dissapointed in DMOZ

Clarification: Annie isn't one of the editors who only logs on the requisite three times per year so she actually does get some editing done.

Note: No puppies were physically harmed in the production of her last few edits. However, three are now being treated for Post-Traumatic Pooch Disorder and three ducks and a hamster had stress-related heart attacks.

 

Whoa, a psychic psychologist, that's just plain eerie... how did you know???

Honestly, with all the attention I've given pedophilia lately my 3 huskys are feeling ignored and have started to let me know it. Especially the puppy... Thank you doctor, I think I should take a few hours and go play with the dogs for awhile.

 

"We monorail conductors are a strange breed." ~ Homer Simpson

"There are things about me you wouldn't understand. Things you couldn't understand. Things you shouldn't understand." ~ Pee Wee Herman in Pee Wee's Big Adventure

 

"DMOZ is one of the biggest directory" ~ maldives

 

Well DMOZ has a great deal of internal accountability - every action an editor takes is logged and they are answerable for their decisions - get the decisions wrong too many times, even discounting abuse, and they are on their way out the door.

Chaos? Not a bad way to describe editing patterns. There is no direction, zero, zilch, on where editors should edit. Every single editor makes their own decisions as to where to edit, what to review when they get there, how long to spend on editing, and if they want to contribute in other ways not including editing. Most editors with rights in multiple categories don't have any plan of action most of the time. Log on, now what shall I do today? Oddly, it works most of the time. Better than trying to direct editors anyway - try and direct a typical unpaid volunteer editor to a particular part of the directory and they will log off and you won't see them again.

 

You bought up the point I was actually trying to make with that quote. You stated that "Oddly, it works most of the time". Fact is if that were true we'd probably not have all these threads on every webmaster forum known to man complaining about the months/years of wait time just to get a site reviewed. I mean come on dude... years??

You're right about the editors leaving too. The ODP is just one big catch 22. The moment you try and apply order to a volunteer organization that happens to be populated by a lot of egomaniac webmasters, a large portion of which has their own agendas, they will simply quit. However the lack of order is the problem. All successful volunteer organizations have directors that make decisions and distribute direction and accountability all the way down to the bottom rung guy. The ODP's unwillingness to even try to figure out how those organizatiosn do it and follow suit is beyond me.

 

It works for editors within the objectives of DMOZ. Since DMOZ is not a listing service for webmasters it may not work for them but then it is something for nothing if you do get listed. If you don't then nothing lost. The directory is an accumulated list of sites editors found useful and people are invited to suggest websites to editors - the submission function wasn't designed just for or even primarily for website owners to submit their own sites. When submitting a site you are making an unsolicited and speculative sales pitch for inclusion and like all such pitches the person at the other end is free to use, reject, or defer even looking at it. You aren't a customer at all - if anyone is the customer then DMOZ is when it comes to whether it "buys" your material for inclusion. The cause of complaints from webmasters is because they don't understand this relationship which is the total reverse of that they might have with Yahoo or MSN. Why do they not get that message? Because DMOZ does not explain it on the submission forms and they should as it would reduce your expectations and govern your attitudes when nothing appears to happen.

The majority are not webmasters and there are no egomaniac webmasters - anyone that enters DMOZ with such an attitude is given a swift kicking. Own agendas? Not really - it is a shared belief in the concepts and principles, certainly amongst 95% of the senior editors although there may be a small handful of power-trippers. I may no longer be an editor but I still believe strongly in those even if I have issues with how they are currently put into effect.

Not for editors. The lack of order relates only to editing patterns.

In terms of scale and activity DMOZ is more or less unique. Comparisons can be made with wikipedia but they have their own problems arising from how they do things. DMOZ changes all the time in an attempt to move forward and improve - I am not happy about its current direction personally because I think it is travelling on the wrong road when it comes to priorities, but it may change back again and I would happily slot back in.

 

If that were true, and made clear to non-editors, it would be acceptable. The problem is that everywhere you look at dmoz.org, you find statements about submitting sites that imply DMOZ encourages people to submit their websites.

http://dmoz.org/about.html

http://dmoz.org/socialcontract.html

http://dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html

There is even an entire page titled Submitting a Site to the Open Directory Project.

So, we have:

1. DMOZ actively encouraging the submission of sites to the directory.

2. DMOZ actively discouraging site submitters from obtaining any information as to the status of those submissions.

3. DMOZ actively vilifying site submitters who expression confusion, bewilderment, or dissatisfaction with the submission-review process.

Dmoz creates problem. DMOZ gets defensive when problem is pointed out. DMOZ attacks those who point out the problem. DMOZ does nothing to clarify the situation. The cycle repeates itself ad infinitum.

 

brizzie;

I have heard, there are groups that helps the people who have left the cult to reverse the brain washing effects, have you looked in to that?

The organizational, internal problems including for the editors is far greater than any problem that an individual webmaster can have.
In fact, DMOZ can be the poster organization for all the dysfunctional organizations.

 

Yes it makes no sense. Unlike Zeal which had a lot more order and direction.

It made no sense to me either, but after being an editor for a while I see that it works. It's random chaos, with a bunch of smart editors that don't like to be bossed around and work on their own iniative. DMOZ continues to be the most productive directory. (maybe Yahoo works but it costs too much) Zeal is dead, other directories come and go.

Do you have figures (percentage) about how many editors are

1. normal webmasters
2. egomaniac webmasters
3. have only web site
4. do not have a web site

(or is this just a rant on your part)

 

I

Perhaps you could help after you weigh their brains.

I'm sure Mistrel could help them also, but he would have to measure their penises first.

 

In my opinion many of the best editors have no penis at all.

 

And even some of those who do apparently have no testicles

 

Maybe testicles are over-rated. I survive just fine without any. So do my male dogs.

 

Are you sure? It is a please to have some Male dogs right Annie

 

Yes, very sure. Castrated male dogs are much happier and fight less than intact male dogs.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself and it is easily, very easily, solved. I've been saying this for a long time. It isn't, apparently, a priority. I think it is. I would have been willing to lead a project to fix it, but it isn't an Admin priority. And now I'm no longer in the fold I doubt there is anyone else willing to do it.

The concept and principles are fantastic, most of the editors up to and including Admins are good people who share a belief in the concepts and principles. You, by all accounts, are an advocate of the concept and principles or why would you devote time to being an editor yourself. The way the principles and concept are implemented and prioritised right now - now that is something else. I don't believe that a committee system of management works - I prefer the concept of a single independent paid AOL employee at the helm, and I don't agree with the Admin priorities - I felt like a spare part. Interestingly the Admins have done more in the last 18 months than in all the previous history to instil more order and procedure to directory management e.g. by the introduction of a project management process. For reasons it would take an essay to explain that is one of the things I disagree with, too much order! If I was brainwashed (a) I wouldn't have left, (b) I would have returned within days like many other editors, (c) I wouldn't have been a pain in the butt to the authorities when I was an editor. At this moment in time I am enjoying being a retired editor, though there are frustrations like not being able to influence anything like a rewrite of the submission instructions. Besides someone else had to have a chance at the Most Longwinded Editor prize.

 

I agree but the execution sucks. DMOZ reminds me of revolutions in south America. Started with best intention and unselfish revolutionaries, ended up with corrupt dictatorship, run by assholes.

 

yes, interesting that the thread is now concentrated on dogs bollocks..

I think some here are so away with the fairies and the whole 'I'm an Editall' thing that they have somehow discounted how some of us 'lower down's' feel about things. That pisses me off.

You speak as a Editall. The majority of editors don't have the 'luxury' of bias for or against ANY site in the directory. We cannot edit there. We can see, we can discuss, we can voice an opinion. But can do bugger all about it. We can apply for a said category, but it may take a while and depending on edit history, relevancy, number of edits etc etc ? It's not so cut and dried as all that.

Do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong there ?

I guess I did. I'm too busy delivering babies and looking after little premmies in real life. I edit when I can as I love doing it. I've also mentioned I'm a mum of 4. Due to this I will probably never make 'editall' unfortunately. I don't have lots of hours to spare. But I do the best I can. And I do darn well in my area of expertise.

I asked specifically to editors whom I've trusted with my Dmoz editor name that my categories of choice were never reffered to here as I didn't want the ho-haa, and my cats aren't exactly too commercial in nature anyway. Kids and Teens history is my other area of choice. I said I'd probably resign if they were revealed. I think my trust was misplaced. I'm a UK midwife folks and a mum who likes History for kids.. but I did request that my cats in Dmoz remained in the background. I've been 'outed' I guess. That also pisses me off.

No luv, any other editor is NOT 'free' to come along and do that. You again speak as an editall, not an ordinary editor. See first paragraph.

And again.

Ditto.

Editall does NOT = Editor. And 100's of editors being able to 'just come in' and 'edit there too' is a gross misprepresentation. You make it all sound sooo easy. You know it's not like that.
Editor means editing the cats you've applied for and doing what you can to make them the best with the time you have as a volunteer.
But, it ALSO means seeing things like the threads that have went on here the last few months and being powerless to do anything , anything at all about it. It was rather nice to be able to vent and voice my opinions somewhere ?

The OP was flamed, I don't care what else was said. There was no need for lung disease and an anti-smoking lecture in this thread concerning a site that is tobacco related. If there's a cat for it ( as in say big boobed blondes ?), then it should be reviewed in the context. And I won't accept any justification otherwise after all the crap I've read about porn, adult sites and peadophilia internally and externally. If people surf for it, then its listable providing it fits the criteria. If this site doesn't then thats all that should have been mentioned.
Believe me, in my profession and with the cats I deal with in Dmoz, I should probably be the most anti-smoking person here. I deliver the speil, leaflets and do lectures every week on it. Dmoz-wise ? I put all that to the side in the cats I help with.

Do I have a lot to learn, yes probably ( as my most recent red rep from a fellow EDITOR tells me).. but I think some Editalls should get off their high horses, come back down to earth perhaps and listen to some ordinary editors points of view for a change. Otherwise, I guess you'll loose them. I'm teetering on the edge at the moment...but then mabye that's the idea ? I'm not exactly quiet when I disagree with policies ? Hmmmmm....

 

Shygirl - I'm not sure I understand what your complaint is...

Compostannie is 110% correct! No editor is required to list or review any site that they don't want to. For some people (an editall is one example) the choices for where not to edit are quite large. For others, the choice of where not to edit is quite small. But, even if an editor only has one small category to edit in, they are still not required to list or review a site that they don't want to.

For example, if someone submitted a site to the category you edited in, and the site was perfectly listable in that category, but it promoted something that you strongly opposed, you would have every right to not review the site.

Now, if you or anyone were to start deleting sites that you didn't like, just because you didn't like them, that would be a problem.

There are literally hundreds of editors that can edit that tobacco category...

Should Annie feel bad for being an Editall now?? She's not on some high horse, she's just stating the facts. Your entire post seems to be a rant about Annie being an editall. She worked hard, she earned it, and she does a damned fine job at it. And she deserves a fucking medal for the work she's done in the pedo category - not to be trashed for being an Editall.