new dmoz announcement (no longer accepting status checks)

typical- yes because that is what typically happens. A webmaster submitted a site that was not within guidlines (as interpeted by the editor of that category), the editor declines the site and the the webmaster files an abuse report because they think their site is better than every other site that is listed in the category, and they think the editor is an owner of half the sites listed in the said category, and rejected their site because the editor is "supposedly" in competition with them. Most of these reports are found to be totally false accusations.

Now, if you see a category that all of sudden loses 50 of the 100 sites listed and the remaining 50 are all interlinked and similar, you have a 99% chance that it is "true" editor abuse. altough most abusive editors are not that stupid, but it has happened before. (all the deleted sites were later restored, the higher ups can see the sites deleted and reverse the actions of abuse (atleast the way I understand the system to work))


Later,
Rob

 

Does DMOZ have a database of stock replies? This one certainly looks like many I have seen before...

You didn't respond to this part:

Now, with this:

Are you trying to say that if one or two sites are rejected or deleted, that can't be "real editor abuse"? Seems tome the way you are trying to define it, that rogue editor would have to be a complete moron.

 

So...leaving out good, useful, non-ad-ridden sites is good for surfers?

Having piles of thousands of sites sitting around, waiting for someone to care, is good for surfers?

Openness of the process is bad for surfers?

Just trying to get clarity here.

The problem is that about 80% of submissions to dmoz are probably spam, rubbish, and ad-ridden filth. Obviously that colors the attitudes of the editors. However, the idea that every rejection is good and will be appealed by sleazy webmasters should be challenged. Also, most of the really sleazy ones won't be providing a valid e-mail address...!

 

maybe a rumour has swept the seo forums about this new 'trust rank' patent, but i've been asleep.



what is it?

 

Minstrel,

"Who the hell uses DMOZ to find anything?"

I love your posts. =) They refuse to answer any hard questions, like how many people actually USE dmoz vs how many people use it for backlinks, or are just searching to see if their site is in there. It would be interesting for people to list the # of hits they get from dmoz, my guess is that it would be EXTREMELY low.

daverty,

I agree, plus there's a lot of dead sites up there. I know their crawler can't check every site every day, but there's some OOOLD dead sites on dmoz. Plenty of sites around the net selling dmoz linked domains... they are so out of the loop, it's ridiculous.

 

Yes I would expect the victoms to be disgruntled. I was explaining from the point of view that the majority of abuse reports and complaints come from webmasters that had a site rejected for proper reasons, and in turn cry editor abuse instead of accepting the fact that an honest editor was editing as per ODP guidelines and decided that the site in question was not listable as per said guidelines.

"everyone thinks their baby is the cutest or smartest, and the person that implies to them that they have an ugly baby is always gonna be the jerk"
The same is true with websites. A person spends many hours thinking about, designing, and promoting their site, only to have an editor reject it from the ODP. Because they think the site is best, they automatically cry editor abuse when they get rejected. This is the majority of cases. That is why I stand from this point of view when I say "real editor abuse"

No I am not saying "that can't be "real editor abuse"". I am saying that it USUALLY is not editor abuse. The 50 from 100 example I gave is an extreme example of an obvious abuse case. And yes "that rogue editor would have to be a complete moron." which HAS happened in the past. A person gets accepted to be an editor, they added their site(s) to that cateory (sometimes even though the category is obviously way off topic) and then they proceed to start empting the category of all other sites. These editors lasted about 2 days before they were dismissed and the sites deleted were restored.

Now for the "supposedly" crafty abusive editors. I point of thinking is...why would an editor that has their site in the category with 50 other competitors reject all new submission from other competitors? They still have competition in that category, they still have no other advantage over the other sites listed in the same category. The only way I can see an abusive editor getting an advantage over the other sites is to hype up his title and description-which is easily found and reported/corrected by any other editor/or surfer that happens to pass through that category. This is how I feel that the number of abusive editor complaints is way over-blown.

And yes I am nieve.


Later,
Rob

 

I also hope that the DMOZ goes away...along with a few editors not to be named.

I have argued with a few editors about my site since it hasn't been reviewed since June 5th, 2004...almost a full year. (it was actually submitted January, 2004, but the submission was "lost")

My site has become one of the ultimate authorities on Christian men. I rank well in every search engine, and get many unsolicited links from Christian websites. My site is a PR5 with 20,000 indexed pages (about 5-10,000 aren't indexed yet).

I applied to be an editor of that category since obviously nobody was editing it, and I was denied.

If AfterHim.com can't be included, and can't even get an up or down vote (I know how President Bush feels) then maybe the dmoz should just be abolished.

By the way, nobody uses the dmoz to find anything...the search doesn't even work most of the time.

I have submitted about 7 good sites to the dmoz with 1 actually being reviewed, and of course it was included when it actually got a review.

On a side rant, how can people with "not enough time to review" have over 6,000 posts at RZ? Seems strange to me. Get a life people...either review sites or go away.

 

Oh, and by the way, do any DMOZ editors want to approve my sites for some cash? I'm not above that

 

I don't doubt that you believe this to be true, Rob. I don't.

The obvious answer is that 50 competitors in a category is an advantage over 100, or 70, or even 51...

No, I think there are many other fairly subtle ways to gain advantage and not attract the attention of the internal DMOZ police. And that is the reason you see so many external complaints... because these other tactics don't escape the attention of people outside DMOZ. And that is also the reason for so much of the anger, because when people outside DMOZ draw something to public or DMOZ attention, the response is generally the tired old "here's another disgruntled webmaster" party line...

Yes, I think you are naive, Rob, at least with respect to this issue.

 

I use DMOZ to find things, although I usually hit Google SE first.

I have also reffered people emailing my Woodworking website for info to check specific categories in DMOZ. They emailed back thanks and were happy with what they found there.

3 examples.
1. a shop teacher looking for resources for his students to use for some report they had as an assignment.
2. a youth group guy that was looking for resources for info on some project the kids were doing.
3. a friend asked me about how to wire is addtion with double light switches. I sent him to DMOZ where he found a handful of sites with wiring diagrams.


DMOZ will never be a resource like the search engines because most people don't want to take the time drill down categories to find what they are looking for. They rather type in a term and be done. But there are a few users that do accually use ODP for it's origina purpose. Mostly academics for users, and webmasters looking at competition and looking for backlinks.

DMOZ is what it is and will never be more popular, but it will most likely be less popular as time goes by. But I don't think it will ever disappear--someday it will be owned by someone, whether it decides to close down and then someone steps in and buys it, or if someone buys it before then. Either way it will never disappear, it will just change someday.

as far as accually visitors coming to a site from the ODP listing, I believe it is very low to nothing at all. 4+ million sites is a lot of sites for the surfers that accually use the directory to click through. The only benefit to webmasters is the backlink numbers. I personally don't think it effects PR. I have a website that is not listed in DMOZ and it has a pr5 and it is only a few months old, with no posts on the forums and a few articles that are syndicated (so they are also published on other sites as well).

Later,
Rob

 

Because the community of webmasters complained that they had no way of interacting with editors. A group of editors formed RZ to try to remedy that. A slightly larger group of editors (probably about 20 or 30) decided to contribute to that effort, and I was one of them, because they felt that maybe, just maybe, it might make a positive difference. In some ways it did, but in others it created a lot more negativity. That is still about 2% of the active editors in the ODP. I don't post to these fora instead of editing - I do it as well as editing, when I need a break from editing.

I get plenty of time to review sites. What I would like is a way to optimise the time I spend reviewing sites so I am not reviewing all the submission spam that makes up 90% of what sits in the unreviewed areas.

 

You're an editor.

I also get many requests for information like this. I send a URL to a Google query, where they will get a lot more than "a handful of sites with wiring diagrams". If you are sending them to DMOZ, you are seriously restricting them.

No. Because the search engines have a much larger, more representative, and more up-to-date database of resources than DMOZ can ever even dream of having.

 

I may be lame, but I truly do believe this. Admittedly I only have drawn a small sample (compared to the millions of rejects of the directory as a whole) of sites from RZ to base my opinions on.

But if in the words of the majority of people around here, Dmoz gives no visitors, nobody uses it, it is a dying directory, etc. So why would the number of other site listings around yours have any bearing on being an advantage?


AfterHim.com,

I was denied twice before finnally being accepted. Even after being accepted you get denied once in awhile. For every category you want to edit in, you have to apply just like the first time. I have been denied a few categories a few times, but after editing some more and trying again I finannly got approved for those categories later on.

I kinda agree, I feel like maybe they should be editing. But they must feel the need to interact with the public instead. (turned out the be a bad thing most of the time)



Later,
Rob

 

True

I don't send them to the SEs because of the loads of sites you have to wade through to get to the info you are looking for. I personally click page 2 of SE results and don;t even bother looking at the first page, becasue it usually is shopping garbage and not info like I am looking for.

He only need a couple of wiring diagrams to cross check each other. He didn't need 40,000 results.

That too.


Later,
Rob

 

So, isn’t it time to close submissions entirely? I know the argument that says doing so would violate the social contract, but would it really? If reality is such that submissions are by-and-large ignored, why does DMOZ perpetuate the notion that Joe Surfer can submit a favorite site with the expectation that the suggested site will be reviewed and listed in a timely manner?

Yes, some may follow that course. But based on editor statements, I would estimate that less than 3% in fact do. If the ODP is now growing almost exclusively as the result of editors going out and finding sites on their own (I won’t go down the road of “of their own”) shouldn’t DMOZ be honest in their statements to the public? By perpetuating the “suggest a site” notion, isn’t that a greater injustice to Joe Surfer?

It seems to me that the senior level DMOZ people don’t want to ruffle any feathers, so “we’ll leave submissions open”. The result is a heap of garbage pouring in that gets ignored, hundreds of people each day expecting to get their site listed, and some number of editors who now have to deal with all of those submitters with unrealistic expectations.

 

It isn't.

Sure there are big backlogs in the spam magnet categories where few choose to edit for pleasure (It's a hobby, right?). You really wouldn't believe the swill that's suggested to some of the Accommodation / Travel categories for instance. The downside is that the occasional gem is totally submersed and may well not be processed for a long time. This situation is not of ODP's making; it's a direct consequence of the huge number of affiliate sites jostling for supremacy in big G. These are the types of category where an editor can be more productive (ie list more sites) by finding his/her own candidates.

On the other hand, there are plenty of categories where listing suggestions are all processed within days. I'm thinking of the many locality categories and topical ones being tended by editors with a keen interest in the subject. Even there, editors are encouraged to find sites for themselves, and they do.

Bottom line? I'd happily disable listing suggestions in many categories, but they are pretty vital in others. We'd be unlikely to find out about the new amateur opera company in Piddletrenthide (a real place) without them.

 

Ok Alucard.

I dont post usually about DMOZ, because I believe it to mostly be a hopless situation and I have better things to do then offer suggestions when I doubt they'll be listened to.

But I'll spend a few minutes here offering some suggestions that might be listened to because you seem to be willing to lsiten and convey. Maybe Im wrong, but ill try anyway.

1. Require Editors to actually manage their catagories
This means, their que should be empty at the end of the month, for example. If they cant keep their catagory maintained, then they shouldnt be editors. I dont care if their volunteers, if they dont have the time and desire to do the job they volunteer for, then they shouldn't be an editor. If there are no sites in their que, they should go find some new sites to add and should check their catagory every month for dead links or links that no longer qualify for listing in the directory.

2. Communication
A simple php script could send and email to a webmaster when

a. Their submission is received
b. Their site is reviewed
c. Their site is rejected or removed, and possible including why
d. Their site is included, and where​

This wouldnt have to take any more work on the part of editors, a script could handle it. My directory automatically does these things when I approve or reject a submission, certainly DMOZ could do the same. The lack of communication is one thing that upsets webmasters;

3. Recruit new editors and HELP them get appointed.
This means, communicate with potential editors and do more then just offer up a short list of questions. If people want to help edit, let them, but supervise them for awhile to ensure they arent only there to get their own site in and then bail.

4. Teach the editors at the resource forum how to talk to people.
They are often demeaning to anyone who has the temerity to ask why this is or this isnt. They tend to talk down to people and border on intimidating or abusive sometimes..

There are my suggestions. I bet you would cut more then 75% of the negative comments if these things were done.


I hope that helps. (now ducking out of fear of Minstrial)

 

That would not only cut down on the negativity, but it would probably actually make for a better DMOZ. Great suggestions!

 

Fair enough... thanks for the clarification Jim.

 

I realise your comments were addressed to alucard, but I'm sure he won't mind me responding too. I hope you don't mind either.

Rather than nickel and dime the details of your suggestions (most of which we've heard before of course) I'd like to give more general responses. (In the following, I refer to editors as he. In actuality, very many editors are female of course. ODP is an equal opportunity employer . I also use the you word. Please don't take it personally - I'm addressing every webmaster who's reading.)

1. Require Editors to actually manage their catagories
There are some misconceptions here. That an editor isn't able to spare as much time as others would like him to isn't his failure. Providing he's doing some work, s/he's making a positive contribution to the directory. If the editor was canned as you're suggesting, that work would be lost.

No editor owns his category. His presence does not prevent other editors from working there. If it looks as though it needs work, more senior editors will eventually step in and give a hand.

If you check out my profile, you'll see that I'm a Regional editor. Regional has something over a million listings and large numbers of listing suggestions awaiting evaluation. I have to clear all these up by the end of the month or be fired? I don't think so .

2. Communication - A simple php script
The suggest URL script ends with a thank you for your submission (or words to that effect). You already know when a submission has been received.

All listing suggestions are evaluated in time - though admittedly the time can be long in some categories.

When an evaluation occurs, one of four things will happen.

• It is accepted (though the huge majority will need to have their proposed titles and descriptions reworked by the editor).
• It is unlistable because it does not comply with our guidelines. In my experience, this is usually because the whole business model of the site doesn't fit in with our objectives and so there is little hope of a quick fix.
• It is listable, but in a different category. The editor should send it there where it will again await evaluation by somebody else. In the pools, sites sent over by editors are made obvious and many give them priority.
• It's put back in the pool because the editor doesn't want to process it. Typical reasons include high bandwidth requirements and the editor is on dialup, incompatibility with the editor's favourite browser or just plain user hostility (serious user hostility is grounds for declining the site of course).

In most of those cases, it's just a matter of being patient. Knowing the situation might be nice, but it's not actually useful. The only exception is when a site has been declined.

Now for the $64,000 question. What will you do if you know your site has been declined? Simple resubmission hoping for better luck in the editor lottery next time around is hardly likely to bring much satisfaction.

You could always improve your website of course, making sure that the unique and useful content is evident, easily navigable and not submerged in affiliate links. Yeah that would work. Why wait? Why can't you do that now ?

Post too long. Part II follows.