Directory Attitude - An Open Letter to DMOZ!

[shadow575]

Maybe he is colorblind and thought Nea's avatar was green insted of blue Kinda resembles little blue apendages to me

[nea]

Good heavens, I hadn't even seen this. :D

[charlesleo]

What - that you have blue appendages?

[joeypasta]

I've waited for nearly 3 years and still nothing

 

So don't feel bad....Ive been under review since O4 and i decided to let the editors do their thing, confident that they'd get to my website.....well, years later i come back and not only isn't it listed....but I was shocked and abhored to find out that now DMOZ has now went as far as blowing off our update requests.......wow, how very nice.

[charlesleo]

I assume you wrote because of ranking in the search engines. There's plenty of other directories you can submit to to get your rankings up - which I have done rather successfully. Granted, it isn't as easy as a DMOZ listing but at least you don't have to wait.

[spectregunner]

well, years later i come back and not only isn't it listed....but I was shocked and abhored to find out that now DMOZ has now went as far as blowing off our update requests.......

 

I only have about 17,000 edits, so I am fairly new, but I really don't know of a way to update an unpublished listing.

 

In fact, if a site is not listed, I know of no way to submit an update.

 

Perhaps in my newness I am missing something.

[nea]

Don't tease, spectre -- you know he meant status requests

 

Not that joeypasta will be able to read this, since his trolling got him banned, but it's worth pointing out (once again!) that DMOZ never offered status checks. It was only in this forum, which isn't and never was an official ODP forum, that editors who wanted to perform status checks did so, until after a couple of years it became obvious that the checks were causing more problems than they solved. But I don't need to go into that, it's explained in the thread about the cessation of status checks.

[anita123]

Thank you

 

Thank you guys for the info.

 

anita

[jjwill]

I only have about 17,000 edits, so I am fairly new, but I really don't know of a way to update an unpublished listing.

 

In fact, if a site is not listed, I know of no way to submit an update.

 

Perhaps in my newness I am missing something.

 

Please spectre, try not to give out tooooo much advise until you've done a little more editing. Lets say, oh I don't know, mabye 50,000 edits?

[IronMan]

Open?

 

I think I share the experiences and frustration of CharlesLeo and if I may be presumptious, offer some support to what I believe is a common experience with a flaw in the process (not the people) ODP uses to consider new site inclusion requests.

 

Starting with the self described mission of the ODP to:

 

"become the definitive catalog of the Web."

 

I do not understand why it is unrealistic for a webmaster (just like any other net citizen) to expect that their request for inclusion be considered through some reasonably organized process. It has been offered that editors can use any method they want to search out new sites. Fine, add the Dutch folkdancing category on the creative initiative of an experienced editor, but once a category has been created and towards the stated mission of being "definitive", why are site submission requests not given SOME organized consideration?

 

To dismiss webmasters and business owners as not "what ODP is about", is wrong I think. Aren't we net citizens also? Do we not have something to offer ODP? Are we just supposed to create content and then just HOPE someone can find us? WHO do you think is providing the content that ODP is indexing anyway? And, what is wrong with ODP being important to rankings? That is validation that the directory has relevance, good job. Why bemoan that webmasters see organic search and ODP as a way to succeed above spam without resorting to Adwords (I have).

 

Yes, I have requested inclusion of my site for purposes of improving my rankings and other nefarious motives like helping people find my site. But, save me the spam excuses, a website for a small family foundry in business since 1912, is hardly spam. Nor is the category or even meta category rife with spam such that an editor can't keep up with submissions.

 

After several months time waiting for a response to my inclusion request, I researched my category, and submitted 3 omitted, but very deserving sites of my competitors (reference wjcampbe's condescending post) with my application to become an editor. I fully disclosed my intention to improve my own visibility, as well as my, industry. I was also motivated to help reorganize the Foundries category as the sub categories are horribly organized, but above all I want to help promote my industry and it pains me to see my category so poorly attended to. Foundries aren't glamorous, but we deserve better and I am willing to help. No conspiracy theory here, I'm sure the editor has never seen a foundry, much less conspiring to lock anyone out.

 

If I do not pass muster to be an editor fine, but whoever is editing this category is hardly doing ANYONE a service in the maintenance of this category. Not to bash the editor, but as an example where the vaunted "surfer" is NOT being serviced by dismissal of my requests. As a content provider to this category, I have expert knowledge of the topic area and do not understand why site inclusions requests go into a black hole. I WOULD understand how someone would find it hard to keep up with the number of requests, but I do not understand the defense of not processing requests FIFO, or citing processing of a request from 2003 as a defensible process.

 

I suppose that an editor could glance at a request, and cherry pick the obvious good ideas, instead of reviewing every request thoroughly FIFO, but still I think there IS some accountability to the requestor. As a small business owner, I am many things all at once, not just a webmaster. I AM a legitimate member of the web community and frankly I think ODP treats inclusion requestors and wanna-be editors shabbily based on my experience.

 

WE, ALL OF US, ARE THE COMMUNITY. Just because we are small business owners and webmasters does not mean the ODP is not intended to serve us as well. Again, where does good content come from anyway? If we create it, why shouldn't we want people to see it. I am honest and have a real product and knowledge to offer. Why should I not be interested in getting included in the directory, or expect some kind of response? Is ANYONE well served by another authority site with hidden processes and no accountability but unto themselves?

 

Whewww....I hope some opinions from the weeds aren't too random for this thread. Although I am sorely disappointed with my experience so far, I continue to root for this project's success and I am encouraged by the energy and ethusiasm of it's editor community. A feisty defense of your mission is certainly warranted.

 

Cheers,

 

James

[pvgool]

I do not understand why it is unrealistic for a webmaster (just like any other net citizen) to expect that their request for inclusion be considered through some reasonably organized process.

This would be true if webmasters could request their site to be included. But they can't. Nobody can.

[IronMan]

Corrected

 

Yes, Pvgool, I see what you mean. "Submit URL" is not a request for inclusion, it is a suggestion, and the expectation should be guided by that phrasing as well.

 

Ok, maybe the frustration is not about process, it IS about expectations falsely arrived. I am guilty at expecting something not offered.

 

To Jean's point that 80% of the work is done by 20% of the editors. I agree that is often the case in many organizations, and it would make sense that suggestions may just bog those 20% editors who are using a more comprehensive categorization strategy.

 

I ASSUMED the open nature of DMOZ was recruiting the input of a much broader community (site owners included) and using processes designed for that purpose, and after seeing how wikipedia, and even e-bay employ peer review to improve results, I expected something similar. My mistake.

 

I must stand corrected, that it does appear DMOZ is operating consistent within it's own mission and policies, Hutcheson does a good job of communicating the concepts.

 

I am not quite convinced, although I would not know, that Spammers, casual and professional, should dictate the inner workings of DMOZ and that the interaction with some of us on the outside should not be more collaborative and accountable to avoid bad PR. But, that is certainly a strategy decision by ODP and not a gap in expected workings from policy and mission as well corrected by Hutcheson.

 

Sorry for just another vent. I have learned something, again. Oh, do I like to complain.

 

Cheers,

 

James

[wjcampbe]

wjcampbe's condescending post

I'm sorry you consider the post condescending. Perhaps you are not used to people who just say what is on their mind instead of waffling on for four or five posts. Interesting to note, the other poster did not take the up either challenge.

[hutcheson]

PR is what we call "corporate misdirection and deception." We'd be happy to do without it.

 

The ODP (and other truly collaborative projects) waste much less time on communication than hierarchical (whether fascist or corporate) structures. When the goal is to EMPOWER individuals to work more effectively, more efficiently, communication that doesn't contribute to that, is deprecated.

 

We have a name for outsiders who wish to demonstrate a sympathy with the ODP mission and are willing to put in a real effort towards quality control, based on our mission as opposed to some ulterior-motived SEO effort. We call them "editor applicants".

 

Those applicants whose demonstration of skill and motive is adequate (that is, whose application or "offer to help" is accepted) aren't outsiders any more. And those who can't or won't give adequate demonstration of THEIR goodwill and competance, are demonstrably no fit judges of OUR goodwill or competance.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "using a more comprehensive categorization strategy." There is only one categorization, and all editors use it. A good editor is expected to use comprehensive SITE FINDING strategies, and -- this is the REALLY important part -- that means NOT relying on or giving priority to submittals. Instead, it means relying on the editor's own knowledge and judgment to decide HOW to look for sites (that is, what topics need more information and what topics are likely to have more good, findable information) and WHERE to look for sites (that is, what searches to make, what authority sites to review, what offline sources are highly reliable, who else's brains to pick.

 

Obviously, all of this can be done without looking at site suggestions at all. So why ever look at site suggestions? In a truly comprehensive scheme of site finding, they would be totally unnecessary. But nobody HAS a TRULY comprehensive scheme. So after all else has been done, site suggestions are a way of picking the minds of other people. Now those other people (site suggestors) haven't given any reason at all to be trusted, and therefore can't reasonably expect to be trusted. They are not accountable to anyone, and there is no way to hold them accountable. They do not collaborate with anyone, and there is no way to make them collaborate. They often have ulterior motives, into which we cannot and do not want to inquire.

 

But, nonetheless, editors will listen to those suggestions that (in editorial judgment) might lead to something useful. And we have agreed that we won't throw away suggestions without reasonable effort to see that those suggestions are meritless.

 

I think nobody could reasonably ask for more than that.

 

So everyone has a choice: to demonstrate their good faith and discuss collaboration, or to keep their motives hidden and make suggestions. There's no disgrace in either choice. No choice leads to any control of anyone else -- always, forever, each one does his own work to his best standard as well as to the community standard. No choice allows anyone to require accountability of anyone else -- accountability is through community consensus, and even outsiders have several ways of suggesting where the community might well TAKE account. No choice allows anyone to require anyone else to do anything in particular -- the editorial guidelines are very clear about this (if for any reason you are uncomfortable reviewing a site, or don't wish to review it, then you simply don't review it--no questions asked. If it's worth reviewing, someone else will take care of it.)

 

You can see how this whole process wouldn't work at all well for serving webmasters. You'd need some completely different process. But this process does a better job of finding unique informational content than any other.

 

So, we'll keep this process, and use it for what it does well. Those who wish to serve webmasters can set up their own processes, and run them on their own sites, and invite others to help. And those webmasters who wish to receive services, are welcome to take advantage of the thousands of sites who offer those services. We won't be offended.

 

And some editors may even be among the webmaster-servers, or webmasters-seeking-services, at those other sites. They won't be ostracized. (This certainly isn't the only site I visit.)

 

The trick to collaboration is simple: find someone who's doing what you want to do. And join them. But finding someone who's doing something ELSE, and hectoring them to do what you want instead, is a waste of spittle and froth.

[chaz7979]

I have seen that point of view being argued -- and the opposite point of view as well. I think most of us will agree that there is an unfortunate perception among many webmasters and SEO people that a listing in the ODP is very important. Whether it is or not is a matter of perception.

 

On a serious note, if DMOZ doesnt want to influence SE's then what good is the ODP? I am not being sarcastic, I think it is pretty widely known that people do not really surf the ODP. Most of the traffic is editors and webmasters submitting their sites and watching their competition. I think your goal should be to have some effect on the big SE's... otherwise what are you doing all of this for? I wish I could convey tone here, I am asking an honest question.

[brmehlman]

It's not an either/or thing. Use for direct browsing and use by search engines are only two of the many possible ways our data can be used. See Uses of the Open Directory for some of the others.

 

Whatever effect we may or may not have on search engines seems to be of great concern to webmasters, probably with good reason, but it isn't our concern. We find and categorize websites. It's a hobby we enjoy, and we hope and believe that others find some value in the results we provide.

 

As a possibly interesting side note, I think it likely that if we were to focus on search engines then those very search engines would find our results much less useful.

[chaz7979]

great concern to webmasters, probably with good reason, but it isn't our concern.

 

That’s the part I guess I don’t get. It seems no one at the ODP is human? Your hobby controls the livelihood of a lot of people. I am college student that went from paying for my classes and books to not being able to afford my server bills to run my site because the ODP took my link out of the directory.

 

By adding quality sites you are in fact providing us all with a great service. BUT if quality sites go unchecked for years you are doing the same people a huge diservice.

 

With great power comes great responsibility. Responsibility that becoming more and more overwhelming for less and less editors.

[giz]

Look. Newspapers also pick and choose the stories they print. Some of those stories also have a big impact on some people's lives and businesses. They don't print every story that happened. They don't print every story that was suggested.

 

Bombarding a newspaper with information about something they don't want to print, results in..... Can you see where we are going with this?

 

A newspaper also does not have enough people to write about every single thing that ever happens; they cover the best or most interesting or most unusual bits.

[Eric-the-Bun]

With great power comes great responsibility. Responsibility that becoming more and more overwhelming for less and less editors.

 

I am afraid this shows you do not understand the harsh reality of the business world nor how the ODP works. Understanding both is necessary for you to have realistic expectations. The ODP has no obligation to businesses as businesses at all.

 

I am college student that went from paying for my classes and books to not being able to afford my server bills to run my site because the ODP took my link out of the directory.

 

No, you failed to promote your business properly.

 

The reality of the business world is competition, no one does anyone any favours, it is not about charity etc. etc. In fact the reality of 'business' on the internet is that there are a lot of people trying to make money by offering 'get rich quick solutions'.

 

I can understand a business person checking to see that they were not going to spam the directory, locating the best category or clarifying their understanding and so on. I always find hard to fathom complaints of non-listing from people running businesses.

 

Someone who understands business, know they need every ounce of promotion out there to get their business going. When they submit, they would have looked into what they were getting for their effort. They know that, having submitted it to DMOZ, they can achieve better results by obtaining links elsewhere, improving their site etc rather than relying on the ODP.

 

If they have the insights etc to run a business, understanding the ODP scenario regarding listings should be straightforward.

 

regards

[shadow575]

It seems no one at the ODP is human? Your hobby controls the livelihood of a lot of people. I am college student that went from paying for my classes and books to not being able to afford my server bills to run my site because the ODP took my link out of the directory.

I fail to see what control I have over anyone but myself. This belief that the ODP is the magic wand that instantly makes a site successful (or not) just boggles my mind immensely. I never have understood how the removal of one little link causes 'great' (use that term loosely and in general) business sites to fold up and close down?? I am not forcing anyone not to promote their own business/site, nor am I holding anyone's hand and walking them through how to run their business so I have a total of ZERO control over anyone's success beyond my own.

If the loss of one link causes one to not be able to pay their bills, then hopefully they are nearly finished with a college degree and can soon begin a career outside the business world (requiring self promotion) so they have a chance to support themselves. It may not be what you want to hear, but it doesn't make me any less human than you. Editors cannot and will not act on emotion towards a site owner or that owners situation. Every poor webmaster seems to have some sad story about not being able to support themselves. Even if the editors were naive enough to believe 1/8 of them, it still doesn't effect the guidelines. Not to mention, many (many) of us support ourselves just fine on our own with no commercial websites.

 

Just my 2 pennies

[bobrat]

To be blunt, anyone who thinks that ODP makes the difference between success and failure is failing to look at the inadequacy of their business. If you can barely pay your server bills, that's a very good reason we should not list your site. It's probably going to be dead sooner than you think and then we have another URL that has to be removed. That does the directory a disservice.

 

I also have had sites where the income hardly pays the server bills (even when listed in ODP). After a year I face reality, give up and go on to other things.

 

If a site is successful, ODP can possibly marginally increase it's business. ODP can not make a business a success, you have to look to other reasons.

[hutcheson]

Look at the bright side, chaz. All that money you didn't get isn't lost. It's just going to someone else. Since we don't know anything about you OR the other people involved, we'll just assume all of you have equal rights to "personhood", and we'll just flat ignore the possibility of inhuman webmasters, OK? It's a non-issue.

 

On the other hand, we think of surfers as persons, to a degree that is completely alien to you.

 

I know working is hard, and finding a paying job can be even harder. (I worked to pay my way through college and graduate school.) But you're extremely lucky to have had time to learn valuable skills in college -- most of the world is not so fortunate. Ethically speaking, I believe I shouldn't -- see your self-serving website as any reason at all to give you any ADDITIONAL privilege.

 

Now if you had created a PUBLIC-service website, you'd have earned all kinds of respect and gratitude from other public-spirited persons who never knew you personally. But no stranger will EVER share your interest in your own self-interest.

[hutcheson]

>On a serious note, if DMOZ doesnt want to influence SE's then what good is the ODP?

 

If that is the only thing you're interested in, then the ODP may be of no good to you. And that's OK. Realistically, there are probably 10-20 million sites on the web, how many of them are ever going to be any use to you? Possibly, of the half-dozen sites to which I'VE made significant contributions to, NONE will ever be of use to you--and that's OK too. I doubt if your site will be of any use to me either.

 

But we're all persons, and we all have choices. You make your choices based on priorities -- that is your right as a person. And how about me and my rights as a person? Do I have the right to make my choices based on my priorities? Not, apparently, if my choices don't give you enough money....

 

WHO is treating WHOM as less than a person?

[chaz7979]

Like I said before

 

By adding quality sites you are in fact providing us all with a great service. BUT if quality sites go unchecked for years you are doing the same people a huge diservice.

 

I see your points about not letting in bad news, and sending information to newspapers over and over again. I agree. BUT what if there is something news worthy and no one listens??? Then the newspaper becomes less valuable. Just like the ODP. Look at the graphs the indexed sites are rising to unmanageable hieghts while the active number of editors is dropping off.

[chaz7979]

Look at the bright side, chaz. All that money you didn't get isn't lost. It's just going to someone else. Since we don't know anything about you OR the other people involved, we'll just assume all of you have equal rights to "personhood", and we'll just flat ignore the possibility of inhuman webmasters, OK? It's a non-issue.

 

On the other hand, we think of surfers as persons, to a degree that is completely alien to you.

 

I know working is hard, and finding a paying job can be even harder. (I worked to pay my way through college and graduate school.) But you're extremely lucky to have had time to learn valuable skills in college -- most of the world is not so fortunate. Ethically speaking, I believe I shouldn't -- see your self-serving website as any reason at all to give you any ADDITIONAL privilege..

 

I do not think I deserve anything special. I agree with you to an extent. It is when you give and then take away for no reason at all, that is what hurts. Never getting into the ODP because a site stinks is no problem. Its when you offer a quality service that is only full of unique content and digital goods that has been growing and regularly updated for 4 years and have your site listed only to one day see it disappear can really screw someone on a personal level.