DMOZ - A four letter word for arrogance?

One subission does not necessarily equal one listing. That's why the arguement makes no sense at all.

If an editor wants to be abusive (and has sufficient privs), they could list a site multiple times without it being "submitted". The two things just aren't related.

 

But that brings up the little problem of editors abuse and editors log, doesn't it? This way only absolute morons will be caught for editors abuse.

 

I have absolutely no experience with the molestation of children, no insights into corrective actions, nor the psychological aspects of this topic.

Seriously, morality isn't tied to a mere "IMHO" without any insights into the problem or a solution.

So while you may judge me for 'non-involvement' just another "opinion" doesn't truly help.

additionally, I never posted in that topic - why is it being discussed here?

 

Because as you said, it seems you don't know very much about anything and you just posted the standard arrogant DMOZ answer. The problem of corruption in form of deep links, kink sites and DMOZ not being able to solve the problem with spam are all related.
If you read my answer in this thread, you would have noticed that claiming that DMOZ can not solve the problem with spam is just bunch of BS and the real reason is because the solution is not acceptable to many of DMOZ editors.

 

In order to waste time you have to spend time in a category. LOL and again I will mention real estate, the category I follow. The category I should be in hasnt added a site added in over 8 months. When I complained and showed dead links and sites that shouldnt be listed in that category, they were removed, but as far as new sites added..LMAO there hasnt been any. You cant tell me cause I know better that several sites have been suggested to that category.

I have been accused by DMOZ editors as being a spammer, well if me submitting my site is considered spam and warrants not have the best site for that category listed, then tag me as a spammer, it only proves that DMOZ isnt looking for the best sites. DMOZ only has one response for those who question their methods, you are a spammer.

As for the request you get multiple times, if you would list other sites other than your own or friends and family members, you might not get as many submissions of the same site.

As shadow stated he has gone through a few dozen sites in a few hours. 36 sites x 30 days = 1080 x 12 months =12,960 sites now I would imagine as it has been stated by most of you editors that multiple editors work in a category so if 5 editors work a high traffic category thats 64,800 sites per year, take 75% of that for non editing days and thats totals 48,600.

If you look at it from a broader standpoint if I am correct there are 5,000 editors, if each editor averages 15 sites a day x 5000 editors = 75,000 x 30 days = 2,250,000 sites review x 12 months = 27,000,000 reviews a year.

Hell each editor only reviewing on average 6 sites per day = 10,800,000 reviews per year. Now I have no solid proof but I dont think DMOZ gets 10,000,000 submissions per year.

Face it, the problem here is not the submitters its the editors you dont work on a category other than to add sites that benefit them, friends or family.

 

hmmm... thanks for the insight - or as you suggest "the standard arrogant non-DMOZ answer".

As for claiming anything - I made none.

If you submit over and over again - it is reasonable to conclude you have more than one submission in a category... and it is reasonable the conclude there isn't only one person submitting, thus "reasonably" the backlog grows exponentially and dependent on the popularity of the category.

As for everything else... I'm not an authority on the subject matter so I don't edit there.

 

Just look around DMOZ, you can find categories that haven't recieved any update in years. Of course, many of these are really obscure sub-cats that may not have had much submitted to them, but I'm sure some of them (like the Real Estate cat you mention) have massive backlogs that no one seems to be interested in clearing.

LOL. I wouldn't get my panties in a wad over a DMOZ Nazi accusing me of spamming their precious directory.

Obviously, alot of these "editors" are not interested in adding you or anyone else's sites; they just signed up to add their own sites, their friends, and maybe make a little money on the side.

 

Yup real estate is one of the top categories and as I showed above, you cant argue with those numbers. All this tells me is that a lot of the editors are lazy and cant squeeze money out of Realtors to get listed, so no one wants to work that category.

I dont because I know I will have the last laugh. Dmoz is on a short rope.

Thats the problem, we keep hearing from the DMOZ editors its us webmasters causing the slow down but in fact its the editors, not all, that dont want to do the job they volunteered for, other than coming onboard and just adding their sites. As stated on average 6 sites per day per editor is 10 million sites reviewed per year. Dmoz only wishes they got 10 million submissions per year, then some of the editors could be multi millioniares.

Dmoz is to blind to see this, so they have to point fingers at someone other than themselves.

 

There are a few problems with your logic -
(1) most editors don't even edit one site in a day - the most that you can "guarantee" is active editors x one edit x 3 per year - that would be ~ 24,000 per year. There are some editors who are siginificantly more active than that, but these editors aren't necessarily "processing submissions".
(2) an edit does not equal an add - an edit could be a change to a listed title/description, a move, a delete, an add, a reorganization, a change to a category description.
(3) in order for five editors to work in a high traffic area - those five editors have to want to work in that high traffic area. Admittedly sometimes editors get together and work on categories in a concerted effort to accomplish something - but those are usually short bursts (say up to a week) and are started by someone who is already interested in the category.
(4)reviewing nonlistable junk is very tiring - after awhile, you have to go do something more worthwhile.

 

Please tell me you're joking

 

If an editor, volunteer or not cant do one site a day, FIRE THEIR ASS, what good are they.

If editors dont want this responsibility than why did they apply for the job...oops I forgot to list their sites.

The problem is not with the number of submissions its with the editors who dont process the submissions. Its called being lazy. I personally would feel if I didnt edit AT LEAST 6 sites a day, not only would I feel that is a reflection on me, but also I would be letting the internet community down that I took this job to help improve.

 

Am I the only one that thinks the above is absurd? Someone wants to sign up and they get accepted, and all they have to do is add 3 sites a year (of course, those would be 3 sites of his/hers). My chihuahua could edit 3 sites per year, and she has cataracts and is missing one leg.

 

If that editor only edits the minimum - that's three sites a year that another editor doesn't have to touch. They're not taking up space - they're not keeping anyone else from volunteering - why do you feel the need to assign so much work to someone who volunteered under the requirement to make one meaningful edit every four months?

There are some days where my edit count has increased by 200 - there are other days where I didn't edit one single site. Is my contribution not good enough because I also have a real life job, a real life family, another part-time real life job, and a real life business that sometimes prevents me from editing? Is your site more important than the time I spend with my granddaughter? Or the time I spend with my horses? Should I cut down on the number of foals I have (since those births require me to spend time away from the computer) in order for your site to have a better chance of being reviewed? Should I limit the number of shows for my stallion? What do you want me to cut out of my life so that I can spend your desired amount of time in front of the computer reviewing sites, so that one day yours might show up in the pile I'm working on?

 

Now you're just waffling, lmocr.

Where did that "minimum" 3 edits a year come from? Is that policy? or did you just pluck it out of your... ear?

 

Think about it though. If you have 5 days a year where you edit 200 sites a day, you've added 1000 sites for the year. Everyone's personal time is precious and I certainly would not want to take time away from my family, friends, or hobbies. But I think DMOZ can raise the bar a bit on the editors. Having 3 a year as minumum is insane. If someone can't edit at least a couple hundred sites a year (after all, you have done that in one day!!!) then they shouldn't even have applied in the first place.

 

No that's not true - if I have 5 days a year where I edited 200 sites a day - there's a distinct possibility that I haven't added any sites. Because an edit isn't necessarily an add.

Now for the rule about minimum edits required - I didn't pluck that out of anywhere - here, you can read all about it: http://www.dmoz.com/guidelines/accounts.html#inactive

 

The problem with DMOZ is the fact that it is run by bunch of power hungry morons that have no organizational skills and in real life would not be trusted to manage the play time in a kinder garden, let alone to manage a big Internet directory. Add to this bunch of morons, couple of smart people who think of the DMOZ as their own private money making machine and you have the recipe for a disaster.

The problem is not that editors don't want to edit, the problem is that editors can not edit. Most people are recommended to apply for categories that have less than 50 listing as a start point and let's imagine that same category has 50 unreviewed submission, this means that new editor can review all the submissions in 1 or 2 day. What should a new editor do after that? Nobody knows because there is no clear procedures for getting permission to edit a new category and the new editor will be in the mercy of higher up in DMOZ. This means if the people above you have no interest to do anything or approve your application, you can be there for months without having anything to review and approve.

Why such stupid procedure necessary? Supposedly to insure quality and stop abuse and corruption. What is this difficult job of editing? writing a title and a short description, a process that anyone who is not complete idiot can manage without any problem. Does this madness at least stops the corruption? No, because it is very easy to pass the so called abuse control as reality of listings in DMOZ shows.

A correct procedure and routines can approve DMOZ listing quality and remove the stink of corruption and incompetence from DMOZ and restore it's reputation but this will not suit the desires of incompetent and corrupts.

 

That is pathetic.

No wonder DMOZ is in such a state.

 

Can you guys really not see the connection between multiple submissions and extened waiting for a listing?

Say an editor averages 50 edits a week (a good number, although probably not reached by most editors). That's 50 EDITS, not 50 ADDS. If every site were submitted properly (ie - one time to the correct category - and it is a listable site), then that could equal 50 adds. But it doesn't. I bet (a guess off the top of my head) that I add 2 to 4 sites out of every 10 that I review - that rate will vary depending on the category of course. On top of that, not every edit is the review of a site. Sometimes you notice a category that has god-awfull descriptions that need to be fixed, or a category that has not been looked at in awhile a some of the sites have gone 404 or whatever. So, all in all, I would guess that out of 50 edits your looking at 5 to 10 adds, tops.

If every site were submitted properly (ie, correct category and 1 time - and the site is listable) then the add number out of 50 edits could easily be 30 to 40.

At the same time, there is of course the editors that list their own site and never do anything else. It's unfortunate that these scumbag SEO/webmasters get in at all, but as long as they aren't actually hurting anything (multiply listing their own site, or messing with the competition), then it's not a big deal. But just because there are "7,000 editors" doesn't mean there qare 7,000 people actually doing anything...and that isn't implied either.

And OF COURSE there are going to be some editors who ARE corrupt. We try to weed them out as quickly as possible, but some are obviously going to slip through. But to claim that slow processing time is directly related to corruption is just plain silly. Your accusations have to at least make sense guys.

Feel free to call this a canned response or BS or whatever, but it's the cold hard truth. Accept it or don't.

BTW, did you ever stop to consider that you get canned responses because you ask canned questions? Most questions have but one correct answer. You ask the same question 40 times and get the same answer 40 times, and then accuse the people answering that they are giving "canned responses". Maybe the answer is just correct. Would you rather we lied to you?

 

BTW, giving someone a blank red rep for giving a polite answer to a question...grow up...At least have the balls to explain why you're leaving it - although I don't expect you to have the balls to sign it.