Doesn't this just piss you off?

they need to hire tom cruises' old PR dude

 

Here is a rather dumb question why is it that from what I have seen for the last 3+ years that it don’t seem like any one knows what each other is doing and the guidelines seem to be very loose as in it seems like there made as you go along.

 

Many of the guidelines need updating or clarifying. Plus practices, as opposed to guidelines, are developed in internal forums. That is also where guidelines that confuse editors are debated and clarified. Editors are generally sure of what they are doing but the practices and clarifications are not always incorporated into the guidelines promptly, if at all. It is a flaw in the system IMO as it can sometimes appear that guidelines are being ignored/flouted/made up on the fly when they have not been.

 

How do you know how much communication there is between editors? Are you an editor? Stop stating your speculations as fact. Find out!

To answer this question for the person that needed clarification.

First Yes I know a few friends that are editors.

Second you don’t need to work for a company or be part of a group to see or get the feeling things could be run a lot better.

Look at the stock market does some one need to know much about a company to know if a company is doing well or bad.

Even the person that posted before this post pointed this out and he is an editor.

 

I don't know who that was directed to, SEO-MAN, but if you meant brizzie he is a recently retired DMOZ editor.

 

Some one felt the need to give me rep for my post so I felt it was right to answer the person question.

If he was a retired editor I still feel that he would have some sort of knowledge as to how things are being run or were being run.

 

Oh. The problem is no one else would get that except the person who red-repped you, and maybe not even that person, but thanks for clarifying.

 

You’re very welcome I just felt some one had a question for me so it was only right to answer the person.

 

In case the question has been answered, please forgive me for not reading all the way through this. This is not a very interesting topic, and it's painful to read each post, so I'll cut straight to the chase...

I am a DMOZ editor. I'm not a meta, but I'll answer this the best I can.

First off, many sites END UP like this - having begun as a decent page. Either the domain dies, or gets wholesaled. It may also be a deliberate trick by someone who purchased the domains. (already in DMOZ - what a selling point) A potential case of "the old switcheroo"

Second - I can't stress enough - DMOZ is a super slow moving machine, especially when the category does not have an editor. There are categories which go untouched for years, and the automated tools which do exist in DMOZ are not intelligent enough to unreview sites like this. (necessarily)

Third - probably the most important point - when something is IN the system, it's there for a very long time. It takes months sometimes for a new listing to appear, and the same holds true to drop an old listing. The action may be performed, but until the site is crawled and updated, it's just a waiting game.

I've approved sites that didn't show up for 3 months. I've deleted sites that didn't disappear for 2 months. These are MY worst case scenarios, but not necessarily THE worst case scenarios.

I doubt this is a case of back pocket editor. There's just a lumbering ball of crap that's working against the DMOZ plumbing. There's tons of submissions, and not enough people to handle them. (or maybe I should say, not enough "motivated" people) It's most likely just a collection of relics from better days. I can't prove that, just trying to be optimistic.

 

DMOZ has a plumbing?

I thought it was just bunch of corrupt "senior" editors shitting freely all over the guidelines.

 

Of course. How do you think they do all those dumps?

 

I don't know. I'm just a "regular" editor. Evidently, as an outsider, you know more than I do.

 

From what I have seen in DMOZ, It is a free range style and they just take a dump over what ever guideline they feel like.

 

Oh, I didn't know I am addressing an Editor, please inform us about DMOZ. It is not every day that I get a chance to have the great honor of talking to a DMOZ editor.

 

solid7, gworld is playing with you. He has an editor account himself. Or two. Or three. Or...

 

Solid7, gworld is just playing with you, he is an editor but he doesn't exactly follow the rules, he has his own somewhat radical opinions.

I can tell by your post that you are either a newish editor or maybe not all that active. DMOZ has editor only forums where you can go to learn a lot more about everything, including automated tools and how long it takes for additions and deletions to show up on the public side. (usually no more than a day or two)

PM me with your editor name if you like, we can talk if you need help.

 

Party pooper.

 

I just took him/her for someone with a negative attitude. I'm no DMOZ expert, but when someone is bent on having an opinion, I just let them have it. No matter to me. [shrug]

New editor? No. Active? Definitely not. My real life interferes with most of my "free" time. I lurk around the editor only forums. It's how I do most of my learning. (on every aspect of DMOZ - everything from the inner workings to identifying the curmudgeons)

I spend 80+ hours a week working from home. I get a bit of goof-off time in edgewise. That's how I managed to become an editor. When business is slow, a editin' I go...

 

In the end, it looks like DMOZ is a victim of it's own premise. That this could be done properly by volunteers might have seemed plausible back in the day when there were only a couple million pages on the web, but now it’s just not possible.

DMOZ has become a tool of business. As such it needs to be more responsive. It needs to be run like a business, even as a not-for-profit. This would create the incentive necessary for the editors to actually do what they are supposed to do. It would also create incentive for people to become editors. If you charged $5 to include a URL it would work out better. I'd be more than happy to pay $5 so my site could get listed in a reasonable period of time. Given the use of DMOZ by other entities as well as the searching public that would be $5 well spent. Paying nothing, and getting nothing in return isn't nearly as good a deal.

 

That is a feasible theory.

Equally feasible, but the Wikipedia experience of volunteer projects shows that this type of endeavour can flourish. The management model would have to change in DMOZ though.

Business does use it as a tool. That doesn't mean that is what it actually is.

No, no, no. There is a place in the Internet for a volunteer driven non-commercial source of information that is specifically NOT responsive to business but is responsive to its users and editors. DMOZ is not really succeeding at that.

No, it needs to be run like a volunteer project on the Open Source model.

It is an excellent deal. You've paid nothing, lost nothing. Compare to Yahoo where you can pay and still not get in.