Directory Attitude - An Open Letter to DMOZ!

[charlesleo]

But by simply trying to answer the questions fully and factually all editors here use their (imagined) 'power' to bully everyone.

lol.

 

On the flipside, after reading how some 'outsiders' behave towards the directory, I'd like to tell some of the more demanding people off as well.

 

I think this outside 'attitude' towards editors/moderators is indicative of a greater problem - not clearly outlining procedures and internal operations to suggestors. Explain the operation more fully (assuming that people will read it), and it should eventually reduce these 'demands.'

[Sachti]

I think the "greater problem" is, that there are two different groups with total different expectations.

 

One group, the editors, is hoping to get proposals of nice, informative sites which could be listed if they fit to the directory. This group is interested in building a directory and does not care for any SEO-requirements. They would even add websites to the directory if nobody would use it.

 

The second group are the webmasters, who believe it is important to have an ODP-Listing for keeping their listings in certain search engines at top positions. They, of course, consider their websites the best ever seen in the internet and do not understand why it won't be listed within 30 minutes.

 

To get this groups together is may be an unreal task.

 

P.S.: Some people belong to both groups, but this does not change the conclusion

[shadow575]

There are a third and fourth group too.

 

One is the general surfer who has absolutlely no vested interest in a website beyond finding it usefull and thus suggests it to the directory for conclusion.

 

and the other is Website owners who do understand the principal behind the ODP and tend to get their information from the horses mouth (i.e they read the directions and ask here first) instead of other un-related forums and sites. These genuienly have to agenda's they would like their own site listed but also understand that it isn't a career killer so if they build their site to cater to their customers they will be successful either way.

 

Granted these are both in the minority as far as site suggesters goes, but they are out there and shouldn't be over looked.

 

Just my two-pennies

[charlesleo]

Yeah - you guys both have great and valid points.

 

IMO, that's still not going solve the problem of the majority of people suggesting and applying to become editors mainly for alterior motivations (believing that they're getting ranked is probably #1 on the list.) I guess it's only a problem if you consider it a 'problem.' Just being here in my brief time and seeing all these people complain would annoy the **** out of me.

[Sachti]

There are a third and fourth group too.

 

You are right, but I was talking more about the groups "fighting" in this forum

[shadow575]

You are right, but I was talking more about the groups "fighting" in this forum

 

My younger brother used to work for me, and of all my employee's ( I run a warehouse for a family retail store) he is the only one who I have ever "yelled" at. Other employee's used say we fought alot, but our response was "this ain't fighting, it is just brothers communicating loudly"

 

To this day he was still my best employee, sorry to see him take a real job

[disklabs]

Charles should be an editor ! He would get my vote, especially if he could actually edit!

 

As for the comments of the Eds on this thread, I still believe that the one comment about 'pure intentions' was wrong and should not have been said, but that has now been put to bed.

 

Please dont think that I am out to start a fight over Eds and Mods vs the word, far from it. I am stating that there ARE bad apples who give the professionals doing this difficult job a bad name, (I can give evidence should it be required, but not openly). I am rather impressed with the responses from the Eds here, as they all seem to be mature, and rather sensible.

 

Great thread!

 

@Shadow - sorry to hear about your Bro!!

[shadow575]

Please dont think that I am out to start a fight over Eds and Mods vs the word, far from it. I am stating that there ARE bad apples who give the professionals doing this difficult job a bad name, (I can give evidence should it be required, but not openly). I am rather impressed with the responses from the Eds here, as they all seem to be mature, and rather sensible.

In any group of humans you are bound to find a few that are less than honest. Don't lump the good ones in with the few bad ones and we can be in agreement.

 

If you have evidence that an editor has been abusive. We definately want to see it. You can file an abuse report and someone can have a look. If the editor is in Regional, feel free to send me the details and I will make sure it is looked into.

 

Thanks.

[nea]

I have to agree somewhat. The FAQ's could be expanded upon to clarify many people's misconceptions.

Yes, I think there's a lot that could be better in the documentation. There's obviously a lot of people who misunderstand very fundamental things about the nature of the ODP, which means that we have failed to communicate it to them. However, don't overestimate people's willingness to read text that's under their noses. The number of posts I've seen that say things like "I've submitted my site eight times over the last two weeks and you're still not listing it!!!!!" is rather disheartening, because it means people are blatantly ignoring the information that's already there, in the documentation which they agree they have read each and every time they have suggested their site for review. Or take the abuse reporting form at http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ . Does the very clearly stated information there mean that we get no abuse reports about yahoo! related issues? You can guess the answer. (Yes, I'm sure we'd get many more if the information wasn't there.)

 

Sure, some people would get answers to their questions with better documentation. However, with every paragraph that's added to the documentation, we'll probably get more people who won't bother to read it at all. Short, snappy AND completely comprehensive is the ideal -- so how do we accomplish that?

[charlesleo]

Agreed. Unfortunately most people don't bother reading the fine print. Some things could be reworded, but you'll undoubtedly still get a lot kicking and screaming.

 

I've seen a couple new posts from people that were really disheartening in the sense that they went after the volunteers here. For all the money Google has (and will have), the least they could do is get their own directory instead of profiteering from the hard work of volunteers. Do they even know what kind of problems they are causing by building their own directory off of this one?

 

I don't know if DMOZ has any arrangements with them at the top level - I am assuming that there is no connection from what everyone has written. I am also not sure how Netscape ties-in to all this.

 

One thing is for certain - Google's really beginning to **** me off. Slap a restrictive Creative Commons license on DMOZ and watch Google pull it's finger out. Be prepared to buy tons of Google shares too. Just let me know when you seriously start considering that move so I can start planning my next vacation destination...

[hutcheson]

>For all the money Google has (and will have), the least they could do is get their own directory instead of profiteering from the hard work of volunteers.

 

I'm just as happy with Google spending its money on stuff we can't do better than the professionals. Why should Google do a me-too (well, me-four) broad-spectrum web directory, when THE Directory is Open for use?

 

I don't feel cheated -- I USE Google search and directory, on the job and on my own. Google adds value, no doubt about it. And I get the benefit.

 

>Do they even know what kind of problems they are causing by building their own directory off of this one?

 

Yes, I believe they understand the nature of spammers. Here's how self-promotion works. Whatever has influence, you bite onto it like a leech, and suck its blood till it dies. If the ODP didn't have influence (or was not perceived to have influence), then the spammers would be all over whatever did. Google doesn't cause the problem. Spammers are the cause and the effect of the problem. And if Google weren't there, they'd be spamming the life out of Altavista, Excite, Et al. But there are so many spammers, and they are so stupid, that they'll try ANYTHING, even if it doesn't have influence, just in case.

 

Think of the Hitchcock movie, "The Birds". That's spammers. We perceive them as banging on the "weak spots", but in reality they're just banging everywhere. To many of them, the ODP is their ticket to riches beyond the wildest dreams of avarice -- that's just delusional. But it doesn't matter. They act as if it were true. (For others, link exchanges are the TTRBTWDOA. For yet others, it's drive-by forum postings. There are enough spammers to cover all the bases, even the ones that aren't on the ballfield.

 

In this environment, if you're visible at all, there will be a spammers'-cargo-cult obsessing about you. It's not Google's fault. They have their own cargo-cults to deal with--the biggest one, since they are perceived to be most important. (I'm sure, given a choice, they'd happily send all their SERP perp cult-following over to the ODP in a nanosecond.)

 

>I don't know if DMOZ has any arrangements with them at the top level - I am assuming that there is no connection from what everyone has written.

 

There doesn't need to be a connection for this -- the ODP license is generic. But there are obviously technology-interchange negotiations at some level -- AOL uses Google search, and has used Google as an advertising intermediary. That's the big money: the ODP is proportionally just a little side dish.

 

>I am also not sure how Netscape ties-in to all this.

 

Netscape bought DMOZ back before AOL bought Netscape.

 

>One thing is for certain - Google's really beginning to **** me off.

 

So? Use Yahoo. Or even "all commercials, all the time" MSN. The web is large, and there's no reason to care about a site.

 

>Slap a restrictive Creative Commons license on DMOZ and watch Google pull it's finger out.

 

Why? Google is adding value to my volunteer work. (Not that it can be done anyway: ODP social contract, and all that.) But break your word with volunteers, and you tend to lose volunteers. And, in any case, Google already provides "attribution" and publishes the ODP data on "noncommercial" pages. Their "derivative" work is a clear benefit to us. and although the modifications are "copyright," it's not clear to me how a surfer would benefit by being able to republish the Google pages.

 

The web is big. There are lots of people using it for all kinds of purposes. The best strategy is to cooperate with the sites that help you achieve your purpose, and leave the others alone.

[charlesleo]

So I guess when you have Google telling people that they should submit to Yahoo! or Google, then there is nothing an editor should be upset about. The public getting angry/upset about their suggestions going unreviewed should be taken with a grain of salt because it's par for the course.

[hutcheson]

Yes, of the five million or so suggestions over the last two or three years, four million will be ignored (because they're pure spam), and those webmasters absolutely WILL be angry/upset. (We know of no evidence that OUR public is upset, but of course, who could hear them, with all the others shouting?)

 

The anger is a good sign in at least three ways:

 

-- Check out a few dozen of the loudest upset folks, and you'll see how very effectively the ODP is picking the right people to frustrate. (If those same people were praising the ODP, THEN I'd be VERY worried, on the verge of panic!)

 

-- The anger is a sign that the ODP is maintaining its integrity: it is proving extremely hard for people with ulterior motives to manipulate. (If it were easy for a malicious webmaster to become an editor and abuse his privileges, then there would be a lot less anger, and a lot more silent abuse!

 

-- And for what it's worth (probably not much) the anger is a sign that someone (albeit possibly not well-informed) thinks the ODP has some influence -- and that is (like hypocrisy) a one form of the respect that vice pays to virtue.

 

Trying to look at it the other way -- is there any way in which the anger/upset is a bad sign? I'm not sure there is one. Sometimes I wonder if some of the anger is because we aren't successful at getting the message about what the ODP is really about. But how many people with the web-spammer mentality would be PLACATED by learning the ODP not only wasn't serving their whims efficiently, but wasn't about to ever serve them at all?

 

So the only downside I see is that the anger of violent webmasters places some volunteers at personal risk. But in this world where "no good deed goes unpunished" -- how many public-service volunteers have been murdered in Iraq or Gaza or Sudan? -- we do what we can to protect editors from outside pressure.

 

That protection starts by protecting editor confidentiality. It includes penalties imposed for any kind of threats. It even includes editors specifically being given the freedom not to review any particular site, suggested or not. And in this category we ought to include those penalties for editors who succumb to outside pressure -- and yes, that can even include removal. (That enables editors to look high-pressure salemen in the eye and honestly say, "I can't -- it would mean my editing privileges, and the site still wouldn't be listed." The sane salesmen will stop applying pressure at that point.)

 

You'll probably have noticed how many of these editor protections are specifically targeted by the proposals for "changes in the ODP" so popular in some quarters.

[charlesleo]

If those same people were praising the ODP, THEN I'd be VERY worried, on the verge of panic!

That's funny.

 

I guess anger is too strong of a word. I don't think too many people get angry - frustrated or upset perhaps with the mistaken perception that ODP is not effectively doing their work or is a stool pigeon for search engines. In fact, you are all doing the opposite.

 

I will say this - I have a ton of new-found respect for all the editors and moderators after you have taken the time to explain some of the processes to me. I really appreciate it and hope others can gain from this. The process wasn't completely transparent before. It makes more sense how all of you operate, and also some of the frustrations and abuse people can put you through.

 

I felt really really bad when I saw that one person (no names mentioned) have a blow-out yesterday on the editors here. I really wished that he didn't include my name in the same sentence as I disagreed with him.

 

I am also sorry if the volunteers have ever felt physically threatened by people. It never really occured to me that people would go to those extremes.

[giz]

> Certain categories should have the 'apply to edit this category' removed as to save us all time and energy. <<

 

New Editors are not the only people that apply to edit categories. Existing editors looking to be given broader editing permissions also apply for new places in the directory in which to edit, and still have to supply sample sites for that category when they apply.

[charlesleo]

Could this be restricted to them through their login information?

[JaBooters]

How unfortunate that such a well poised and pertinent message, such as the one which spawned this thread, was completely negated by the moderators and editors as they pass yet another golden opportunity to spare this tragically reduced platform from further embarrassment and decline. The only message worth mention was the questioning of the current importance of DMOZ. In fact, I can point to a number of articles in highly respected periodicals which lament that very issue. I couldn't point to a single reputable source that is crowing the opposite. Pretty much in agreement across the board, DMOZ is dead, and we can thank the silly, arrogant editors who have been brandishing some undeserved sense of accomplishment beyond anything I've ever seen. How ironic. The very same ignorance and diaper wetting of these editors as they seemed to have lulled themselves into some imagined sense of power and importance, caused the death of this platform, and probably their last hope of ever having anything even close to those imagined endowments. In their snotty stomping and posturing they have managed to make themselves the laughing stocks of the greater internet community and destroyers of something with great potential. BTW editors, 99% or your words are not only useless, redundant and predictable, but they lay bare your complete lack of vision and, frankly, stupidity.

[nea]

Frankly, JaBooters, using a thesaurus (internal or external) doesn't make your message any more meaningful. I'm not going to respond to it at any length (though others might) because, frankly, it's pointless to try and deflect arrows shot at imaginary goals. Or, to put it in other words: You are attacking something that doesn't exist, and you despise the editors because they don't conform to your vision of what the ODP should be.

 

Please try to make the content of your postings match their beautiful form in future. Editors are pretty experienced at looking through polished fronts and detecting lack of content beyond them, you see. If, on the other hand, you wish to discuss any real problem with the ODP, you'll find the editors happy to listen -- as witnessed in a large number of threads.

[gizagizmo]

This project is flawed - after trying for 2 years to get listed, it only serves the "lottery winners" (websites lucky enough to have a volunteer in their category and older websites when the system may have been viable) and the large players of the internet who have a major influence in this industry (old boys clubs mentality - you scratch my back etc... im sure this is the fact - actually whats to stop the big web companies employing/allocating someone to be a volunteer for the sole reason of rejecting competition?)

 

how many excellent websites has this project not listed due to backlog.

 

maybe it is time to go professional i wouldn't mind paying a fee for listing as this project has some influence over rankings in natural listings.

 

many of us small time businesses get cr@pped on from all quarters - dmoz project is adding to the cr@p im afraid. Skewed massively in favour of well established and large organizations.

[wjcampbe]

how many excellent websites has this project not listed due to backlog.

We are happy to say, absolutely NONE.

 

There are only two reasons a site is ever not listed -

 

1. It has not been reviewed yet

2. It does not qualify for a listing

 

some influence over rankings in natural listings.

I got a chuckle out of this one - obviously if influence has been applied, then the listing could no longer be natural.

 

Let me set you a challenge - choose either of these exercises

 

Exercise 1 - pick ANY non-shopping category in DMOZ and read the category description, so you understand the type of site that fits in that category.

 

Go out on the Internet tonight, find three sites that contain information on that category that is not already available on any of the sites listed.

 

If you find ANY, please suggest them to the category.

 

Exercise 2 - find a small category in DMOZ with only about 10 sites listed. Put any one of these sites into your favourite search engine. Now examine the first 30 results Are ALL the sites in DMOZ listing in that top 30? Do all of the sites in that top 30 provide unique information that is not already included in any of the sites listed in DMOZ? Is there an outstanding (in terms of content only please) site that is not listed in DMOZ? Suggest that site to the category.

[hutcheson]

gizagizmo, I'm not sure what the communication problem is; maybe you can help explain it. For years, we editors have been saying (in this and other forums): "The ODP doesn't offer webmaster services; if you need them, go somewhere that offers what you need. There are MANY places that offer what you need."

 

And still, you are shocked, SHOCKED to find that the ODP isn't offering you the webmaster services you want.

 

How is it that someone could be on the planet and even on the web in the last five years, and NOT find out what the ODP does and doesn't do? Where is the ODP being discussed, and this message is not being expressed? If it's being expressed, can you figure out why people are still so confused, so deceived, so misled?

 

And perhaps, who is deceiving people into thinking that the ODP IS some kind of webmaster service? How do they do it? Spiked drinks?

[JaBooters]

Frankly, JaBooters, using a thesaurus (internal or external) doesn't make your message any more meaningful. .....

...Please try to make the content of your postings match their beautiful form in future. Editors are pretty experienced at looking through polished fronts and detecting lack of content beyond them, you see. If, on the other hand, you wish to discuss any real problem with the ODP, you'll find the editors happy to listen -- as witnessed in a large number of threads.

 

Well Nea, I must say , your rebuttal is certainly one of the more magnanimous and complimentary that I’ve seen or received in a long time. I'm flattered that you perceived the form of my post as one deserving suspicion of having been generated by inorganic methods. Also, I certainly don't "despise" DMOZ editors, not any more so than the rest of random society. I find it especially meaningful that all this comes from a little green, appendage-type being . Perhaps I could have conveyed the message differently , however, Form before function is good enough for me.

[charlesleo]

I find it especially meaningful that all this comes from a little green, appendage-type being

What? Walk away for a week and this is what I see. I have no response to that lol...

[motsa]

Mine was "Huh?"

[bobrat]

My best guess is that he thinks the picture of mozzie belongs in http://dmoz.org/Health/Reproductive_Health/Sexually_Transmitted_Diseases/