What is the point?

[chaz7979]

Now do you have any constructive suggestions about how this could be achieved (without lowering our standards of course)?

 

Promote active recruiting?

Place team leaders in place to take time to work with potential editors? (applications that show promise, but are not perfect)

 

And how did you come to this conclusion? Unless you are staff with access to the server logs.

 

1. Editors here admit it.

2. Stats are available to the public.

3. You never hear things like "traffic at google up 10% this quarter, while yahoo slips 9%, but DMOZ is close on their heals up 50%!"

 

Although I will admit that was a blanket statement, and I am not a big fan of blankets. Quote me on this... an extremely minuscule percentage of web surfers use dmoz.org for the purpose of finding useful websites.

[makrhod]

Promote active recruiting?

Place team leaders in place to take time to work with potential editors? (applications that show promise, but are not perfect)

Umm, what makes you think these methods are not used already? I realise it is difficult to express informed criticism when you are not, in fact, informed, so a little background reading may be helpful, (as has been suggested several times already).

 

And in view of your own steadfast resistance to active recruitment, you are perfectly placed to see this as a hit-and-miss method anyway.

[chaz7979]

You can tell me to read and get informed but, I have read every publicly available page on dmoz.org numerous times. Also As you can see I spend a bit of time on the forums.

 

Umm, what makes you think these methods are not used already?

 

I am sure some are, but obviously not everyone, and maybe not enough. I mean, it is obvious that our government is running the country, but something tells me that some them could be doing a better job.

 

your own steadfast resistance to active recruitment

 

I am not resistant to active recruitment. Not only have I tried to become an editor, but I have also suggested to some of my close, well suited, online partners to apply.

[pvgool]

> 1. Editors here admit it.

No, we only said that we can always use more good editors. Even if we had 100,000 editors we still could use more good editors.

 

> 2. Stats are available to the public.

Oh, and were are these stats?

 

> an extremely minuscule percentage of web surfers use dmoz.org for the purpose of finding useful websites.

Some other people seem to disagree with you.

Look at http://snapshot.compete.com/dmoz.org/

Estimation of people in the USA that visited DMOZ in the month september 2006: 2,154,546

Maybe there estimation is not correct but atleast they base it on measurements they did and not on some guttfeeling as you are doing.

[informator]

(side note: are my posts hard to understand? Anyone feel free to post or PM me

 

Yes, you could maybe think a bit more before continue posting - making your point in 100+ posts and not getting other members support could maybe suggest that what you think is right is not supported by others. I think it´s hard for only one member of this forum to change/improve how ODP works.

[oDCo]

This thread really is very interesting and is providing some useful insight into how DMOZ operates. I'd like to put my vote behind updating some of the help files as suggested by someone earlier mind.

 

There is, however, a couple of points I'd like to make . . .

 

Some other people seem to disagree with you.

Look at http://snapshot.compete.com/dmoz.org/

Estimation of people in the USA that visited DMOZ in the month september 2006: 2,154,546

Maybe there estimation is not correct but atleast they base it on measurements they did and not on some guttfeeling as you are doing.

 

Using http://snapshot.compete.com/google.com/ estimates that 109,080,418 people have visited Google. That means that less than 2% of the number of people who visit Google, visit DMOZ.

 

I think it´s hard for only one member of this forum to change/improve how ODP works.

 

That doesn't that he should stop trying though does it? I thought one person could make a difference . . . it only takes one good idea.

[makrhod]

I tried to become an editor

Yes, but despite reassurance that many current editors of all levels took several attempts to submit an acceptable application, and despite being given friendly encouragement and advice (= "active recruitment"), you declined to re-apply.

As I said, it's a hit-and-miss method.

[chaz7979]

Some other people seem to disagree with you.

Look at http://snapshot.compete.com/dmoz.org/

Estimation of people in the USA that visited DMOZ in the month september 2006: 2,154,546

Maybe there estimation is not correct but atleast they base it on measurements they did and not on some guttfeeling as you are doing.

 

Even if those stats were correct, which I am willing to bet they are not. Those numbers are still minuscule as I said.

 

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=6m&size=large&compare_sites=google.com&y=r&url=dmoz.org

 

I think it´s hard for only one member of this forum to change/improve how ODP works.

 

That is sad to think. 1 Person CAN make a difference in this world, but not at the ODP?

 

you declined to re-apply

 

I had already re-applied and I was turned down again. Want me to really try again? I will do it just for you. But I honestly have no idea which cat to apply to. I tried the 3 cats I knew most about and I was shot down.

[pvgool]

That means that less than 2% of the number of people who visit Google, visit DMOZ.

Yes, and your point is.

DMOZ and Google are two totaly different kind of sites.

 

I think it´s hard for only one member of this forum to change/improve how ODP works.

I would say it is imposisble for one person at all.

Only editors and only after internal discussion can change how things work.

I have never seen an improvement for DMOZ being given. We have been shown many improvements for webmasters, but these improvements are about services DMOZ does not offer and will not start to offer.

[oDCo]

Yes, and your point is.

DMOZ and Google are two totaly different kind of sites.

 

I know that they're completely different, the point I was making was that the number of people visiting DMOZ *is* a small percentage of people using the web. Granted, 2 million visitors in a month is a massive number but in the terms of the amount of people using the internet, it's still quite small. I was just using the comparison to Google to illustrate that.

[hutcheson]

Ah, you've made your point. It is of course irrelevant.

 

Because the ODP is not some kind of marketroid PR empire-in-the-making. It doesn't HAVE to be the most popular starlet in the tabloids. All it has to do is make some unique contribution to human knowledge, for whoever would like to use it.

[oDCo]

Me? Irrelevant? Never!

[chaz7979]

I dont see how it is irrelevant. If the ODP has the chance to reach more users via some other medium then it should embrace that opportunity. If the ODP continues to spiral in the direction that it is going I fear that SE's will discontinue using all of your hard work. That would be a real shame.

[ishtar]

I would repsond more, but my comments will be cut out, and my train of thought will look crazy, like it does in my other threads. I give up.

Oh, if only wishing made it so.

 

Your continued posting in this thread is bordering on trolling.

[hutcheson]

The SEs really aren't as stupid as you assume. They aren't going to be moved, one way or another, by PR efforts in ANY medium. They already know about the ODP--not as a PR project but as an information source. They don't care how many people use it directly.

 

They'll make their algorithmic decisions based on whether their (extremely bright) techies can figure out a way to use ODP data to improve their search results.

 

But, in any case, SE use of the ODP to improve searches falls into the category of "clever abuse." It is neither contemplated nor forbidden by the ODP License. (There's a reason it's not called the Open Search Engine Seed Project.) But we're just building a directory. The decisions we make are based on which action builds a better directory. The point is to build a directory.

 

There are many people working on other media. There's no reason to deprecate their efforts. But there's no reason to compete with them either. For one thing, some of them (Google) undoubtedly do their own thing much better than we could. For another thing (as has often been pointed out) the directory would profit by many improvements, and efforts in other media would dilute the effort given. For another, there's no reason to suppose that a community formed to build a directory would necessarily be well equipped to work in another medium, nor is there any reason to suppose that people who can't contribute effectively to a directory should be excluded from work in another medium. For yet another, there's no reason to suppose that the organizational structure and processes designed around building a directory would be efficient for other media -- certainly Project Gutenberg and Wikipedia, for instance have distinctly different structures although sharing many of the same ideals. Finally, individual volunteers are able to participate in multiple volunteer projects, depending on the breadth of their own personal goals -- so there would be absolutely no point in any one project trying to be everything to everybody. Focus is good.

 

But variety is good also. It is better to light a candle than to curse the people who are lighting candles somewhere else. If you see a need that the ODP doesn't fulfill -- and there are many of them -- join a project that's working on that. Or form a project: start doing the work yourself, and invite people who share your goals to help.

[chaz7979]

Oh, if only wishing made it so.

 

Your continued posting in this thread is bordering on trolling.

 

I resent that. Your tone IMO is unacceptable. If you don’t like me personally, then click the ignore link, and do not read my posts.

[PhilC]

I agree this would be good for the directory. Now do you have any constructive suggestions about how this could be achieved (without lowering our standards of course)?

Certainly. We went through this in depth, in a very long thread which was highly rated at the time, soon after this forum first opened. The gist of it was that DMOZ rejects far too many potentially good editors, simply because they don't usually tell a person why the application was rejected, even though there is a system that allows such comments in the rejection email. It's true that it would be unwise to tell everybody why their applications failed, but there are those who would clearly make good editors, who are not told why they failed, and who are turned away because of it. That was true some years ago, and from what I've read since then, it is still true.

 

 

Example:

 

I applied to be an editor, and was rejected without any specific indication of why. I started a thread here about it, because I was convinced that my application was good. During the discussion, and as an experiment, I decided to re-apply, using the identical application that had been rejected. Nothing was changed. A few hours later, I was accepted, even though I no longer wanted to be an editor - it was just an experiment.

 

Because I'd actually applied, and had been accepted, I decided to do the editing, and a few months later I received an award for being the "Best new regional editor". Soon after that I timed-out due to my flagging interest.

 

The point is that, when I was rejected, I received no personal information as to why, and yet it's obvious that the application was good, and indicated that I would have made a perfectly good editor. Not being told why I was rejected made me feel ignored and annoyed, and I would think that many people would feel the same, which is why I still say that DMOZ rejects many potentially good editors through their own practise of turning people against them, by ignoring them.

 

So my constructive suggestion is the same as it was back then:- When an applicant looks like s/he will make a good editor, tell them why they were rejected, and make positive and personal suggestions about re-applying; e.g. "Apply for a much smaller category, and I'm sure you will be accepted." Obviously it can't be done for everyone, or you'd get people having other people correct their spelling, grammar, etc. for the next application, and you'd end up with bad editors.

 

But then I really don't think anything will change. It never did, and I guess it never will.

 

 

About the topic of this thread:

 

The original aim of DMOZ was never realised, due to the unanticipated growth of the Web, and the lack of active editors. The aim became impossible to accomplish, and the pages that refer to it really should be brought up to date.

[shadow575]

Part of the application process is in showing you can identify the types of sites that are listed and listable. If an application is rejected for reasons other than the most common specific comments are included. If an applicant can't identify and correct the problems with an application from the standard list of most common ones what does that say about their ability to identify those problems in the directory?

 

When an applicant looks like s/he will make a good editor, tell them why they were rejected, and make positive and personal suggestions about re-applying; e.g. "Apply for a much smaller category, and I'm sure you will be accepted." Obviously it can't be done for everyone, or you'd get people having other people correct their spelling, grammar, etc. for the next application, and you'd end up with bad editors.

If the application looks like the editor would make a good candidate the application is accepted. The application is rejected when there are two many problems to determine if they would make a good candidate or not.

[PhilC]

If the application looks like the editor would make a good candidate the application is accepted

Perhaps it's changed a bit. It certainly wasn't true back then.

 

If an applicant can't identify and correct the problems with an application from the standard list of most common ones what does that say about their ability to identify those problems in the directory?

That argument doesn't work. Not only doesn't it work for the example I gave, since there weren't any corrections to be made, but canned responses are impersonal, and when a person has spent hours putting an application together, canned responses are aggravating enough to turn people away with a sour taste in their mouths. And, quite frankly, I don't believe what you said. I don't believe that using the canned response to discover what the mistake was in an application is part of the test. I'm not saying it isn't true - I'm saying that i don't believe it.

 

But there's no point in going through it all again. DMOZ people are perfectly free to do whatever they want with DMOZ, and it's nobody else's concern. The post asked for constructive suggestions to increase the number of active editors, without reducing the quality of the directory, and I gave one - that's all. DMOZ has always been its own worst enemy when it comes to the shortage of editors, and there's no reason to think that it will change.

[shadow575]

That argument doesn't work. Canned responses are impersonal, and when a person has spent hours putting an application together, canned responses are aggravating enough to turn people away with a sour taste in their mouths. And, quite frankly, I don't believe what you said. I don't believe that using the canned response to discover what the mistake was in an application is part of the test. I'm not saying it isn't true - I'm saying that i don't believe it.

The argument doesn't work for you and thats fine. A good application can be put together easily in 10 minutes. Being able to identify from the list of common mistakes which ones were made and correcting them shows an understanding of the processes.

 

In my opinion the keys to a good application are:

1. Be honest-say who you are and why you want to be an editor and declare your affiliations clearly.
   
2. Choose a category that is small enough for a new editor. Something with less than 100 listed sites for example.
   
3. Offer up 2-3 sample sites that a) actually belong in that category, b) don't all belong to you, and c) don't contain hyped or keyword stuffed titles and descriptions.
   
4. Demonstrate a good grasp of the language for the category you applying too. Spelling and grammar are part of that.
   

I personally was rejected several times and only on the last one was anything specifically commented on. I didn't take any of the rejections personally, just did my best to improve on the next attempt. So whether you believe it or not, I am proof that part of the process is figuring it out for your self. I can look back now at that last application and see just how bad it still was. Believe me it was far from a perfect application but apparently I showed enough to the reviewer to give me a chance.

[Callimachus]

As points 1&2 were responded too I'll respond to #3

 

3. You never hear things like "traffic at google up 10% this quarter, while yahoo slips 9%, but DMOZ is close on their heals up 50%!"

 

Maybe because everyone watches Google and Yahoo since they are commercial entities who make money for themselves and indirectly for their clients. ODP has no such mission or mandate and so those who crow about traffic in such a context (equating it with profitibility) ignore ODP - which is fine as we aren't a commercial venture.

[PhilC]

I personally was rejected several times and only on the last one was anything specifically commented on. I didn't take any of the rejections personally, just did my best to improve on the next attempt. So whether you believe it or not, I am proof that part of the process is figuring it out for your self. I can look back now at that last application and see just how bad it still was. Believe me it was far from a perfect application but apparently I showed enough to the reviewer to give me a chance.

If it was that bad, I wouldn't have let you in. Your experience is proof of what you said, but it isn't proof that impersonal, canned responses aren't taken personally, and turn potentially good editors away. I can assure you that many people really don't appreciate being treated that way, after putting a good amount of time into it. They see it as tantamount to an insult - which it is.

 

As I said, DMOZ has always been its own worst enemy when it comes to the shortage of good editors, and, from what you've said, it still is. I don't expect any changes.

 

Incidentally, a good application can't be put together in 10 minutes. *You* may be able to do that now, but anyone who is new needs to take time over it, and the largest amount of time is spent in finding new sites that are suitable for the category. Perhaps with some categories they can be found quickly, but with many categories, they aren't all that easy to find.

[lmocr]

Incidentally, a good application can't be put together in 10 minutes.

I beg to differ. I applied just a little over a year ago. I was and still am very familiar with the category I applied for - Paint Horse Breeders in Washington state. I ran across the directory when I was publicizing the web site my daughter had made for our ranch. It took me about five minutes to put together an application, including finding sites to list - since there were only 12 listings at the time (and horror of horrors, I didn't even know there were guidelines at that time).

 

I was accepted based on that application. It's not quite the same style as I write now - since I've learned about the guidelines, but it's still very close. I just described the businesses according to the websites - without trying to sell anything. I think that's the key - my daughter writes all our advertising copy, because if I did we wouldn't sell any horses.

 

There's quite a difference between my

9 year old Arab gelding for sale

and her

Sun is a typey Registered Arabian gelding. He has shown English pleasure, western pleasure, and stadium jumping up to 3'. He qualified for and competed in the blues at the Western Washington State Fair. Sun has a lot of trail miles and has done some endurance riding. He would excel in three day eventing, endurance, or at breed shows with the right owner. Sun is not recommended for a beginner even though he is a very sweet horse. Would probably be ok for an advanced beginner who has confidence. Has never had any health issues, sells healthy and sound.

It's the same thing with ODP descriptions

[chaz7979]

Instead of going out of your way to counter every signle point that is made, why not just stop and think about it for a second.

 

Ask yourself this.... have we turned away potential editors that could have been great with very minimal direction? The answer will be yes. End it there. Think of a way to fix it, or at least allow the powers that process applications see this thread.

 

Maybe because everyone watches Google and Yahoo since they are commercial entities who make money for themselves and indirectly for their clients. ODP has no such mission or mandate and so those who crow about traffic in such a context (equating it with profitibility) ignore ODP - which is fine as we aren't a commercial venture.

 

My point was missed again. The point wasnt about SE hype and news, it was the fact that you can do more good by influencing the more widely used resources.

[PhilC]

I did say that "Perhaps with some categories they can be found quickly, but with many categories, they aren't all that easy to find", lmocr