable editor would suppose he had just made the final edit.

 

But -- with the resources donated, could we have done something better? Probably. But, but, ... HOW?

 

That's the question the community is always exploring. And that's where outside help is especially valuable. Oh, you can't possibly contribute anything to the process design -- you simply don't know enough, and you CAN'T possibly know enough until you've actually experienced the process as it exists.

 

But what you CAN do is -- find sites that the community hasn't found yet, find bad listings the community hasn't removed yet. In other words, you can find genuine ODP shortcomings -- not just personal, speculative, philosopical fantasies about what might or might not be wrong with someone else's priorities.

 

And, as you provide concrete evidence of genuine shortcomings (and no doubt, there are millions that you could document!) the editors can watch for patterns, select priorities, polish procedures, review standards ... all to achieve the ODP mission. Which is NOT necessarily to "list every listable site on the web", but rather to "provide a comprehensive index of the totality of human experience as represented on the web."

 

So, "lucky" or "unlucky" plays a part in speed of reviews -- an essential part, I believe: any human-imposed determinism is just Stalinism writ small. But there's another important part. A webmaster is not "unlucky to suggest a site to a category." A webmaster is NOT HELPING THE ODP GOAL when he DEVELOPS a site on a subject already well-represented on the web. Now, he has no obligation to help the ODP at all: he develops that site for his own purpose! And the ODP has no obligation to help him at all -- IT is developed for ITS OWN purpose.

 

So, if there is intersection between the sites' purposes -- well and good. (And if not, fine: human freedom, again!) If the sites are well interlinked, even better. For the surfer, that is.

 

And -- it's a matter of principle here, deeply embedded in the ODP philosophy, that what the webmaster shouldn't matter. So -- you see that in practice it doesn't matter? Excellent, we're doing what we meant to do!

 

And the webmasters' needs can be served by someone else. It's not as if there are any shortage of sites that offer!

[thehelper]

Really you guys (admins and moderators) need to change the title of this thread and other like it to "My site is not listed and I am pissed" - I mean ODP Delusion for the title on a why is my site not listed you must be biased thread.... you should change (moderate) the title to match what the post is actually saying - imho. At least on the most obvious ones.

 

My 2 cents.

[hutcheson]

It's not always "I'm pissed". Sometimes it really is "I'm puzzled". And you can't always tell which it is until people actually see the chaos of it all.

 

And then they have a real choice. Some people light candles. Some people curse the darkness. And some people just curse the candle-lighters.

[fathom]

It's not always "I'm pissed". Sometimes it really is "I'm puzzled". And you can't always tell which it is until people actually see the chaos of it all.

 

And then they have a real choice. Some people light candles. Some people curse the darkness. And some people just curse the candle-lighters.

 

Gotta wonder how the "candle would feel"... if it could! OUCH!

[oneeye]

I do occassionally suggest other urls. I don't keep track of them coz they're not my sites. More like anonymous donations. I might pick up a specialty mag and wonder if the urls in the mag are on dmoz and sure enough they aren't so I suggest them.

Now you see that is what the Suggest an URL link was put there for, and if that was primarily what it was used for then there would be no problems. And a lot more done by way of thank you's for those who suggest them. Unfortunately 99.99% of suggestions are made by webmasters who submit thinking that ODP is some kind of free promotional tool, and when they make that assumption for the umpteenth time in this forum editors tend to get a bit frustrated.

 

What I do see is ODPers not really giving a damn about the frustrations of people trying to get sites listed. It seems to be a recurring theme that if a site hasn't been listed, but it is actually listable, it's because the submitter hasn't given it a proper description or put it in the right category or been patient enough. Or something else that is the fault of the submitter. Always the fault of the submitter.

I think editors see the frustrations as self-inflicted - people are only frustrated because they are still thinking of ODP as a website promotion tool despite the huge amount of information here and in the guidelines to the contrary. People don't read the instructions on the packet. On the other hand, since so many people do apparently have a problem with following the instructions, maybe they are not as simple and clear as they should be. Which is an ODP problem, not the submitter's. Another problem is that there is so much misinformation out there about what the ODP is. IMO ODP has a responsibility to communicate itself a lot better than it does.

 

I think more of an acknowledgement by ODPers that there are some real problems would be healthier that continually blaming the submitter.

The ODP certainly has real problems and a problem recognising and acknowledging them, let alone resolving them. It is inherent in a model that has flaws but changes only by consensus. For example there are some editing policies that even editors of long standing don't understand and can't get changed or clarified properly. But there are two points arising from that - ODP is no different to any large complex organisation in that it can always improve; and ODP won't change to make itself to look more like a webmaster promotional tool.

 

So in terms of the wait for a site to be listed, this is not a problem for the ODP model. The problem is in how to effectively explain why. Asking someone to be patient isn't the answer - it still implies you are held in a queue and will be answered at some time. The actual answer is far more complex - editors are tasked with cataloging all the listable sites on the Internet from a variety of sources - Google, site link pages, magazines and newspapers, their own surfing. Suggestions are another source and not a particularly good one in reality because webmasters have used it to promote their sites not suggest a good addition to a category. All those sources add up to hundreds of millions of websites potentially listable and editors pick from the sources most likely to yield the best results for the category they are working on. Sometimes that is Google, sometimes it is a specialist link page, sometimes it is a pool of suggestions. And of those hundreds of millions of sites only 20,000 will be picked in any particular month to be listed. So why suggest an URL if it gives the site no priority? Well it overcomes a problem with Google for example - the site that does the best SEO or spends the most money rises to the top of the pile. A site with real content may be on page 23 and an editor may never find it there. The suggestion pool may have 500 suggestions in a random order uninfluenced by SEO or money so the site may come to an editor's attention quicker, or it might not. So if you really want a site listed you have to second-guess where an editor might best find sites on a particular subject - a local or specialised directory is often quite a good source for example, so use that route. But wait a minute, that is just getting on with normal web marketing to maximise the surfers who will find you. And that, dear submitters, is the secret of an ODP listing, for editors are surfers not submission processors. Now if you can condense that into something less long-winded and publish it on the suggestion form it might solve a lot of misunderstandings about what suggesting a site means in reality. And it is a fault of ODP not submitters that it is not explained properly.

 

oneeye (former editall/catmv)

[disklabs]

The FAQs do indeed provide some answers. So do the official guidelines. But they are clearly not getting the message across.

 

 

Do you not think that the amount of questions that you get on this site means that your official guidelines and FAQ's are not exactly hitting the spot?

 

What about re-doing them, so that the general populous understands them. I am pretty sure that I do, but I still get it wrong.

[fathom]

Do you not think that the amount of questions that you get on this site means that your official guidelines and FAQ's are not exactly hitting the spot?

 

Actually most questions would be covered "verbatim" by a 5 minute read of the guidelines [under the appropriate section].

 

They are 'explicited' and full of examples - but you do need to read them.

 

What about re-doing them, so that the general populous understands them. I am pretty sure that I do, but I still get it wrong.

 

If people don't want to read... no amount of additional writing will change that.

[Alex75]

This thread may be about a well-beaten path, however there is a challenging branch that hardly gets visited. Suppose a submitted site, S1, has to wait one year to be reviewed. In that time, worse sites S2, S3, ..., S20, enter the directory in S1's category. From what I read here, an editor's priority will be the listed sites, S2 - S20, thereby lengthening the time that S1 has to wait. A double blow for S1, you'll agree. This leads me to a suggestion: a new category of front-end volunteers to filter submissions before they get to the editors.

[pvgool]

We don't value sites as "worse' or 'better'.

A site is either listabel or not listable.

We can not review sites based on any quality aspect of the site. This would mean that we (or someone) would have to look at all sites (suggested and not suggested) to determine which one is the best. List this one site. Look at all sites again. List the best.

[motsa]

Suppose a submitted site, S1, has to wait one year to be reviewed. In that time, worse sites S2, S3, ..., S20, enter the directory in S1's category. From what I read here, an editor's priority will be the listed sites, S2 - S20, thereby lengthening the time that S1 has to wait. A double blow for S1, you'll agree. This leads me to a suggestion: a new category of front-end volunteers to filter submissions before they get to the editors.

Can you clarify what you're saying? If S2 - S20 suddenly appeared in the category, someone must have added them. If they came across them on their own, chances are they would have come across the better S1 as well. If they were suggested but not reviewed, then they'd all be in the same pool of suggestions as S1. I don't see where S2 - S20 would have any effect on S1 at all. What have I missed in your scenario?

[bobrat]

If I have 100 sites in a category waiting for review, I would, of course, like to add the best site first. However, until I review all 100, I have no idea what site is best. When I decide to review a site, all I have is list of suggested titles and descriptions. The only way I have to judge the difference is the quality of those suggested descriptions - which is why (for many editors) a site with a well written description gets reviewed first.

 

Other than that, it's certainly possible that the best of the sites gets reviewed last, and there is no way to control that situation.

[Alex75]

Suppose a submitted site, S1, has to wait one year to be reviewed. In that time, worse sites S2, S3, ..., S20, enter the directory in S1's category. From what I read here, an editor's priority will be the listed sites, S2 - S20, thereby lengthening the time that S1 has to wait. A double blow for S1, you'll agree. This leads me to a suggestion: a new category of front-end volunteers to filter submissions before they get to the editors.

Can you clarify what you're saying? If S2 - S20 suddenly appeared in the category, someone must have added them. If they came across them on their own, chances are they would have come across the better S1 as well. If they were suggested but not reviewed, then they'd all be in the same pool of suggestions as S1. I don't see where S2 - S20 would have any effect on S1 at all. What have I missed in your scenario?

You say, "chances are they would have come across the better S1 as well.". That is a big assumption. Some editors don't come across the better S1. Study 20 categories at random over a period of time, comparing the new listings with search results on the web. You will discover that the proportion of editors who fail to find the better S1 is not negligible.

 

It is a widely known fact that a large number of site submissions are bad. The editors tell us here that most are so obviously inappropriate you can reject them just from a glance. Why not then have a new system whereby a team of "sub-editors" does a preliminary screening of the submissions? That would reduce the amount of junk around the jewels and would allow the editors more time to edit.

[pvgool]

It is a widely known fact that a large number of site submissions are bad. The editors tell us here that most are so obviously inappropriate you can reject them just from a glance.

If it was that easy it wouldn't be such a big problem.

Some suggestions can and are being filtered out very fast.

 

Why not then have a new system whereby a team of "sub-editors" does a preliminary screening of the submissions? That would reduce the amount of junk around the jewels and would allow the editors more time to edit.

Deciding if a site is listable or not is a big part of the editing proces. After that one only needs to write a description. If someone want to filter sites you can become an editor. If someone is rejected as an editor we certainly won't have him filter out websites. You are either an editor or you are not.

[disklabs]

Actually most questions would be covered "verbatim" by a 5 minute read of the guidelines [under the appropriate section].

 

They are 'explicited' and full of examples - but you do need to read them.

 

 

 

If people don't want to read... no amount of additional writing will change that.

 

 

Where is this 5 minute read? I genuinely believe that I have read about most of the threads on the site and everyting I can get my hands on, on the dmoz.org site, but I like so many others still dont know EXACTLY what the OFFICIAL GUIDELINE and FAQ's actually are?

 

People DO want to read, they DO want to find out how to comply with DMOZ guidelines. Like the Eds and Mods, people who suggest sites for the directory are busy too, and dont want to waste time submitting if they know that their site isnt up to scratch. It simply wouldnt be logical?

 

Regards,

[pvgool]

Where is this 5 minute read? I genuinely believe that I have read about most of the threads on the site and everyting I can get my hands on, on the dmoz.org site, but I like so many others still dont know EXACTLY what the OFFICIAL GUIDELINE and FAQ's actually are?

Very easy http://dmoz.org/add.html and all links on that page

 

People DO want to read, they DO want to find out how to comply with DMOZ guidelines. Like the Eds and Mods, people who suggest sites for the directory are busy too, and dont want to waste time submitting if they know that their site isnt up to scratch. It simply wouldnt be logical?

Not in our experience.

Why else would so much people

- suggest sites that are clearly against DMOZ guidelines

- write titles and descritptions that are vlearly against DMOZ guidelines

- ask questions at R-Z that are answered in the FAQ

This all fits in the overall egocentric menatlity I see in Western-Europe en America. "I want it and I want it now."

Luckely there are organisations and people like DMOZ who don't give in to this behaviour.

[Eric-the-Bun]

How to suggest a site to the Open Directory

Submitting Your Site

Open Directory Editing Guidelines

 

Consider the relative value of a resource in comparison to others information resources available

The 'relative value' varies between categories and over time. A webmaster looking at their site honestly and objectively in relation to other sites should be able to decide whether their site offers more or less than the best site listed in the category - in the same way that it is the webmaster who should be able to be the best judge on the most suitable category to suggest their site to .

 

The thing is many people still confuse 'not being listed' with 'having been rejected'. If a site meets the guidelines and an honest and objective opinion is that a site should be listed, then it probably will be in the fullness of time provided that the goalposts don't move in the meantime.

 

Hence we say submit and forget.

 

regards

 

John

 

[ok pvgool was quicker but his link doesn't work for non-editors! ]

[hutcheson]

>they DO want to find out how to comply with DMOZ guidelines.

 

Yes. And 90% of these people have absolutely no interest in contributing anything whatsoever to the ODP mission.

 

In all such cases, the only way to comply with the ODP guidelines is to go away and leave the ODP alone.

 

This says nothing whatsoever about the "quality" or "usefulness" or "better-ness" of any site -- those simply aren't EVER considerations. (And, for that matter, those COULDN'T be considerations -- how COULD we judge those things? WHO ARE WE to judge such things? what GOOD to the directory would it be for us to judge those things? We can't, we shouldn't, and it wouldn't do any good anyway!)

 

The ODP is ALL about "information and the authoritativeness thereof." So who are you, and what is special about you? What do you know that nobody else does? What happened to you that nobody else knows? What have you done that nobody else ever did? What would you do for money that nobody else could? That's all that matters. And the fact is, nobody wants to contribute to the ODP mission because it's the ODP mission. Some people want to contribute to the ODP mission because they share (with the ODP founders and editors) a particular human aspiration. Other people don't feel that desire (and this is not a place for ethical judgment -- who is to say naked curiosity is any more essential to true humanity than, say, a taste for poetry or Grand Opera, neither of which I can claim?)

 

So it's not a matter of being "up to snuff". It doesn't matter HOW far a site goes, or how well it goes, if it's going in an irrelevant direction. (I don't say "a wrong direction" -- again, this is not an invitation to enter into an ethical debate. I merely say "a direction which does not figure in the ODP mission." And the ODP mission is not the only mission that can or should be pursued on the net. There are many kinds of useful indexes that the ODP process simply cannot provide, and will never try to provide. There are other useful indexes on the web. It would be insane for us to compete with the phone companies' phone number indexes, or with the individual goods-for-sale indexes at eBay or Froogle, or the individual web object indexes at Google, or the business indexes of local chambers of Commerce, or the "find one of our affiliates" databases of Avon or Tupperware or Amazon or whoever.)

 

So, what's so hard about that? Every effective organization in the whole world operates that way. It picks its mission, and its communication channels simply ignore people who are on other missions. Deliberately, irrevokably, -- and non-judgmentally. After all, just like other humans, ODP editors are free to pursue other missions -- IN OTHER PLACES.

 

I don't think it's that hard to figure out. I think some people know perfectly well what's going on, and just flat don't care -- they think they can run rough-shod over the ODP community, by quoting our own rules at us to force us to do what we know is a betrayal of our own obligations to the ODP. (And If I accept a privilege from someone--anyone--to contribute to their mission, it is unethical for me to use that privilege for contrary purposes. If I'm a bank teller, it's called "embezzlement". If I'm a government official, it's called "treason". If I'm an ODP editor, it's a betrayal by any name.)

 

I still can't judge. Some people really ARE that stupid; and some people really ARE that blind to any use of language besides imposing their will on other people.

 

But we keep telling people about the ODP MISSION. What contributes to the ODP mission is what will get listed. The guidelines don't matter, not at all. They are defined to serve the mission; they can be revised at any time to better serve the mission; and they aren't "rules" anyway, they are only guidelines to help editors figure out what (in prior experience) has proven to serve the mission.

 

People who are fixated on the rules -- and there are many of them -- simply aren't ever going to figure it out. This includes both the arrogant jerks -- and we've all seen them, here and in other forums -- who presume to lay down draconian burdensome laws right and left for other people, even while they wouldn't consider limiting their own vicious conduct in any way whatsoever. But it also includes people who are reading the rules trying to figure out how they can avoid their marketroidish effusions looking like any well-known kind of spam.

 

But the fact is, the only way to avoid looking like promotional spam (in the eyes of experienced surfers) is to not BE promotional spam. And if a site looks like promotional spam, it's liable to be canned, regardless of whether or not it fits in any official or unofficial list of "common types of promotional spam."

 

I like that, which is why I'm an editor here. Someone else may not like that, which is why they contribute to some OTHER site with some OTHER mission.

 

Forget the rules. Look at the mission. If you like it, fine; if not, fine. If you want to work on it on your own site, fine. We'll love to know about it, and even on our own, we'll find it ... eventually. If you want to work on that mission at the ODP, the ODP could use the help. And if you don't want to work on it at all, ... funny thing, we aren't going to say you have to. (That's the difference between editors and SERP nazis -- WE aren't so arrogant as to think we can make rules for THEM.)

[oneeye]

In all honesty some of the guidelines are not that clear nor well explained. If they were then there would be no need for FAQs on this unofficial site. There are particular weaknesses in some branch FAQs and descriptions, and in some category charters, which are out of date or misleading. We (editors and former editors) all know of examples of where even the experienced editors can take opposing views of the interpretation of some guidelines.

 

There is a difference between laziness - not reading what is put in front of one, that IMO is inexcusable, and confusion caused by not understanding what is being read or noting that what is written does not match what appears to be editing practice.

 

oneeye (former editall/catmv)

[Alex75]

Why not then have a new system whereby a team of "sub-editors" does a preliminary screening of the submissions? That would reduce the amount of junk around the jewels and would allow the editors more time to edit.

 

Deciding if a site is listable or not is a big part of the editing proces. After that one only needs to write a description. If someone want to filter sites you can become an editor. If someone is rejected as an editor we certainly won't have him filter out websites. You are either an editor or you are not.

 

To repeat, a new system whereby a team of "sub-editors" does a preliminary screening.

[hutcheson]

We have such a system. Several years ago, editors jury-rigged a scheme whereby one editor with privileges would make the suggestions visible in a Test category, and other editors would prescan. When it caught on, staff added a "greenbusters" permission level. Editors can typically get greenbusters permission in categories much bigger than they could directly access -- and greenbusters is often the first step towards full access.

 

This has been in place for years, it's in the publicly available guidelines at http://dmoz.org/guidelines/greenbuster/ and editors have hardly made a secret of it.

 

You're welcome to read all the guidelines to see how the ODP actually works.