How will I know when my site is reviewed.

[hutcheson]

when one can see competitors listed here and your site is not it gives them an clear advantage and that is not right

 

A lot of people think that. But it cannot possibly be a useful definition of ethics.

 

Here's why. Nobody could ever feed a starving kitten without first providing milk to all the hungry kittens of the world. And nobody could ever add the first site to the directory, if they had to make sure all the site's competitors were listed.

 

So then, is it wrong to feed a starving kitten? That would be absurd.

 

Is it right to be prevented from doing something good because some other good thing might not happen simultaneously? Again, that would be absurd.

 

No, it is right, it is good, it is ethical, for me to find ALL of your competitors and add them to the directory, as rapidly as I can....without being concerned at all whether your site is listed. Because regardless of which order I add sites, ONE of them is going to be last. If it's yours, that's fine: if it's not yours, that's fine also.

[hutcheson]

Unless the site was developed as a hobby supported by personal resources, one has to be concerned with traffic, because without it you will quickly run out of money to invest in further development.

 

If you aren't committed to doing the site without an ODP listing, do not suggest it for an ODP listing.

 

It would be much better for us (the editors) to focus on those sites that the owner has committed to. (Of course, we can't generally tell which ones those are....)

[wordmaven]

@pvgool: I do understand what you have said, and have responded to every point that you have mentioned. You have repeated your assertions, but there is no indication that you have read what I have written, and there is nothing more that I can think of to add on those points.

 

I will say in response to your latest message that I rely on other people every hour of every day, in a multitude of ways, and could not possibly get along without them.

 

@others: I have to admit that I have not read any messages from DMOZ editors that expressed a strong desire to be helpful to those making suggestions. One person actually posted that DMOZ editors were hobbyists who collected Web sites the way other people collect stamps, and tried to disabuse people of the notion that they were attempting to be of service to those making suggestions. Certainly, the site does provide a service to both suggesters and to the general public, but that may not be the reason that editors participate.

 

Being volunteers, there is no reason that editors would have to be interested in making the site more helpful and friendly to those making suggestions. But volunteers often are motivated by a desire to assist others, and I suspect that there are those at DMOZ who do have that motivation. If so, I hope that those editors will consider the suggestions that I have made earlier in this thread.

[pvgool]

Being volunteers, there is no reason that editors would have to be interested in making the site more helpful and friendly to those making suggestions. But volunteers often are motivated by a desire to assist others, and I suspect that there are those at DMOZ who do have that motivation. If so, I hope that those editors will consider the suggestions that I have made earlier in this thread.

Ofcourse editors want to improve DMOZ. Improvements can be classified from high to low importance.

1. those that improve the directory

2. those that make work for editors easier

3. those that will help our customers (that is the people who use our directory either directly or indirectly)

4. those that will help the people suggesting websites (notice that these people are not our customers)

 

One person actually posted that DMOZ editors were hobbyists who collected Web sites the way other people collect stamps,

yes this is a good comparison

Editors collect links to websites. One day a number of editors decided to combine their collections and to share that large collection with other people. The directory was born.

The option to suggest websites can be seen as an advertisment "Hi, I am collecting websites do you know of any that would fit into my collection."

When you let me know of such a website I thank you on screen "Thanks for bringing this website under my attention, I'll check if it will fit in my collection"

 

DMOZ does not provide a service to people who suggest websites. Those people provide a service to DMOZ.

[jimnoble]

Those people provide a service to DMOZ.

Or all too often, not

(I'm thinking of the guys that insist on cleaning your car windows at red traffic lights.)

[hutcheson]

I have to admit that I have not read any messages from DMOZ editors that expressed a strong desire to be helpful to those making suggestions.

 

True. And that's very important. The project is based on volunteers who have a strong desire to be helpful to surfers. People who are LOOKING for sites, not people who are promoting them.

 

Sometimes there's a small congruence of common interest between those two desires. Sometimes there's a perfect conflict of interest. It really doesn't matter which. But regardless of the desires of those who suggest sites, the ultimate--and only--rule is, what helps the surfer.

 

Sometimes suggestions can be useful in figuring out how to help the surfer. Sometimes they are not. When they're not useful then ... that's OK, some suggestor wasted time that could have been used helping surfers.

 

But the submittal policy keeps that site suggestor being a problem. He can't suggest that site (or any "related" site, which includes a site affiliated with the same people) again. He doesn't need help to not suggest that site again: he can prevent himself from suggesting it again. The ODP doesn't need him to suggest it again, and so the ODP ESPECIALLY doesn't need ANYONE helping him suggest it again.

 

So what help does he still need?

[charlottewebb]

Come on people, all us non-editors are asking for is a simple bit of human courtesy.

 

 

We would just like to know, within a reasonable amount of time, whether or not somebody has even looked at our suggestion.

 

 

I could have done something wrong (when submitting), pressed the wrong button...whatever, or, god forbid, you may have done something wrong or the computer crashed, and according to your rules, I wouldn't know, you haven't even seen my "suggestion" at all, for...three hundred and sixty five days!!!

 

Give or take.

 

 

Is it just me, or is there something inherently wrong here?

 

 

It seems to me, with all the time you have spent arguing with everyone, (just on this one thread), you could have been doing much more productive things.

 

 

 

 

Aside from this one problem, albeit quite big, DMOZ is the best directory on the web. That is why we get disgusted. Plus, I do realize that most of the editors are volunteers, and most of you are great people to take the time to do this for free. Thank you.

 

 

Just though I'd throw my piece of in, to see who else explodes. jimnoble

[pvgool]

Come on people, all us non-editors are asking for is a simple bit of human courtesy.

And so do we. Please read all the previous answers. They are still the same and also comply to you. They are the truth. Or do you wish that we tell you the answers you want to hear but that are not the truth.

 

you could have been doing much more productive things.

Yes. And most of them have nothing to do with DMOZ at all.

[motsa]

It seems to me, with all the time you have spent arguing with everyone, (just on this one thread), you could have been doing much more productive things.

Time spent here in this forum isn't necessarily time any of us would have spent doing something else ODP-related. More likely, it's time we would have been spending at other sites or, hey, spending with our families and our Real Lives.

 

Aside from this one problem, albeit quite big, DMOZ is the best directory on the web. That is why we get disgusted. Plus, I do realize that most of the editors are volunteers, and most of you are great people to take the time to do this for free. Thank you.

All editors are unpaid volunteers.

[charlottewebb]

And so do we. Please read all the previous answers. They are still the same and also comply to you. They are the truth. Or do you wish that we tell you the answers you want to hear but that are not the truth.

 

 

Yes. And most of them have nothing to do with DMOZ at all.

 

 

 

Who said anything about truth:confused:? And I was only talking to editors.:lightbulb

Maybe you should read the comments starting from page one, not just the few above. The sum total of this thread is what I am commenting on!

[gloria]

First, one major error that non-editors make is viewing ODP as a listing service. We aren't and have never claimed to be one. We gather sites from a number of sources, the suggestions, Google other search engines, directories and portals, real life. And frankly, the suggestions are frequently the worst source of sites. Yes, it might take years before a site is reviewed. I remember the days before the spammers found us. I was delighted when I found a new suggestion. Today, in some categories, one out of a hundred suggestions might be eligible for a listing. New editors are frequently stunned when they first take a look at the suggestion pool.

 

In the early days of this forum, we did give status checks. We thought that it would be helpful if people knew that their suggestion was waiting in the suggestion pool, or that someone had taken a look at it. If it wasn't listable, we told people why it wasn't. I, among others, thought it would be very helpful to the public and that when we saw how to work it best, that we'd make a request to AOL that it be included. Oh boy, was I wrong. People wanted to argue. They didn't want to know that we didn't list drop-ship sites, or SMC sites, MLM sites, sites with content blatantly copied from an authoritative site or fraternal mirrors of a site that was already listed. They wanted to argue that we should list those sites. Their site in particular. It was quite rare to actually explain why a site was not eligible for a listing and have that person find it to be helpful. We also told spammers and similar people exactly how we figured out that their site wasn't listable and inadvertently helped them to make "better" sites.

[charlottewebb]

Gloria, I appreciate what you said, I can totally understand the type of abuse you and others (editors) must have taken.

 

It seems as the shoe is on the other foot now, in a sense.

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but my biggest gripe, with this forum in particular, is how some of the questions are answered. I was, and still am, shocked at the rude and ignorant way in which some of the editors/mods choose to interact with us.

 

It's not my fault that what you wrote has happened. However, I feel like I'm, and others, are bearing the backlash of it, undeservedly. (not by you)

 

Have you read any of the posts? Most, not all, are just polite people looking for polite answers, but instead they get anything but. I also realize there are some very rude people on my end also, and there is no excuse for that either.

 

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the way it is is not working.

[gloria]

Yes, I read every post in every thread in the General, Submission, and Becoming an Editor forums and also in most of the others.

 

You would probably be amazed at how many posters are people we indirectly know from their submissions, etc. We've had people come here and say "I have submitted my site 3 times." Um, it was closer to 100 or even more, and was also to several dozen categories. We've had people continue to suggest sites, even though we've directly asked them not to suggest their site again. You'd be amazed at how many "polite" people are actively trying to abuse the system.

 

Also, much of the tone in posts is in the eye of the beholder. English is not the first language for many of the posters here, both editor and non-editor. I've learned not to place too much emphasis on the tone of posts here and elsewhere in forums.

[The Old Sarge]

As to the comments about the "truth" vs a "lie" ...

 

Quite frequently, when a non-editor does not get the answer they are looking for, they want to agrue. When they don't hear what they want to hear, they suggest or even demand that the rules change. They simply refuse to accept the legitimate answers. Hence the question, "Would you rather have a lie?" i.e. What you want to hear even if it's not true?

[hutcheson]

It seems to me, with all the time you have spent arguing with everyone, (just on this one thread), you could have been doing much more productive things.

 

 

We don't see it as "arguing". We see it as "education". Only when it becomes obvious that the student is intractable does education become "unproductive".

[wordmaven]

Well, this has been a fascinating discussion. Gloria's comments have been the most helpful to me, and what she has said confirms what I have suspected all along:

 

1. Yes, some of the editors have been very short with legitimate content providers and others who have suggested sites, but

2. The main reason for such behavior is the enormous burden of noisy demands placed upon those editors by spammers, which has caused Open Directory editors to choke down communications with suggesters to a bare minimum

 

I also think that some editors secretly feel bad about the legitimate suggesters who have been inadvertently harmed by policies intended to screen out spammers, and so have developed a kind of ideological shell that comes off as very dogmatic, including things like denying that a DMOZ listing has any effect upon content providers, and claiming that information about the status of a request can have no legitimate value to those requesting it. And I do think that it would be possible to provide a simple system for letting people know one way or the other about a listing decision, as I have suggested earlier in this thread, and I believe that resistance to that idea is just part of the hard shell that the editors have had to develop in order to deal with the spammers.

 

But anyway, I do empathize with the editors quite a bit, and feel that suggesters and editors are both victims of a common enemy, namely, Internet noisemakers (spammers).

 

And that about wraps it up for me. Suggesters will just have to deal with the decisions of the editors, but I hope that the editors will eventually do the few little things that can be done to make it easier for legitimate suggesters without making it easier for the spammers or harder for the editors.

[The Old Sarge]

... denying that a DMOZ listing has any effect upon content providers ...

 

Denying it has nothing to do with it as far as DMOZ is concerned. If some third party wants to lend credibility or value to a DMOZ listing, that is the business and concern of that party. Questions or comments about that would best be taken up with that party, would they not?

 

Would you give credit to the cow because the farmer chooses to make use of the cow's waste? The cow cares not at all for the benefits gained by the farmer for having done so.

[hutcheson]

feel that suggesters and editors are both victims of a common enemy, namely, Internet noisemakers (spammers).

 

I don't think anyone can argue with that.

[fstackhouse]

If I submit a listing to a catagory, my submission goes in a que. Now if that catagory has no editor, I have to wait until there is an editor for my listing to get reviewed. Also, I will not get any type of notification, If how or when My listing is rejected or approved.

So what this tells me is that If I need my site listed, I should become an editor then list my site, then quit. Is this a correct description on how DMOZ works? To me that seems to make the integrity of the database pretty corruptible. They need to rethink how this works.. It is unfair to a legit busnisess!!!!

[jimnoble]

No category has no editor. Over 200 of us can edit anywhere we wish - and we do.

 

Your proposed strategy indicates that you're missing the point of this directory and of editing within it. You seem to be merely seeking an advantage over your competitors. Now that's unfair to a legit busnisess!!!!

[fstackhouse]

I disagree. I am mearly describing how unfair the process is to site owners. I would think there would be a more efficent method for DMOZ

[pvgool]

The process is extremely fair. Everybody has the same chance to get their website reviewed. Even those websites that are not suggested at all.

And that is good as we do not provide any service to wesbsite owners.