Stop defending DMOZ

ok, I would tend to agree that keeping existing listings current adds more value to the directory than adding one site (but that is just my opinion).

But what our "friend" here was proposing was that the editor should be fired for just doing one addition every few months. And that firing, IMO, doesn't help the directory any.

(I tend to spend most of my editing time actually checking for obsolete, non-functioning and redirected sites, together with processing update requests, than I do on new submissions, so I try to walk the walk, as well as talking the talk )

 

Do the editors ever communicate to each other, about being active and working and such? Just wondering if it's seen as a problem on ODP that so many sites go so long without being looked at. I know its a free directory, and all the editors work for free (an admirable thing by the way) - but it's such a big deal to get listed there that you'd figure they'd get proactive about their main problem (new listing reviews) instead of hiding / avoiding their problems by not giving any feedback.

 

WARNING: This post may contain traces of the ODP guidelines.

There are internal forums for editors where team efforts are co-ordinated, second opinions asked for, etc. Some editors use them more than others.

The measure that it used from the point of view of the quality of the directory is how many sites get added to it, plus how many bad sites are taken out - in other words, the total number of functioning sites listed.

Using the above as our measure, you will see that the main problem that the ODP faces is that of sites that are listed being changed in some way that would make them not listable - this means either hijacked, expired or non-functioning. ODP editors are told to look at the quality of what is listed, rather than the sum total of websites that could be listed, of which the URL suggestions are just one source.

So if I, as an editor, add 5 new quality sites to the directory today, whether they came from the suggestion pool, or from URLs I got from the local newspaper, the directory is 5 sites the richer.

I hope this makes sense.

 

It is discussed internaly by DMOZ editors. And although we would like to be able to handle genuine suggestions faster as we can do know we don't see the number of suggestions waiting as a problem neither do we see the time they have to wait as a problem. As Alucard already wrote our main interest is adding quality sites (the suggestion pool is only one of many sources for us to find such sites) and to keep the current listings of quality. We know that there are many examples to be found of listed sites that don't live up to the quality we want and we appreciate any help we can get to find these sites (use the update sugegstion link at DMOZ or the special thread at the DMOZ public forum). As you can understand the bigger DMOZ grows the more time thius quality control will cost, so if we are going to change things speed of quality control will be amongst them.

 

Let me give an example of how a site can be listed quickly in DMOZ.

I have a friend who breeds dogs. They asked me to build a website for them, so I did. I explained to them that rather than just slap up a site that said hi there, we breed xxx dogs, here they are, come and buy some, That they focus on making a damn good resource that will attract natural links, and be seen as an expert site.

We got our heads together an we had a site with pages of common illnesses, breeding problems, hip scoring VKD etc. We pulled together respected articles by top breed vets. We added a Q&A section, we added images of dogs, wrote articles about how the breed was being split by the UK kennel club a guest book, links to other quality sites etc.

Anyhow, to cut a long story short, the editor of the category for this type of dog had heard about the site, and contacted these epoeple to ask when it would be ready and if they could have a sneak preview.

More or less, the moment the site went live it was added to DMOZ. There was NO fiddling, no pally pally, just an editor who loved the category and did what was best for that category by adding a quality site.

 

So, someone (who I assumed was dvduval but am probably wrong), as you have presumably found it appropriate to red rep me with the comment "idiot" instead of addressing the point, would you care to actually answer my question? I am legitimately trying to understand what the point is, not poking fun at the issue or anything like that. What, exactly, is the point that is being made?

 

Thanks for some nice examples.

Keep doing, what you are doing.

 

Thank you all DMOZ editors.
Thank you for the red reps and some meaningless coments to go with.

I truly pity some red reps and their coments.

Keep up with good work.

 

I have had a couple of grey reps in this thread. I think they are attempted reps that can not give rep for whatever reason.

I love this rep thing it is so funny

 

I have had some contact with Sarah. She is a highly reputable and respected editor and, I am certain, totally honest with declaring her affiliations. As long as an editor is honest about their affiliations (internally via a reporting system) there is no problem about that.

Personally my record for adding a site has been under 2 minutes from the suggestion being made to it being listed. Pure chance - I was editing a category and it arrived as the page refreshed. It can and does happen very fast in some categories. In others it can take years. It depends on the level of editor interest in a particular subject area.

Can an editor add a site with which they are affiliated. Absolutely yes if they have the rights to edit in the category where it would be listed, that is totally within the guidelines. What they can't do is just add sites they are affiliated to - that is abuse. Nor can they ask another editor to list their site if they don't have rights to edit in the category where it would be listed - that would be asking for favourable treatment and would be abuse.

Now if you know where to look you can find out how many edits some editors have done as a matter of public record. Sarah has added over 4750 new sites in her time as an editor. Given the mere handful of sites she is associated with it seems a more than fair deal for her thousands of hours of free labour spent on the project that she should be allowed to list those sites if they qualify. She is an anonymous star for several thousand webmasters who have no idea she has listed their site. Still, you might say, an editor should not be allowed to list their own site or it is abuse. Too bad, them's the rules and I think most reasonable people would agree them. And the views of a webmaster with a mediocre site in an oversubscribed area of the web with a bad case of sour grapes are not really of any consequence.

sridhar kondoji - I took a look at your site and I give you an objective assessment that is not influenced at all by your unwarranted behaviour towards an editor. Not only is it in an area of business that very few editors have any interest in but it is markedly uninteresting in the extreme, offering no more than thousands of sites on the same theme. That means that (a) the time for review will be a long long time as there are thousands of competitors all after attention and few editors bothered about them, and (b) when it is reviewed the chances of it offering anything truly unique and original to convince an editor to list it are minimal.

I would rather spend my time building up categories listing key local resources for a town which includes real estate sites, or health resource sites, or maybe online craft shops. Things that are really original and truly useful to people. I am afraid that sites like yours are somewhere around 1,000,000th on my list of priorities and, I suspect, even lower on the priorities of other editors. Why isn't that a problem for us? Because I also suspect that the surfing public, our users, would rather prefer us to be working on small towns, health resources, and online craft shops. Webmasters might want to impose other priorities on us, but then I don't think we care about that too much.

 

Ahh, great post. Feedback like that would be an invaluable asset to the DMOZ team, but having said that feedback in that manner would take even more time away from reviewing sites.

While it doesn't bring joy sitting around and waiting, hoping, and praying to be listed not knowing if your site has even been looked at, I suppose we can't have both. Thanks for your feedback.

By the way, how do we (if possible) find out how active the category your looking at is being edited?

 

There isn't really a way of finding out. You can study the public page to see if it moves but this does not reveal what is going on in the background. For example I might visit a category with 100 sites waiting for review. I might skim those 100 for obvious spam and when I leave there are 82 waiting for review. I might go deeper and remove some more mirrors and move some misplaced ones. 48 waiting. More than half the waiting sites processed and no movement visible.

Here is the best way to tell. Ask yourself if this is a subject that if you were an editor you would be interested in as a web surfer not a webmaster. Be honest. Even if you are an affiliate travel agent are you really interested in reviewing 30,000 other affiliate travel agent sites to find one that isn't?

The categories with most activity are the ones that the typical web surfer looking for information would be most interested in. Because editors are a broad cross-section of web surfers. We grow at a net rate of about 20,000 sites a month. Someone somewhere with RDF dumps one month apart could probably work out where those additions are coming from - maybe a neat exercise for someone interested in statistics.

But even then it wouldn't mean much - the following month the activity might be entirely different. Editors regularly run exercises and competitions that specifically target a particular area. How many sausage sites can you review in a weekend. Lets get rid of all waiting suggestions in ladies pantyhose. I once did an exercise to add every school in a particular state and on another occasion picked a small country and added every single website operated from or about that country. It is totally random.

 

Well, my niche is in the Ford Mustang section, and even the biggest 3 sites in the industry aren't listed. Theirs alot of good, quality, informative sites that belong in the category. I applied to be an editor, got a response back promptly in a couple days (wow), unfortunately I was turned down. Probably because of a conflict of interest.

 

Good defense. Many editors here already defended her and you have just upped that count.

Understood. Thanks again. We need editors like you.

Where is the prrof that this not happening already?

Thanks again to you and for sarah.

Million thanks. Finally my site got touched. I am moved by your interest in my website. Do you even understand the word 'Bulawa'? No, you don't. This is basically a urdu language word and very well known in India. That word means invitation.
My website has some specific invitation categories for Hindus/Muslims, which any other website including Evite doesnot provide. If you had spent some quality time viewing my website and had patience to compare it with other similar websites, you could have had a different opinion about my website.
But again, thanks for touching my website.

My website may not have a unique content/service according to you, but uniquely addresses the needs of some communities.

While iam making this post, a user from India invited 67 members for his wedding party using my website. But you don't care anyways.

If you tell me that my website doesnot offer unique services, i can find
scores of websites with similar content on DMOZ.

Thanks for editing sites. Keep doing it.
thanks

 

As a lot of other sites in DMOZ already have similar content, then yours does not have unique content, so why would DMOZ want to list it?

 

Birdie,
Don't chip in and pick a line and make a new post.

I have sent my response point by point to that poster. Let him answer that.

Look at my website again and see if you can find a duplicate content?
I have hired an article writer. Content is unique. Take another look.

 

He didn't say your content was duplicate, he said your site isn't in a very interesting niche and that it doesn't appear to be an interesting design.

 

I am not taking sides here, but there is a big difference between having unique content , and improving the quality of the directory by inclusion. I did take a look at your site yesterday, and the fact was that I got the gist of it, but didn't know enough about the subject matter to pass judjement, so I didn't

If you submit your site to the correct category, then the editor will know a lot more than I , and will know in an instant if your site is worthy of inclusion.

 

Thanks for the first best response.
I don't want to spam ODP. I already did submit it to a category after hours of discussion on resource-zone.
Thanks

 

People adding sites they are affiliated to? Of course it happens - it is within the guidelines. People abusing their position? That happens too, it is why we have an abuse procedure and editors are removed. Has Sarah added sites she is affiliated to? Quite possibly, I don't know but if she did then that is OK. Has she abused her position by doing so? Quite patently not by the number of sites she has added compared to those she is associated with. She deserves an unreserved apology from you for so implying.

And what makes you think that? The point is that of course you will think your site is great - it is your site. And it may have unique aspects but from an editor perspective it remains distinctly unexciting in a grossly oversubscribed field. Its uniqueness does not shine out, grab you, and say "list me now". The subject matter is not one that grips editors and the site itself doesn't grip one either. I could lie to you and tell you it is a wonderful site and a fascinating area that editors will be working on tomorrow. But that wouldn't help you to move on would it. In my time as an editor I guess I have looked at maybe 50-60,000 sites - when you have seen that many you get an instinct for what is good and what is just mediocre. And it takes a lot to stand out from the crowd - loads and loads of great quality original material. I clicked a few links on your site and was, frankly, disappointed with the quantity and quality. Honest opinion, no holds barred.

No I don't, you are correct, it did not hold my attention. And that is what you need it to do - not for the sake of an editor review as in this field that will be a long time coming in all probability, but to get many more actual customers to visit and use it. Then a DMOZ listing doesn't matter.

Well you contradict yourself there. If you can find scores of websites with similar content on DMOZ then it shows your site does not have unique services. And the point of DMOZ is not to list every competitor in every field but to list a representative sample such that we capture as best we can every piece of unique material. A rehash of the same or similar material doesn't add anything to the project. The project is about information not about promoting competition and doesn't attempt to replicate what a search engine can do in terms of choice of identical or similar services. And not to list or even examine potential sites in an oversubscribed area when by your own admission scores of similar sites are already listed does not add up to anywhere near abuse. What is means is that editors are using their time more productively in areas where there are not scores of similar sites listed. Like Smalltown USA where we haven't yet listed a single site. Or a great site containing new information on a cancer treatment. Or a site for someone who handcarves pepper mills from driftwood.