1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Volunteers Need Not Apply

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by wrmineo, Dec 1, 2005.

  1. lmocr

    lmocr Peon

    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    85
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #61
    Every site that lists a link to another site is helping with seo for Google - to get it down to the most simplistic terms - can Google set guidelines for how I run my site? or how you run your site? or how the other billion or so website owners run their sites?

    Simple answer - no.

    Can Google use their guidelines to determine how these sites will show up in their SE results? Obvious answer - yes.

    Google's guidelines apply to Google's results. If I don't care how my site shows up in Google's results, why do I have to follow Google's guidelines? Change "I" and "my" to DMOZ - and you get a general feel for why DMOZ's guidelines do not mirror Google's guidelines.
     
    lmocr, Jan 26, 2006 IP
  2. Las Vegas Homes

    Las Vegas Homes Guest

    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    59
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #62
    The more obvious question should be, is since dmoz allows such spam to be listed in their directory, why does Google use them. I think as more and more spam is reported to Google and Google pays attention to these type sites also being listed in a human edited directory such as dmoz, we will soon see Google dump dmoz.

    If I sell parts to a company but I purchase them from another company, I am responsible to the company I sold the parts to. I would want to make sure that what I sold to this company met their guidelines and criteria, if I wanted to keep their business, this may be a bad example but I believe the point is understood.

    When DMOZ sells its listings to Google or gives, whichever is the case, you in reality represent that companies best interest, if you are supplying them with spam that only hurts and manipulates their search engine results then you are not representing that companies best interest.
     
    Las Vegas Homes, Jan 26, 2006 IP
  3. dvduval

    dvduval Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,369
    Likes Received:
    356
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #63
    I'm too busy building the tools that will bring about the next generation of directories to bother with DMOZ. I remember a while back I made a post about the Top List Domains in DMOZ and found my account suspended shortly thereafter. I was an editor in a non-commercial category, and had given DMOZ at least 50 hours of my time. DMOZ clearly has a bad rep now, and I don't see how they can dig themselves out anytime soon.
     
    dvduval, Jan 26, 2006 IP
  4. Las Vegas Homes

    Las Vegas Homes Guest

    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    59
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #64
    I dont want to harp on this but it pertains to some of your statement. When it becomes clear to Google that dmoz is supplying them with spammy data that manipulates their search engine, Google will dump DMOZ. Once this happens DMOZ and there present editor base will leave, leaving dmoz with nothing but a large directory of spam that means nothing to those who are listed in it.
     
    Las Vegas Homes, Jan 26, 2006 IP
  5. shygirl

    shygirl Guest

    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    65
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #65
    Never mind then, I guess we all have to move on sometimes and if that did happen I wouldn't regret my time there.

    How many editors do you have working for free on your particular directories ??? :confused:

    For the record I agree completely with Brizzie the barriers to becoming an editor are becoming far too rigid. The greenbusting idea sounds great to me and IMHO would be a really good move forward, for all concerned.
    The only thing I can say in the 'approval process' defense is that with all the frequent accusations of corruption that I guess it was inevitible.
    People cannot keep on accusing and accusing... and then expect any random applicant to be accepted without question ? You can't have it both ways guys, it doesn't make any sense ??? Or am I missing something...
     
    shygirl, Jan 26, 2006 IP
  6. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #66
    Take any directory, make it Google directory and the next day you will have 10,000 applicants who to work for you for "free". ;)

    You are always missing something. ;)

    Have procedures in place that makes it difficult for corruption and you can take as many editors as you like without being worried about corruption but we all know that stopping corruption is not an acceptable suggestion for DMOZ editors. ;)
     
    gworld, Jan 26, 2006 IP
  7. EveryQuery

    EveryQuery Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,039
    Likes Received:
    366
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #67
    LOL. I have about 4,775 less than DMOZ and yet I don't have any sites that were submitted in the 1990's still awaiting review. :D
     
    EveryQuery, Jan 26, 2006 IP
  8. jimnoble

    jimnoble Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    123
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    #68
    How do you know?

    The applicants whom I decline are
    • Liars
    • Applicants with poor comprehension skills
    • Applicants unable to write a coherent English sentence (I only process English language categories)
    • Those who only propose their own websites for the category
    • Those unable to find appropriate websites for the category
    • Applicants who have selected categories which are too large for a trainee or are abuse magnets
    To the declined applicants who show any vestige of promise, I offer constructive and specific advice.

    Which of the above do you think I should be accepting :) ?
     
    jimnoble, Jan 27, 2006 IP
    obenix likes this.
  9. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #69
    So how did you get to become an editor? :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Jan 27, 2006 IP
    EveryQuery likes this.
  10. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #70
    LOL! Back when jimnoble became an editor, those were the criteria for acceptance rather than the criteria for rejection :D
     
    minstrel, Jan 27, 2006 IP
  11. Canadianbacon

    Canadianbacon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    76
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    173
    Articles:
    1
    #71
    i can't believe you took the time to type that.
     
    Canadianbacon, Jan 27, 2006 IP
  12. riz

    riz Peon

    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    17
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #72
    What is a Top List Domain? I honestly do not know.
     
    riz, Jan 27, 2006 IP
  13. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #73
    Jim, IMO you are unquestionably the model meta editor, and the categories you list are the applicants you should reject the way the system works at present. As it stands there can be no change to the criteria. At the same time, either the standard of applicants has fallen considerably or the number of applicants has fallen considerably. Or the criteria for acceptance has increased substantially. Or the number of metas is insufficient to process new applicants/increased editor perms. Or a combination. Nothing else can explain recruitment running at well under 50% of its peak.

    If the criteria have increased, and I suspect on some scores that is the case, then that is a good thing if it reduces abuse. But it also means cutting your cloth according to the resources available because fewer editors face an increasing quality control overhead. That much is clear from (a) a decline in the rate of additions (in numbers let alone percentages), and (b) increasing evidence of quality control problems. The only way of doing that is to consider seriously the scope and extent of the directory or greatly expanding the use of automated tools. And quickly.

    If the problem is meta resources then the solution lies in creating a further class of rights, e.g. giving editalls the (limited) right to grant new permissions to existing editors - they are trusted to appoint other editors to new categories, there are ways of safely controlling the appointment of other editors to existing categories.

    If the problem lies in reduced applicants or the standard of new applicants falling then perhaps it is time to consider two of your categories mentioned above. Even if you only get half a dozen really active editors from them that is potentially 60,000 edits in a year which is a real impact.

    But how do you do that safely. Well someone who can't pick a good site can be educated to pick good sites with a bit of time. Someone who has picked too large a category or a spam-ridden category but otherwise ticks the boxes may be over-ambitious but should that mean a reject. I know some metas will advise re-applying for a smaller category. Some applicants will, some you have lost forever. But some metas won't take that time - simply reject with a the standard list of reasons to pick from. There are two relatively small changes that can be made to test these people. Firstly appoint to a category as a greenbuster from Day 1. Second appoint to a smaller or more suitable category (by negotiation) instead of letting them out of your hands.

    But all these things are thinking outside the box and that isn't within the DMOZ culture in my experience unfortunately, so I've just wasted 20 minutes writing this post. :)
     
    brizzie, Jan 27, 2006 IP
    Alucard and Las Vegas Homes like this.
  14. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #74
    Finally something that we can agree on. :)
     
    gworld, Jan 27, 2006 IP
  15. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #75
    I've changed my mind then, I must have made a mistake somewhere. ;)
     
    brizzie, Jan 27, 2006 IP
  16. jimnoble

    jimnoble Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    123
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    #76
    @brizzie:
    You might have missed this part of my post :)
    AFAICT, the other metas and catmods who process applications do the same.

    I obviously don't plan on discussing the detail of how we process applications or proposed changes to the way that we join new editors here when the proper place to do so is in the internal ODP fora.
     
    jimnoble, Jan 28, 2006 IP
  17. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #77
    Jim - I didn't miss that bit and I know an applicant lucky enough to get you process their application will get the best advice possible to re-apply. But there is a difference between persuading them to re-apply (you've let them off the hook at that point) and letting them in with stringent controls so the advice and development can come from all number of sources, not just the meta processing the application.

    You mean in the private meta forum! :D Goes along with something else I mentioned along the lines of a tendency to keep lesser editors in the dark frustrating the hell out of them when they identify an issue and make suggestions relating to them. Anyway, the suggestions are there if they are of any use or trigger other thought processes. :)
     
    brizzie, Jan 28, 2006 IP
  18. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #78
    All part of the culture of CIA-like need-to-know inner-sanctum secrecy that continues to create so many image problems for DMOZ. And the seige mentality of those in the inner sanctum means the likelihood of change is pretty close to zero.
     
    minstrel, Jan 28, 2006 IP
  19. wrmineo

    wrmineo Peon

    Messages:
    3,087
    Likes Received:
    379
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #79
    Alas, I must not have shown any promise .... it was Jim that informed me that my application was denied and I received nothing in the way of feedback. Well, at least I now know that to any powers that be at ODP I have no visible trace of worth to them so I can move on and give my time to other willing projects.

    Jim - I found you post a bit patronizing and terse to be honest. I've seen your work at RZ and other places and always held esteem for your ability to speak truthful, tactful and candid, but this has a blanket, tacit insult written into whether intended or not.

    Using me for an example, I chose a category with no editor, very small, and offered three relevant examples for inclusion, and had the sites and descriptions pre-reviewed by other senior editors. Reading your post, it seems that the reason for my rejection would have to be a subjective, biased opinion that I'm a liar or merely resolved only to self-promotion. It could be some of the other reasons you've also listed to be fair ... if that's the case, let me know so I can file suit against the University of Maryland, the University of Illinois, Austin Peay University and Troy State for monies wasted.
     
    wrmineo, Jan 28, 2006 IP
    minstrel likes this.
  20. jimnoble

    jimnoble Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    123
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    #80
    I was reporting how I process applications and you seem to be assuming that I processed yours.

    Indeed, but at RZ. I merely responded to your status enquiry there and we don't get into subsequent analysis as to why an individual application was declined.

    I could have used a less terse sentence I suppose, but the import would have been identical.
     
    jimnoble, Jan 28, 2006 IP