dissapointed in DMOZ

Nooo wayyy?!?!?! WOW.

Thanks for the heads up Enigma. I don't know if there are different data centers or what but I still can't see it on the /Shopping/Sports/Equestrian/ category.

I do see it in the regional link you provided which is better than nothing at all.

Also the search is kinda screwy... I suspect its probably a data center issue or I'm just a knob.

Search: saylessaddlery.com
No Open Directory Project results found

Search: sayles saddlery
No Open Directory Project results found

Search: www.saylessaddlery.com
No Open Directory Project results found

 

Sayles, it's listed in both categories because I can see it. It might take a little while longer for it to show up on the public side. As for the search, since your site was recently added it will take a few weeks for it to show up in a Dmoz search.

 

Thank you Enigma!

 

Absolutely, and missing those rules does not bode well.

Well I would say it is inconceivable that a meta didn't go and have a look and knew when the application was submitted. It's a natural reaction. When we used to do site status checks what is the first thing you would check? When the submission was made and if it was under 30 days you would dish out the come back in 30 days line. Besides if the application had been accepted and it was clear the guy hadn't got the email you would want to tell him, not make him wait another 14 days. Someone checked. Someone knew. Someone chose not to help the guy's faulty memory.

Absolutely. It would be a mistake to give the status within 14 days or it would create a poor precedent. It is no skin off anyone's nose to say come back in 5, 10, 12 days instead of 14 and shows a much greater degree of helpfulness. You really really want people to apply to become editors so the impression you give will influence others. Why is it 14 days? To give the metas a chance to actually review the application. If that 14 days is now 7 days away then just tell them that. What does it matter?

I didn't see outright rudeness, I saw polite bloody-mindedness. The guy says he has waited 9 days but he has broken a "rule" so I'm gonna punish him by making him wait 23 days but I am going to say that very politely. But two people looking at the same set of words can easily come to two entirely different sets of conclusions. And giving the benefit of the doubt to an experienced meta with a long history of helping new editors, it may not have been intentionally obstructive and may have been entirely well meaning. But to the questioner, to me, to experienced editors who have given green rep to my initial response, and no doubt to potential new and productive editors it *did* come over as obstructive and bloody-minded. It makes it very very important to be careful over the choice of words when responding in these circumstances that you do not inadvertently give a negative impression of DMOZ to potential new editors. That you do all you can to demonstrate going that extra mile to be helpful even if you want to strangle the questioner because they are lying through their teeth. If you can't do that then don't answer those questions because your post, in public, is what others will judge meta editors on. And it reinforces all those false stereotypes of metas being pedantic SOBs. Which they aren't.

The point here is that you are trying to attract new editors and not dealing with webmasters who think DMOZ owes them a living. 99% of editors couldn't care less if no-one ever submits another site ever again. If half the people looking at the thread think it is not in the least rude then fine and they are likely to be virtually all existing editors with a greater underlying understanding. If the other half think it looks unnecessarily obstructive, jobsworth, and penalising and that other half includes potential editors then it is damaging editor recruitment and in this context it is those views that it is important to take note of.

Why is it lesser mortals were banned from posting in Become an Editor? Because they couldn't be trusted not to say the wrong thing? Strikes me there are higher mortals who need to consider their words far more carefully.

Thank you. I might not agree with your points but it is good to see another point of view well thought out and executed .

 

Yes, thank you enigma. Just demonstrates how much difference a little helpfulness can make in turning negative attitudes into positive ones. And cost nothing.

 

Either way though... I am ready to give up on it. There are no editors for the category I want my link in. I even attempted to apply for the category 3 times now, and was polite and carefull in what I wrote.

Maybe I need to just apply for snowboarding and let shawn look it over.

 

I'm not a meta, but if they know the guy didn't submit 14 or more days ago, then it would be a waste of time for them to look since the policy clearly states that people should wait 14 days for a status check. I think I might see the problem you have with how this person's situation was handled. Do you think they are making a big deal over nothing? But, also keep in mind that what one person thinks is an ant hole, could be percieved by another to be a mole hill (lol, I don't even know if that analogy made sense). But, in plain English, what I'm trying to say is that you're saying "what's the problem," but obviously it's a problem for the other person, and I think we'd have to put ourselves in that persons shoes before we say that they shouldn't make a big deal over "nothing," because that nothing may be everything to that one person. Are you sure they checked to see if the application was waiting? I'm under the impression from reading those threads that they don't bother to check unless they the person asking knows it was at least 14 days ago. Now, I know they've told people that they are x amount of days early, which infers that they checked the application, but if I were they (Meta), then I wouldn't spend time digging up someone's application if I knew they were a few days early.

They do - when they check the application and see the poster was wrong about the date, but they already knew this poster didn't apply 14 days earlier, by his own admission, and he wasn't even sure about the correct date, so they probably didn't dig up his application to check the actual date.

I saw rudeness on the part of the poster. I think he came off as a jackass, and to be honest, people wonder why some meta at R-Z are quick to give an angry response, mostly it's because the OP said something insulting, either intentional, or unintentional. Example, I think it's in this thread where compostannie became upset that AlexP said something about "questionable behavior" in the shopping categories because his friend's site wasn't listed. Well, to the OP, that comment was probably not meant to be rude, but to the editor, it certainly was. That's what happens a lot over at R-Z, and that's why they sometimes get the angry responses they get. When you insult someone, then don't expect them to respond to you nicely, they are humans and not robots. Regular members should come to the forum and give the same kind of respect they would like to receive, and not expect to get a free pass to be rude to other members (editors or not). The situation is two-fold, show respect and you'll get respect.

Also, you mentioned in another post, can't remember which one, that the Meta’s at R-Z should have a better attitude (actually, you've said it in almost every post ) in order not to give out a bad impression of the ODP. Initially I would agree with you. But, upon further thought it occurred to me that most people who have a bad impression of the ODP are webmasters, their impressions of Dmoz and its editors is unlikely to change no matter what the attitudes at R-Z are. Let’s face it, they hate the ODP. They go to R-Z with their attitudes that will eventually elicit an unfavorable response from an editor, so I don't blame editors for giving that same attitude back. They also cough up a stink when their applications for editor are denied. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it matters if the Meta at R-Z changed their attitudes, because the majority of the people who think unfavorably of them won't change their minds - they're angry for a different reason and it's not because an editor said something mean. Actually, it's probably a good thing that R-Z is heavily moderated, because if someone insulted me as an editor (or not), then I'd give them the same attitude.

Plus, they were nice to that poster, but they also have to be blunt with him, and I completely sympathize with Meta. Since he demanded that he not wait 14 days, then he got a response saying yes he will, what would you have liked them to say? "Oh, sure, you only waited 9 days, you think, and even though you're not positive on it, we'll still give you a status update?" But, you also have to keep in mind that the reason they told him to start counting 14 days from today was because he wasn't sure if it was even 9 days ago that he applied. Sometimes to get through to people you have to be blunt with them. I agree that sometimes a nice attitude goes a long way, but sometimes it's totally called for, and I think that poster was the main one to make himself look bad, so I don't sympathize with him. Plus, as I said earlier, I think they held their tongues.

But, I'd bet anything that most people who apply to become editors with the ODP most likely don't know R-Z exist. Heck, I didn't know it existed too until months after I became an editor, and I've been an editor for almost a year now. It'd be nice if R-Z was a utopia of nothing but beautiful responses, but when someone comes to your forum and insults you, then don't expect a kind attitude back, so I also blame, in part, some of the people that post there, but then again, most people who apply for editor probably don't go to R-Z. I just have a hard time defending this guy. He should have read the forum’s policy, especially when a Meta posted it in a thread.

That's how I feel about the issue. Yes, innocent people will see the responses at R-Z and think "what a bunch of Jackasses," but I think SEO-types waaaaay out number them, so I don't think it really matters whether R-Z regulars changes their attitude or not, and I think they get what they (rude posters) get what they deserve.

Sorry for the long post on how I feel with this issue (and I know we see it VERY differently). But, if ODP communication with the public is really a problem that you think needs to be fixed, then by all means apply for reinstatement and present a proposal on it. Seems like a good idea to me.

 

Cky47, unless Shawn is a meta then he won't be reviewing your application. If you know you applied 9 days ago, then go back in 5 days and give them an exact date that you applied and all the other stuff they ask for in order to give you an application status update, just be sure to read the posting policies before you create your thread. But, if your purpose for applying for an editor is to list your own site, then be prepared to get the rejection letter. Sometimes editor applications aren't approved right away, so just be patient.

 

Yikes. I think this might be part of your problem. What is your motivation for applying? That sentence says "to list my link". Editors can and do list their own sites. But it isn't a reason to become an editor. You have applied 3 times - did you get feedback and follow it? One thing from your post is the misspelling of careful - if you made such mistakes in your application it could well have counted against you. I don't know if you should try again or not but if you do, take a note of the date and don't ask for a status report on it before 14 days. And add another day just in case. And it is best not to ask an editor to look over an application in advance - the application must be all your own work or it is not the test it is supposed to be. There are no secrets to applying to be an editor other than to read and follow carefully all of the guidelines with attention to detail.

 

orlady, please promote Enigma to meta. She's earned that with her posts in this thread alone!

 

Well, someone agrees with me, then. BTW, Enigma isn't my editor name, so if you'd just inform Orlady of what it is, then I'll be on my way to a promotion!!!

 

I seem to recall saying my bit on this before, I think in the editor forum of RZ. Other editors including metas have also complained about attitudes shown on RZ, on RZ - spend some time trawling threads in the RZ editor lounge. Generally I have the feeling that RZ is not something with very great support amongst senior echelons of DMOZ.

Doesn't really matter if the only person you are putting off is someone you don't think is going to make a good editor. The impact is on others reading the thread who will not know or understand underlying factors. Put just one of those people off and you may have lost a 100 a day editor. And what would it cost you to make a small change in the way you word things and avoid that? Nothing.

We're not talking about webmasters who think DMOZ owes them a living, or angry rejections. But people who are asking about an editor status check, a section of the forum where people interested in becoming editors may well look. For the most part these people are not those with an unfavourable view of DMOZ when they arrive.

Sorry, but several productive editors have been recruited from RZ who weren't even thinking about it when they arrived - sometimes people asking for a site status check.

No! You tell them when their 14 days are up and tell them to come back then.

I have given as good as I've got and been involved in virtual brawls in RZ, I know how difficult it can be to keep your cool with some people there. With obvious site status check liars and trolls. But never in the editor status forum. Was I wrong to respond? Yes. Why? Because at the end of the day it does not help DMOZ.

Do you care what the spammers and trolls think? No. Neither do I. Am I concerned with what the innocent people think? Yes. Particularly if they are editor material and you want to recruit them or at least not put them off. People who are first rate editor material are in a small minority but to DMOZ they are gold dust. If tongues have to be bitten to lure them in then bite the tongues.

Not so sure about that. I think we arrive at different conclusions but seem to see the same things. And that is fine, no problem at all. I happen to think that a DMOZ top priority must be to attract more quality editors and anything that appears to be a negative influence on that I believe editors should avoid like the plague. And don't play a percentages game - doesn't matter if you piss off innocent people because most of them are guilty. It does matter. One good editor can easily generate over 10,000, even 20,000, edits in their first year. I don't know if you are in that league but every year there are a handful like that and they make a big impact.

At what cost?

It does concern me greatly when editors are unconcerned about the external image of DMOZ. Mainly because it restricts new editor recruitment and therefore damages the entire project. And 99.9% is avoidable by updating and clarifying guidelines and making a few adjustments in how you communicate to potential new editors. I am not sure why it concerns me greatly since I am no longer an editor. You can take the man out of DMOZ but you can't take DMOZ out of the man perhaps. It is a great project, it could be greater.

Anyhow, you make some good impassioned points there enigma though it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Yep. You're a shoe-in. Anything but the party line goes right over your head.

 

That I will agree to. I don't see me pursuading you to change your mind, lol, and vice versa. BUT, it's not that I'm not concerned about Dmoz's reputation with people, again, my mind keeps going back to the point that most people who view Dmoz unfavorably are most likely seo-types. You see it in their forums, and I'd bet most people who do suggest sites to Dmoz don't think the same as they. It would be nice if they (R-Z editors) could please everyone by giving them good news and by walking on egg shells so as not to hurt some posters' feelings, but someone's response can always be taken out of context and turned into something to be mean. If Joe Schmo's application got declined, then he might take that news as an insult (I've seen it happen). So, I think meta are in a catch-22; damned if the do, damned if they don't. But, I'd like to see some statistics on how general people who browse the web and suggest sites (not including webmasters and/or their clients) to Dmoz, the general public, think about it as a whole. All the speculation in the world will not give up concrete answers to what the problem is (assuming people without anything to gain view the ODP unfavorabely); it all comes down to perception, but sometimes perception is not reality.

Yes, I'm sure R-Z has had it's fair share of editors who where encouraged to apply from there, but I'm talking about a mojority of the people who apply to become editors. I have no proof of this, but I'd bet most don't even know R-Z exists. And, I agree that Dmoz needs a little more clarity, especially in regards with it's suggestion guidelines. It won't stop the spammers, but it will stop John Doe from suggesting his site a few more times than needed.

 

Obviously you don't know sarcasm if it hit you in the face. Next time I'll mention that it's SARCASM.

 

You have great talent for stating the obvious. Let's repeat this great wisdom, so nobody misses it. WHAT A BUNCH OF JACKASSES.

 

Oh, but I thought you knew almighty Gworld, that you're included in that response, too. Too bad you have a knack for stating LIES and being DECEPTIVE!

 

Ahh... more witty repartee from Enigma. Gotta love it. Fortunately, Futurama will be on soon and I think it's her bedtime after that.

 

Why am I included? I don't post in RZ just because of those jackasses.

 

Futurerama, lol, it doesn't surprise me that you'd watch such a show. Not only do you act immature over the Internet, but you're also immature in real life. How sad.