1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

new dmoz announcement (no longer accepting status checks)

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by Shoemoney, May 23, 2005.

  1. davert

    davert Banned

    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #101
    PS> This discussion's kinda academic because none of these changes are invented by them, and none will boost supereditor egos. Not that there aren't good editors but I think they're outnumbered.
     
    davert, May 31, 2005 IP
  2. Alucard

    Alucard Peon

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #102
    Turning that around, if the webmaster is proud of his/her product, and there is obvious room for improvement, then maybe that should be done regardless of whether it qualifies a site for an ODP listing or not.
     
    Alucard, May 31, 2005 IP
  3. Alucard

    Alucard Peon

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #103
    Yes, longcall911 that is exactly it! Whether it has changed to become that or whether it has always been that way is academic, the big thing is that that is the point behind the ODP.

    Now, one person's unique content is another person's trashy website, of course, and that's where the discussion begins.... :D
     
    Alucard, May 31, 2005 IP
  4. joeychgo

    joeychgo Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    321
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    #104

    But thats taken out of conext when you dont consider the other part.


    Honestly, all I hear out of all these answers is - we refuse to improve and will justify away any suggestion as unworkable or not our responsibility.

    Thats the unfortunate part. Now, maybe what I suggested wont work 100% - but it could be made to work within DMOZ philisophy if people there wated to.

    The point is, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles and blogs floating around complaining in one way or another about DMOZ. Some are just sour graps, others are not. There is even a Blog dedicated to the Corrupt DMOZ - Everyone cant be wrong can they?

    I personally have no axe to grind. But I think DMOZ could bs so much greater and hate to see such a good resource fall further into irrelvelence.
     
    joeychgo, May 31, 2005 IP
  5. Alucard

    Alucard Peon

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #105
    Then you haven't been reading what I have been writing for the past week on this forum....

    There is room for improvement in the ODP. Editors (many more than you seen posting here) are campaigning for improvements in the directory.

    But the thing is they are not what you guys would call improvements, because it's not going to give you what you want.

    The goals of most web professionals and ODP editors are far from being the same, and often they work in opposite directions, in certain cases. This lies at the root of what everyone is getting upset about. Note, please, that Iam not talking about how well or poorly the system is working - this is about fundamental, underlying goals.

    As a web professional you want to get the maximum exposure for your site, or the site you built your client for. You want Google to rank it highest for the keywords which you (or your client) pick. You want to find ways to make the system work for you to get the results that you want. You are trying to get the customer (the web surfer) to visit the site by making it appear prominently in search results. Because once the surfer visits the site, the product will then sell itself. The more ways you can find to get that customer there, the better. Am I understanding this correctly?

    The ODP doesn't care about individual sites. It is trying to give the surfer a representative sample of the information on a topic.

    So if there are five businesses out there all selling Hypercranial Widgets, from the Web Professional's perspective every one of them should be listed. From the ODP's perspective, only one of them needs to be listed. Both perspectives are equally valid, just different.

    So when we get into these submission status discussions, it is obviously of high priority to you, the webmaster, that every submission gets processed withint the shortest amount of time. And you are shocked, dismayed and angry that the ODP doesn't see things the same way.

    Trying to bend the ODP into something you want, something that it fundamentally isn't is not a good use of anyone's time. The responses I have seen to suggestions (which, yes, have all been listened to) are consistent with the vision of what the ODP is striving to be.

    Whether that vision is relevant today is a matter of conjecture - the ODP editors obviously believe it is, otherwise they wouldn't be editing there - a lot of web professionals that post here obviously don't.

    I still come back to the same old mantra, I'm afraid: Do it Better - build something that gives you want you want, and then persuade Google to use it to affect their search rankings. If what the ODP is doing is so very flawed, as you folks believe, then it should be easy, right? And Google would just lap it up.
     
    Alucard, May 31, 2005 IP
    longcall911 likes this.
  6. Blogmaster

    Blogmaster Blood Type Dating Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    25,924
    Likes Received:
    1,354
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    380
    #106
    Watch for Minstrel, another psycho post coming soon :rolleyes:
     
    Blogmaster, May 31, 2005 IP
  7. nashman

    nashman Peon

    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #107
    Don't have to wait for Minstrel to chime in, as there are more than a few that feel that the ODP has long outlived it's usefulness and should be put on a shelf for evermore. Initially, the founding concept of the ODP was based on a "pie in the sky" vision , lending little or no thought to the most important facet – human intervention. Add greed, arrogance, incompetence and indifference to the mix, then the base philosophy, or driving principles of the ODP, goes awry.

    Of late, we are witnessing more open discussions on the Internet regarding the worth of the ODP and it's my belief that this will enthusiasm will continue to spiral until the OPD implodes.

    (Alucard wrote) "So if there are five businesses out there all selling Hypercranial Widgets, from the Web Professional's perspective every one of them should be listed. From the ODP's perspective, only one of them needs to be listed. Both perspectives are equally valid, just different.”

    The quote above is so pathetic I won't legitimize the statement by responding.

    Have a great day!
     
    nashman, May 31, 2005 IP
    minstrel likes this.
  8. joeychgo

    joeychgo Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,368
    Likes Received:
    321
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    #108

    No - see your only looking at one side.

    Work WITH the web professionals and you can affect the quality of the internet.

    By work with I dont mean just give them what they want - I mean, encourage them to make their sites better and higher quality.

    Here's the funny part - My suggestions do just that. They give the web professional little. Care to show me how the web professional gets much out of these?


    I think my suggestions might jsut get web professionals on your side a bit more and get them striving to build a better site. Isnt that what you want? IM not saying my suggestions are the only way to go - but come on - you ahve to admin they might just help reduce some backlog, make the editors job a little easier and make the ODP a little better quality for the end user.
     
    joeychgo, Jun 1, 2005 IP
  9. egdcltd

    egdcltd Peon

    Messages:
    691
    Likes Received:
    14
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #109

    That's what I was trying to say. A decent webmaster will improve his site anyway, but some (helpful, polite) feedback from DMOZ would be useful. If webmasters know what you're looking for, the quality of submissions will improve. This won't stop the spammers, but some other way needs to be found to deal with them, as, as far as I can tell, the present system isn't stopping them anyway.
     
    egdcltd, Jun 1, 2005 IP
    Blogmaster and joeychgo like this.
  10. Alucard

    Alucard Peon

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #110
    (Sorry about the long post, but I wanted to make sure I gave these ideas a respectful answer)
    Yes, of course, but I am trying to understand both sides of this. Your comments indicate that you are doing the same.

    How does telling a web professional what % of content is allowed to be affiliate content really going to help the site get better? It'll help the web developer squeak through with the minimum amount of content to get listed. How does saying how many sites a directory needs to have to get listed help the site get better? It doesn't - it just helps the directory owner know what it takes to get listed...

    What I am trying to say is that the criteria for judging a website should be as far removed from what one ODP editor thinks as possible. ODP editors should not be made the judge of what is "good" about the internet. While that is one of the goals of the project, I think you would be the first to agree that it is too fickle as a measure.

    Make it "good". If the ODP wants to list it, then good. If it doesn't, then you still have an excellent site that will probably get linked to from all over the place. Either way, I believe that it's a better way to build a better internet.

    Let me look at your suggestions once more....
    No editor owns a category. Anyone who has editing privs there has the responsibility to maintain a category. This has been described at length on the RZ and in many other fora. So there could be as many as 30 or 40 editors who can make edits in that category. How do you make each of them responsible for managing all the categories? This is not a new idea, and the reason it won't work is because there is no concept of ownership, by design.

    Another suggestion that gets made about once a month by webmasters. Again, there have been many many long descriptions made to try to explain why this isn't something that the ODP will do. It has been listened to, and discussed (yes, in secret), and the results have been placed in the public domain for all to see. The ODP is not going to do this. If you want the reasons why, I am not going to repeat them - you can find them by reading just a few threads at RZ.

    We have had this suggestion before at the RZ. The other one that we get there is to make applying editors go through a much more stringent test, in order to prove they can edit. In other words make it more difficult. So we are being pulled in both directions.

    We most certainly do try to recruit editors. But once you are an editor, you are very much (what's the buzz-word) "self-directed" - noone takes you by the hand and helps you through every edit like you are some child. You are expected to read about a bit, ask questions in the internal fora, and get feedback from peers. The thing that the editor application tries to do is to prove that you are capable of doing that. The metas (the ones that process applications) will often go back and check on a new editor to make sure they aren't abusing, or just plain doing wrong things out of ignorance. There is also a mentoring scheme available, but that is something you need to ask for.

    When you are made an editor you are given a piece of rope. You can either make a bow or a noose with it.

    Making the editor application easier would mean that we would have to do more supervision of new editors. Making it more difficult would mean that we wouldn't get some potentially good editors. It is most definitely a compromise and it is an issue that is discussed several times a year. Right now, the feeling within the ODP is that this is the best balanced approach. Obviously there are many different opinions on this one, inside and outside the ODP. None are wrong - it's purely a compromise decision.

    Yeah, well, "You can take a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead." There are many many posts made on RZ (and quite a few on other fora) where I feel like smacking the poster upside the head, or at least trying to find out what they were trying to achieve by saying the things they did in the way they said it. Some are editors, some non-editors. There are as many diverse types of editor as there are netizens. Some are more... diplomatically adept than others (and that is the politest term I could think of).

    I think if you look at the RZ you will see that that cross-section is reflected in the posts. But it's easy to overlook the polite, constructive ones, and focus on the ones that are sarcastic, short and rude.

    Blanket statements, putting everyone is the same category of person (be they webmasters, SEOs or ODP editors) are dangerous and misleading. You have one or two rude editors, and suddenly all editors are rude. You have one or two SEOs who try to spam the directory with their submissions, and suddenly all SEOs are evil SOBs. You have one or two editors who are corrupt and suddenly the whole organisation is corrupt. See what I mean?
     
    Alucard, Jun 1, 2005 IP
  11. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #111
    I don't understand, why DMOZ editors even participate in this thread. their logic is as follows:

    1- We know our organization is faulty and incompetent but that's the way we like it since DMOZ is only for editors and no one else.

    2- Don't complain about our incompetence and corruption since we will not listen and we are not willing to change.

    3- DMOZ should only benefit DMOZ editors and their different scams, so if you don't like it make another corrupt organization for yourself.

    4- If you still complaining (telling the truth) about our organization is because you are spammer.


    It seems to me the only reason that DMOZ editors participate in this discussions is to decrease the amount of negative publicity, otherwise they have no intention to make any effort to understand or change.
     
    gworld, Jun 1, 2005 IP
  12. jimnoble

    jimnoble Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    123
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    #112
    We're trying to educate and explain - courteously, rationally and unemotionally. Feel entirely free to ignore my posts if you don't want to read and digest them :) .
     
    jimnoble, Jun 1, 2005 IP
  13. davert

    davert Banned

    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #113
    Nice summary, gworld ;)

    I will credit Jim Noble and many of the other editors who post here and elsewhere for being courteous, rational, and patient. It is indeed the obnoxious ones we tend to remember...
     
    davert, Jun 1, 2005 IP
  14. Cristian Mezei

    Cristian Mezei Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,332
    Likes Received:
    355
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    203
    #114
    We thank you, for your time, for your dedication, and for your patienceness with some of our "quick anger" members.

    We also thank you for maintaining a strong relationship with the people, in this related domain, and forums.

    :)
     
    Cristian Mezei, Jun 1, 2005 IP
    joeychgo likes this.
  15. Alucard

    Alucard Peon

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #115
    Wow. All the time I have taken to try to explain things, and show that there is no ideal system, no right or wrong, and this is your considered analysis of what has been said?

    Making no effort to understand?

    You're right - I am wasting my time.

    Well, I hope some readers found what I was inexpertly trying to express useful, or some insight. I was trying to show that there could be civilised dialogue between the world of the Web Professional and the ODP editor. For a while, I got the feeling that it almost working. But "summaries" like this don't exactly encourage continuation of a dialogue.

    Should anyone actually want to hear the "flip side" of the issues, I will still read stuff on here, and get involved if invited, or you can PM me. You can also send me feedback through the ODP if you want.

    I wish you all luck in your endeavours.
     
    Alucard, Jun 1, 2005 IP
  16. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #116
    According to even DMOZ editors, most people in this forum know more about Internet, SEO, directories,... than DMOZ editors since they are professionals while DMOZ claim to fame is that their editors are not professionals, so what are you trying to educate us about? :confused:

    If you are trying to educate us about the DMOZ is corrupt organization and editors do what ever they like and anybody who doesn't like it is spammer, we have been told this many times before and don't need it to be repeated so many times.

    I really tried to read and digest yours and other editor's posting here but there is nothing there to read or digest, accept the official DMOZ BS. :)
     
    gworld, Jun 1, 2005 IP
  17. Will.Spencer

    Will.Spencer NetBuilder

    Messages:
    14,789
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    375
    #117
    Yes, but it you submit your directory to DMOZ the day you put it online, there is a good chance that it will have 50,000 entries by the time it is reviewed. :cool:
     
    Will.Spencer, Jun 1, 2005 IP
  18. Will.Spencer

    Will.Spencer NetBuilder

    Messages:
    14,789
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    375
    #118
    Just like DMOZ Editors do to our feedback on RZ.

    Got it. :rolleyes:
     
    Will.Spencer, Jun 1, 2005 IP
  19. Will.Spencer

    Will.Spencer NetBuilder

    Messages:
    14,789
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    375
    #119

    I was especially incensed by the DMOZ editor who, instead of simply accepting or rejecting a directory which was submitted to DMOZ, actually took the time to COPY THE DIRECTORY ENTRIES into DMOZ and then reject the submission.

    Nice to see your hard work in building a directory stolen by DMOZ. :cool:

    P.S. No, not my directory. Some other losers directory.
     
    Will.Spencer, Jun 1, 2005 IP
  20. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #120
    No right or wrong? No ideal system? what kind of BS is that? I suppose next you will tell us in reality we are not even here and we are just imagining that we are posting in this forum. :)

    There is always right and wrong way of doing things. If you have a submission process for DMOZ directory, to make it fair, honest and logical is the right way of doing it, having no rules, be dishonest and illogical is the wrong or also known as DMOZ way.

    No, you are not wasting your time since it seems the whole purpose of your postings is to lower the negative impact of such threads but you are wasting our time since the purpose of a dialog should be to clarify the problems and come to conclusion and decide on course of actions but it seems you have no authority or possibility to accept any faults or suggest any changes since those rights are only reserved for the power structure inside the DMOZ that is only interested to keep the status quo. ;)

    My previous posting was not out of anger or uncivilized, just straight and right to the point of giving a summary of all the DMOZ editor's posting here. I think if you take the time and read it again, you will find the bases of all your postings in my summary. :)
     
    gworld, Jun 1, 2005 IP