DMOZ assistance

Page and a half later - still going.

 

For me it never has anything to do with taking sides, on a forum members have to be objective, if I say that DMOZ should fire all the editors and use automation and a user voting system to move sites up or down/out of the directory I mean it.

That is "good" for the community and DMOZ, all I am looking for is a better way for webmasters.

If M$ changed tomorrow for the better, I would be happy with them, at this time I am not happy with either DMOZ or M$ so I simply state an opinion on forums and they are objective because I have no conflict of interest.

What I am saying ST, is that folks will use your association with JA against you when considering your opinion on DMOZ, it is as simple as that.

 

No. Your opinions are subjective regardless of your intent in stating those opinions. They are subjective because they are based on opinion rather than on objective data. Whether or not you have a conflict of interest has nothing to do with whether the statement is objective or subjective.

As for DMOZ claiming sitetutor isn't objective because he is associated with JoeAnt, it wouldn't surprise me if DOMZ editors tried to use that as another red-herring-smokescreen, but so what? They already apparently believe that all webmasters are subjective scammers and spammers, if you accept the Resourceless Zone posts as representative...

 

Henry Kissinger had to resign from the 9/11 commission because of a conflict of interest, Kissinger & Associates represents the Saudi government in Washington, he did that because he could not be objective, he had a conflict of interest because of an association, he could not be a proper judge of the matter because he represents that government.

I am not saying ST's opinions are not worthwhile on this subject, but that his association with JoeAnt may make him a target of DMOZ propaganda.

 

Being alive, moderately intelligent, and a webmaster -- or indeed simply one who is disinclined to worship at the altar of the Resourceless Zone -- "may make [one] a target of DMOZ propaganda".

 

Yes but how can one "hate" a directory

DMOZ is an important part of the internet and has been from the very start, it is not going away.

What folks should focus on is how can they change the submission process and the administration of the directory, PERIOD.

DMOZ is a product, not the devil

 

You just don't get it, AC. You can't change anything about DMOZ because the muddy-headed little ingroup that runs it likes it the way it is -- they are not about to willingly relinquish power and I don't see AOL or anyone else with sufficient interest or stones to turf the bastards out and start over.

 

AOL is a major technology company that is making a big push into the search industry, including local search.

They could simply fire all the editors and replace them with automation and I do expect them to do so soon.

 

As I said before, AC -- AOL has owned the Netscape group since like 1997 or 1999 or so... they've not done anything to initiate changes in DMOZ in the past 6-8 years so don't hold your breath.

 

It is the internet's # 1 directory database Minstrel, a fantastic product that they can turn into a giant profit center when integrated into the future AOL search product.

So if Google or others discount it, AOL will enhance their exclusive use of it, really it is just a matter of time for major changes to occur.

 

You have more faith in AOL than I do.

If it takes them 6-8 years to clean house, what makes you think they'll add new pages to DMOZ any more efficiently than the current mob?

And really... have you ever SEEN what the AOL browser does to a PC?

 

A bit of data about AOL search and DMOZ is in the following links.

http://battellemedia.com/archives/001199.php

http://www.searchengineblog.com/rich-skrenta-interview.htm

 

The interesting part is that Skrenta says here what I've been saying for some time -- that DMOZ is doomed to collapse under it's own weight and misguided aims, even without slapstick efforts of the Resourceless Zone to speed the process along:

 

I have said the same thing, "who uses a directory to find anything"

But the fact remains that any database can be used as part of a search engines foundation, so AOL could find a way to automate the directory as I have mentioned and incorporate it into AOL Search.

It is the only smart thing to do if as the founder mentions that it is slow and in danger of failing.

 

Anthony, do you realize you just used the terms "AOL" and "smart" and, by implication, "DMOZ" in the same post?

What were you thinking, man?

 

I think they will use it in conjunction with MapQuest as a local search tool, local search is to boom and maybe that is why they want guys like WW to be in their local slots.

http://www.mapquest.com/about/main.adp

 

Wow, long thread. I personally have started many DMOZ threads and I consider myself a professional on the matter. DMOZ will never change until the only change that happens is a massive collapse. OR I will buy DMOZ and fire everyone and start fresh. Until one of those things happen just boycott them. Sounds like a valid plan to make a change doesn't it? We all claim to hate DMOZ and the ways that they show their ignorance yet we keep submitting our sites to them. I am going to make the first step and DEMAND that they take any sites I have listed in their off. And any sites I have in the future that they find and decide to list I will have them remove it. If everyone does this then what happens is they no longer have any sites in their directory. They become more useless than they are now. Quit going after SiteTutor. He is right and that's that!

 

There is nothing you can do to get sites removed from DMOZ. They will list whatever sites they want when they want.

Maybe two things you can do, take the site down, or make it redirect.

You guys sure spent a lot of energy on DMOZ - do you ever do any work?

 

You think that's not work?

 

Hi All,

I must say first off I am an editor at Dmoz.

I want to comment on a few things that were brought up in this extremely long thread.


"Dmoz editors are corrupt and lazy” - Not necessarily true. The majority of editors are website owners, and a result of that is some apply, get approved, edit a couple of sites, add their own site(s) and disappear. This is abuse and when found (most always) it is dealt with by the people that specialize in dealing with the abuse cases. I have found a couple new editors that seemed to be abusing the system and reported them. But there are other editors like myself that are legit and do this for fun and take the directory seriously.

I submitted my first website and waited for 8 months and still no listing. After checking the directory about every week to see if it was listed yet, I decided to apply as an editor (in a category with a topic I found interesting, totally unrelated to where I submitted my website to). I liked editing because I got to see many sites I would not have ever found just surfing the net and I felt like I was helping accomplish something--building a bigger better directory.

Fast-forward to today...I have a few thousand edits, a few dozen small sub categories created, and have worked my way up and gained permissions to edit in many other categories. Here is the part you probably won't believe. I am now the editor of the category I originally submitted my website to. I submitted my website 2 years ago, and it is still sitting in the list of unreviewed with 1,130 other sites. And it will stay there until I get through the list and its turn comes. Then I will NOT edit it myself, I will ask for assistance from another editor higher up the experience ladder. Guidelines say you can edit your own sites as long as NO special treatment or preference is given to it. I do not want to be anywhere near a situation where someone might accuse me of wrong doing.

Now, I would like to think there are other editors that feel the way, and I'm sure there are some, but many editors do just join, add their site and leave. I think when it is discovered, the site is removed do to abuse. But I cannot say for sure, as for security reasons, abuse investigations are not disclosed to any editors or public.

As far as the being "LAZY” - That is not really true either.
It is a volunteer service as you know. And most of us editors cannot sit and edit for 8 hours every day. I, as do most, come in for a couple hours a week if we can swing it. Sometimes I might spend a few hours editing go to bed and do a few more hours the next day. It all depends on what is going on in our real lives. I now have 3 websites to manage, a wife, a 2 yr old son, twin boys due in another month, and hopefully will be working to fulltime jobs as a home inspector, and a real estate agent. Then I have my hobbies a woodshop and animals to take care of. If can only edit a few sites a week for the time being, I refuse to be called LAZY. Many other editors are in similar situations, they work jobs, have families, hobbies, and probably their own websites to take care of. The editing at Dmoz is a volunteer thing that we do help contribute to something we feel is great.

"And if you think editing a site is just a click of a button, so why can't they keep up?" It takes time to review each site. Here's how it works (or is supposed to work) we go to the site, look through it, make sure it can be navigated, is all there and not in construction, make sure the url is not cloaked or redirected, make sure the content is there and good, Sometimes we get a dejavue feeling and have to go back to the directory and make sure it's not a mirror of a site already in the directory. Then if everything is good, we make sure it fits the category, if not, we have to search out the directory and find the right category to send it to. If it comes to another category that we don't have permissions in, it is automatically placed in the waiting for review list. Here it waits wit the others until the editor there come to it and repeats the review process. Then we have to make sure the title is the company name or website title (which ever is appropriate for that site) and not a slogan or keyword list (many webmasters for some reason can't read the submission guideline in front of them and they put a 10-50 keywords in the title box). Then time for the description, if the submitter did it as instructed in the guidelines, I can just read it, ok it, and click "ADD" to the directory. If they didn't bother to follow directions, we have to come up with our own summary of the website and rewrite the description (which after a 100's of websites, it gets hard to think of new ways to describe similar sites).

A good quality site that loads fast and a properly fill out submission form can be edited and added in about 2-3 minutes. The slow loading, hard to navigate, spammy looking sites with a totally inappropriate submission form, can take 10+ minutes edit and add (if it is found to have enough useful unique content to be added to the directory)

Now take into consideration a category that is a spam magnet like for example "Computers/anything here” There is a list of 8,000-12,000 or more sites waiting for review. Most of which belong in a sub-category down the tree, and the multiple submissions of the same site, and deeplinks to every page on those sites, and the fact that there are many other categories in the same way. It takes along time to go through that many sites when you can only edit 10-20 sites per hour and the editors have many different categories to tend to.

That is not "LAZY". That is being overrun by whinny webmasters that think the guidelines are not meant for them, that think they should be listed in a bunch of categories, that think every article they have on their website should be listed in the directory, that think just because their site wasn't listed in less than a week that the editor is corrupt and lazy. If people submitted to Dmoz as instructed on the submission form, and stopped trying be sneaky (like the old ways of search engine tricks) the work load of sites to review would be at minimum (in my opinion) 1/3 of what it is currently. That means sites would be reviewed and possibly listed within 2-3 weeks instead 3 years (yes 3 yrs, I have come across sites submitted in 2001 and tried to edit them but you guessed it...they were dead).



Now as far as the "inconsistencies of the different editors, sites listed, and categories" - Yes you’re right. You will have that with human interaction. We all have the same guidelines covering the whole directory, and then there are some category specific details that we have to deal with. And every editor will understand the guidelines to mean something slightly different than other editors.

Example- guidelines say that the site must not be under construction. Some editors will take this to the word and will deny a site that has 4 sections with articles and content and 2 sections that have the stupid construction .gif page. Where as another editor my think that the 4 sections have enough quality content to make it a useful addition to a category.

And category specific details are sometimes hard to view the same as everyone else. Everything is based on the editor’s best judgment.

Example- Pets/dogs/breeds/husky guidelines say "only sites about huskies” But general Dmoz guidelines say a site should be placed in a category specific to the majority of content, based on an editor’s best judgment.
A site is submitted to Pets/dogs/breeds and it is 70% about huskies, and the rest is about Hounds. Some editors would put that site in Husky category (because it has the largest and most active husky forum, others might put it in pets/dogs/breeds, and some might put it in Pets/dogs/breeds/Hounds, and some might put it in pets/dogs/forums. That site is a good candidate for most of those options but we can only list it once (in super rare instances, 2 topical listings). It all depends on the editor's judgment. Later on that editor might quit or give up the category to move one to others, then a different editor moves into this one and has a different idea of what the guidelines say, so they move this site to a different category thinking it is a better fit there.

The whole point of the directory is to categorize the sites to topics for easy navigation by users. But when you start getting specific in the topic it becomes hard to fit most sites. Not many sites are as specific to only cover one topic like science/environment/toxicwaste/landfill/products and services/software because the site probably sells software for many industries but specializes in toxic waste landfill. You can group them with others in software because you would have a list of about 5,000 sites that users would have read through. The specificness of the directory's categories are what make it easy to find specific sites, but it is also the cause of inconsistencies because you have that gray area of "where would this site fit better".