Automated Site Status

[TP207]

As a new member, I notice quite a bit of frustration and time spent on NOT knowing.

 

I may be a bit naive or have not been here long enough to know whether it was previously discussed, could not find it in FAQ, but has anyone thought of an automated interactive database.

 

Something like:

1. You submit a site within a category.

2. It automatically joins the line within the category.

3. Your number in line is created so when visiting, webmasters can view their number in line.

4. As the editors, pull a site, to be worked, from the line every other site in the category moves up one.

5. This also allows webmasters to approximate the time frame of moving up one number closer.

6. Webmasters get automated status updates 24/7 and the editors will be FREE from status requests.

 

Maybe this was already discussed, not sure.

 

Anthony

[jimnoble]

Maybe this was already discussed

Yes, and at frequent intervals. Essentially, it's not going to happen any time soon. Please search the forum for the reasons why not.

 

Oh, and there isn't a line as such. Listing suggestions are processed in any order that the editors see fit. I usually do the most promising ones first - those are the ones which approach guidelines compliant titles and descriptions.

[windharp]

In fact is is asked so often that we even have an entry in our FAQ about this topic.

[TP207]

Jim

Your point is well taken.

 

But from a public releations standpoint, would it not make more sense in opting for a way by which webmasters may be able to view their status online?

 

From reading these posts, I see Dmoz is coming under heavy fire.

 

The online viewable database would definitely eliminate many inquiries about rejections (when not reviewed) etc.

 

The editors can continue to choose sites at random, but at least webmasters will be able to view categories that are not being worked as well as the status of their sites.

 

It would be a small step to avoid many negative posts.

It may even serve to place Dmoz at the epitome of an "Open Directory"

 

Anthony

[hutcheson]

>But from a public releations standpoint, would it not make more sense in opting for a way by which webmasters may be able to view their status online?

 

Ah, but you see, we're not WORKING on a PR project.

 

That might be why the moderators reached consensus to include this in the FAQ:

 

"We see no benefit to the directory..."

[Eric-the-Bun]

The difficulty arises because there is a big difference between what the ODP is and what people perceive it as being or would like it to be. The two different perceptions does lead to frustrations on both sides.

 

From the outside. people see a large directory of website listings and believe it must be some sort of corporate entity who are geared towards listing sites. In fact it is a group of people following a hobby and listing sites is only part of the work involved. So, for most people who react to the ODP as a result of their perceptions, a better understanding of the ODP actually is, is what is needed.

 

The ODP is about developing categories and the suggestion pool is only one source of websites. I list most sites that are suggested but most of the sites that I list are not suggested. I regard a suggestor as someone who is helping me develop a particular category by suggesting a site thus saving me the effort of finding it when I get round to that category.

 

So the answer as to why any particular site is still unreviewed in a category I could edit, is that I can only devote so much time to editting and this varies. Sometimes I am enthusiastic and get lots done, other times I feel a bit jaded and do other things. Sometimes I feel a particular areas needs my attention and as a result I ignore other areas. The same goes for all the other editors who could review that category. I don't think you can get a more open and honest assessment than that.

 

At the end of the day the guidelines identify what sites can be listed. After that it is a question of when a site will be listed which is totally unpredictable. So a status report as you suggest would not help at all except to raise and dash peoples expectations and take up editors time.

 

The heavy criticism often comes from webmasters who believe that the ODP should provide a service promoting their business interests. Pointing out that some 20,000 sites are added each month (including a new Slovak folk dancing category ) does not impress them at all.

 

regards

[TP207]

Eric

I understand what you are saying.

 

At the end of the day, one true fact remains.

If you are not in Google, you are nowhere.

If you are not on ODP, you are not in Google.

 

If this holds true. The editor's work will only increase as time goes on and as the number of sites grow. This will in turn cause reduced output.

 

While the ODP is a volunteer organization. At some point, PR will become a factor as the downward spiral continues.

 

ODP has become a very important, if not the most important factor on being found on the web as the web grows.

[Eric-the-Bun]

I think this is where the editors perceptions are different. Most editors would see the ODP as a resource of quality websites that can be used for reference.

 

f you are not on ODP, you are not in Google. ... ODP has become a very important, if not the most important factor on being found on the web as the web grows.

 

That is not true as you can get onto Google fairly easily without being in the ODP. The ODP merely provides a backlink. Getting found on the web is more about how unique you are. Being No 1 on Google for 'village + Dance' is easy for the only dance site based in the village and would be sufficient for the purpose of the site.

 

The ODP is not about listing all the sites that webmasters choose to create but about listing quality sites that a surfer may wish to find. Thus an increase in sites does not equate to a decrease in output. Though the number of sites on the internet grows, the quality is not in proportion to the growth (i.e. made-for-ads, affiliate marketing sites etc. are produced en-masse) and so the ODP does not perceive as much of a growth as you may think.

 

To a great extent, I'm afraid my answer will be less than satisfactory as the concerns you seem to advance for the ODP are not relevant to us.

 

regards

[hutcheson]

I'm not sure what kind of mission or process models you have in mind. The ODP "editor's work" is TOTALLY supply-driven: that is, there's exactly as much work as there is effort available. But demand can only come from licensees (AOL or Google) or users (individual surfers.) (Webmasters aren't customers, and aren't offered services, so there's nothing they can demand.)

[pvgool]

At the end of the day, one true fact remains.

If you are not in Google, you are nowhere.

If you are not on ODP, you are not in Google.

 

If this holds true.

It is easely to be proved wrong.

There are many sites to be found in Google search (even in the first 10 listings within a search) that are not in ODP.

[hutcheson]

I agree with pvgool that logically, it cannot be true.

 

But the real point is, it simply doesn't matter.

 

It doesn't matter to you, because it is not something you can control. And it doesn't matter to me, because ... if I were the sort of person for whom such things matter to, I'd be doing something else instead of this anyway. So the question is moot from the beginning.

[jwinters]

Start prayin' now and do a lot of it.

 

*

[DesertJules]

FWIW - my site was on Google, with a fairly respectable PR, long before I suggested it to DMOZ.

 

If anyone is being told that they cannot acheive PR without a DMOZ listing, they are being lied to.

 

Sorry! It's the truth.

[jukcoder]

Is it true that some web sites could wait even one year for a review? I submitted mine few weeks ago I and I am hoping I'll get a reply within 6 months.

 

Thank you for your time, OOP editors

[nea]

A site suggestion can in some cases have to wait several years before it is reviewed. In other cases it is reviewed immediately -- there is never any way of telling.

 

You might want to have a look at the FAQ about suggesting your site for review. Thanks!

[spectregunner]

It is also very important to note that very large numbers of sites that were never sugested are reviewed and listed (or not) as a result of editor initiative.

[giz]

Also note that there is "no reply".

[chaz7979]

"It is easely to be proved wrong.

There are many sites to be found in Google search (even in the first 10 listings within a search) that are not in ODP."

 

Can you suggest some that are in the top 10 and not listed in Google for COMPETITIVE KEYWORDS? That is the key. Find a competitive keyword, search google, look at the results. I bet there are more sites in that top 10 that are in DMOZ than those that are not. UNLESS people are spamming the engine to achieve their listing. If you do find a term to prove me wrong, I can find 10 more that will prove I am right. Saying that, do I think there are exceptions? Yes. But they are merely small exceptions.

[giz]

Could it be that Editors routinely use Google to search for sites, review say the top 30 or 40 listed in Google, and those that could be listed at the ODP then get listed?

 

Chicken or Egg?

 

Egg or Chicken?

[chaz7979]

I knew that was coming. Editors that rely on Google need to dig deeper. They are not doing the ODP justice.

 

If that really is the case, editors are making the situation even worse. By giving sites that have already made it even more weight, thus pushing great sites even further down in the results.

[hutcheson]

Ah, you're thinking from the webmaster-ulterior-motive standpoint again.

 

That standpoint is best represented by the webmaster on his own site, and best totally ignored by the ODP editor doing rounds.

[chaz7979]

How does that have anything to do with the webmasters standpoint?

 

If your goal is to do a service to websurfers then wouldnt you want to list the best sites possible and not the ones in the top 30-40 on google?

 

I honestly am not even really sure what you mean by your last post. If you mean what I think you mean, I think you totally missed my point.

[spectregunner]

Editors that rely on Google need to dig deeper. They are not doing the ODP justice.

 

That really borders on a cheap shot at the editing community.

 

Do you really believe that ODP editors are so single-minded that they are only capable of search Google? If so, then the discussion is probably over.

 

Editors use a wide variety of sources to find sites, from voter pamphlets to bus stop graffiti. Google is simply a source. Site suggestions are simply a source. Bus stop graffiti is simply a source. Business cards jammed behind pay telephones are simply a source. Church bulletins are simply a source. Junk mail is simply a source. Web links are simply a source. other directories are simplya source.

 

Editors, all of whom are actually capable of independent thought, are able to decide what sources they choose to use for finding sites to list. They choose the source that best serves the type of sites they are trying to add and the categories where they are adding them. They do this because they care about the directory and the people who use it.

 

For that reason it is impossible and impractical for you, or anyone else, to try and dictate how an editor should go about adding sites. with 7,000+ active editors, there are, I can assure you, 7,000+ approaches to adding sites.

[hutcheson]

>>By giving sites that have already made it even more weight, thus pushing great sites even further down in the results.

 

>How does that have anything to do with the webmasters standpoint?

 

What in that has anything to do with the editor's standpoint?

 

What editor would ever assume that a site was "great" just because it was somewhere deep in Google? Who doesn't know most of what's on the web, and on Google, is incoherent and plagiarized (and mostly both)?

 

What editor would ever assume that it mattered what order the unique content would be listed in?

 

In fact, what editor would ever assume that there was a unique ordering of sites that represented any possible useful definition of "greatness"?

 

What editor would ever stop to consider the effect of a site review on a single webmaster, unknown and unknowable, with no relationship whatsoever to the reviewed site?

 

What editor would NOT want to focus his attention solely on "made" sites -- that is, on sites that gave evidence of being around for the duration, so that his work would be more durable? Who WOULDN'T prefer to work with a stable company with a reputation, rather than on a potential fly-by-night? Who wouldn't be ESPECIALLY preferential to "made" companies when recommending a potential supplier to a friend?

[chaz7979]

That really borders on a cheap shot at the editing community.

 

Do you really believe that ODP editors are so single-minded that they are only capable of search Google? If so, then the discussion is probably over.

 

I was simply responding to what one of your fellow editors said.

 

That being said, do I think there is a percentage of the 7k that use google exclusively? Maybe. Do I think that many are inactive or incapable of a thought? Probably. So how many good editors do you really think there are? I think people should be taking shots at the ODP now days. I think the editors should be as well. Its OK to admit that things could be better, and what was once a great managable idea a a few years back, is getting to be a pretty big problem. If one thinks that anything is perfect you are implying that it can not get any better. The ODP can certainly get better...so can I, so can you, even hutch!

 

None of this is personal. I am sure you and a few others here do a great job. I also bet it gets frustrating. Dont snap back at me, when I was even snapping to begin with. Quite the opposite. I have been doing what I can to help out by posting bad links and hijacks. I would do more, but my editor apps have been turned down 3 times :-)