Editorial: The Lords of Ye 'Olde ODP

[Jeff Martin]

Ive always supported the ODP and fully bought into what they wanted to accomplish. I remember in the 90's when they where much smaller than they were today. The ODP has a lot of good sites properly listed and a few questionable. But what has become upsetting is I have heard that a directory that started out with a meaningful purpose run by volunteers, under the banner of open-source, who wanted to not just help the community, but to help people, has fallen into disarray.

It reminds me of one of my history classes when we discussed the feudal government system that run through Europe around the Middle Ages of A.D. 476 to 1453, sort of a "chaotic order system." It seems that at least some ODP volunteers have decided that they are Lords of their editor areas and in the Resource Zone forums. As Lords they are judge, jury, executioner and responsible to no one. They can speak to you in any manner they wish and if you raise your eyes towards them to disagree, no matter what your tone or what facts you try to bring to their attention, you are censored or perhaps even banned.

The ODPs Social Contract is based on the Debian Social Contract; however the Debian Social Contract is designed to aid both the people who are there to search as well as those that have information/software to offer; “Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software.”

After doing some reading of other sites and blogs, it seems that the ODP is on a slippery slope. They have the power, albeit unchecked, to decline a site for whatever reason they deem necessary without ever having to explain why. Asking why will most often get a response to go look in the "reasons for no inclusion" area. Many (who are legitamate) wont find a reason there why there site was not included. If you ask for more information or try to present information as to why your site should be listed you are said to be arguing with the editor (Lord) and risk your thread being closed, censored and even your account being banned. Editors can shield themselves from having to volunteer any information by saying that anything they were to say would just give spammers an edge. Isn’t that like the age old cry of the oppressor who caries out oppression under the banner of “national security”?

It’s like being George Castanza in Seinfeld, standing in the Soup Nazi kitchen line and daring to say that you didn’t get any bread with your soup. "NO SOUP FOR YOU! NEXT!!"

Unfortunately power has run unchecked, and most of us know where that leads, which is why our Founding Fathers did their best to implement a check and balance government system. Far from perfect, but imagine government with no checks or balances and you have a Feudal system of government, or worse.

To put a constructive nature on this editorial piece, I would like to submit that perhaps a system of accountability is needed to keep editorial power in check. This system should be public and open for input by all. Perhaps editors should be publicly elected by non-editors…granted, I’m shooting from the hip here. However, even not-for-profit business and charities are regulated and audited by outside sources. Any other constructive ideas for a means of accountability for the ODP are very much welcome.

Note: No, I have not personaly had a site recently rejected and yes I still believe in the underlying purpose and original vision of the ODP.

[seomike]

Funny thing. I was passing through there yesterday reading up on things and ran across this request for submission status.

http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38628
http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39049

I was banned for saying their responses were what a 4th grader might say lol. (my comments were deleted)


I could only see that he was denied because 1. the editor is a design critic or 2. Spammers scrapped the serps and the site was in the scraped results.

both of which are not a cause for exclussion the 2nd one of course means that anyone that gets links from some crappy spammer scrape is screwed when submitting to odp.

They're worried about being spammed but give a rdf dump of the entire directory to anyone that wants it which brings the reason TO spam them...
<dazed and confused><slater>Are you cool....OK</slater></dazed and confused>

[kctipton]

I have heard that a directory that started out with a meaningful purpose run by volunteers, under the banner of open-source, who wanted to not just help the community, but to help people, has fallen into disarray.

I think you're starting from a partially false description of how it started out. It's easy to attack something by describing it falsely and then complaining about details related to that falsehood.

[macdesign]

I could only see that he was denied because 1. the editor is a design critic or 2. Spammers scrapped the serps and the site was in the scraped results.That's because your vision was poor. Your other site http://www.usarealestatelicense.com/ is listed, submitting multiple related sites is specifically disallowed. Related information spread over multiples URLs is treated as one site.

[krisval]

That's because your vision was poor. Your other site http://www.usarealestatelicense.com/ is listed, submitting multiple related sites is specifically disallowed. Related information spread over multiples URLs is treated as one site.

I understand your point, this is posted on DMOZ as "Do not submit URLs that contain only the same or similar content as other sites you may have listed in the directory. Sites with overlapping and repetitive content are not helpful to users of the directory."

However, in my opinion, this rule is overlooked when an editor feels like doing so. Example: About.com. How many listings of about.com are really necessary in the directory? Specifically, the following two listings in the directory contradict your statement and the statement of DMOZ.

Both of these pages are listed and clearly have similar and overlapping content.

1. http://weightloss.about.com/health/weightloss/

2. http://weightloss.about.com/mpboards.htm

- Same left side navigation
- Page #1 links directly to #2
- Same subdomains

If DMOZ is going to have standards, then they should hold everyone to the same standards.

[jimnoble]

Not an editor on this occasion. Those URLs were listed several years apart in different categories by different editors. Most of our editors are human. They aren't omniscient and I'm afraid that that kind of situation is going to occur from time to time.

That doesn't provide a justification for deliberately flouting the submission guidelines and then complaining when caught. Be happy that the stated penalty wasn't applied :D .

[Jeff Martin]

That doesn't provide a justification for deliberately flouting the submission guidelines and then complaining when caught. Be happy that the stated penalty wasn't applied .
Who are you speaking to? This is an editorial piece, not a request for status from a surf on your forums.

I have looked at the threads SEOMike has listed and taken some time to look at the submitted site and the site usarealestatelicense that was mentioned.

1. It looks as if the usa site doesnt offer a product/service for California. When you click the state link it just sends you to the submitted site. So, a person who comes to the usarealestatelicense site and is looking for any sort of materials for California, must go to the submitted set.

2. The submitted site seems to be a real estate school (it looks to have state approval or cert or whatever).

I understand your point, this is posted on DMOZ as "Do not submit URLs that contain only the same or similar content as other sites you may have listed in the directory. Sites with overlapping and repetitive content are not helpful to users of the directory."
It seems to me that there is a difference here. These sites have different content and products and courses. The submitted site is an actual school with specific content for their state whereas the usa site is meant to sell a handful of products to most other states (no state courses).

These sites are aimed at different people. The usa site looks to sell exam prep software and not much else. The submitted site looks to sell state courses, textbooks and few other products to people considering a career in real estate.

[krisval]

It seems to me that there is a difference here. These sites have different content and products and courses.

I didn't want to get into the specific site argument, but I am sure you are right on second look. I was attempting to provide an example to show that the guidelines are ignored when DMOZ feels like it. The more important point is that there are editors denying a site for a reason where there are sites listed that violate that reason. This is inconsistent and innappropriate in my opinion.

Those URLs were listed several years apart in different categories by different editors. Most of our editors are human. They aren't omniscient and I'm afraid that that kind of situation is going to occur from time to time.


Now that you know, and are an editor, perhaps you should contact the editor of those categories to tell them about it. If I tried in resource zone, I am sure that I would get nowhere.

The point of the editorial was to propose that there should be some better oversight and I couldn't agree more. Could you imagine if Firefox was run as losely as DMOZ. How many versions of the browser would be available? How many wouldn't work?

[Jeff Martin]

I didn't want to get into the specific site argument, but I am sure you are right on second look. Very right, neither did I. This is meant to be a constructive forward thinking approach to providing reccomendations as to how the editorial system at DMOZ could be improved upon and how we can hold editors who are borderline abusive and certainly disrespectful towards others accountable for their actions.

a person who volunteers; to volunteer is to choose to act in recognition of a need, with an attitude of social responsibility without concern for monetary profit, going beyond what is necessary to one’s physical well-being. -(Susan J. Ellis and Katherin H. Noyes, in By the People: A History of Americans as Volunteers, Philadelphia, 1978)I think thats one of the best definitions of what a volunteer is.

Editing should be fun, not life threatening.-bobrat at the ODP forumAnd submitting a site to the ODP should not be an offensive, degrading and insulting experience.

http://resource-zone.com/forum/showpost.php?p=187726&postcount=4

[Jeff Martin]

Discontinuation of site status checks (http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39116)

And now, no one has any way of getting anything at all out of the ODP.

Now there appears to be complete secrecy as to what happens after you submit a site. You will not when or if a site submitted will be approved or if it was disapproved. Also, there is a good chance, due to the broad intrepretations to guidelines, that you will never know why your site never appears in the ODP.

So much for an "open source" idealism, but then again, the Feudal Lords never had to explain anything to the surfs.

[macdesign]

ODP has never been open source - Open Source is something totally different

The Open for ODP only means the directory RDF files are Open

[krisval]

ODP has never been open source - Open Source is something totally different. The Open for ODP only means the directory RDF files are Open

That's semantics. Noone is saying that the source code for the directory should be available. The use of that term is absolutely related to the ODP and valid as described by ODP itself.

"The ODP is an Open Source inspired, volunteer managed initiative"

"The ODP was developed in the spirit of Open Source, where development and maintenance are done by net-citizens, and results are made freely available for all net-citizens."

Both directly from http://dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html#runs

[I, Brian]

Seems DMOZ will be losing out on a valuable method of communication between itself and webmasters, and simply help exaggerate the complaints against it.

[Marcia]

I think it's beyond the call of duty for volunteeer editors to have to research state laws when a site's submitted, unless it was part of their original job description in their employment contract when they were hired. :D

But as a point of general interest, in California you have to sit for the state real estate exam and pass it to become a licensed real estate agent.

[krisval]

Trying to move on to ideas to improve the directory.

I know the ODP is non-profit, but it is owned by a for profit corporation. For profit corporations spend millions of dollars promoting charities, supporting local initiatives, and ginving back to the community.

Check out AOL's own page about this: http://www.corp.aol.com/whoweare/comminv.shtml

What am I leading to. AOL should create a group internally whose job is to oversee the ODP and ensure that their corporate image is upheld and the standards are being met. This group should be responsible for choosing editors and monitoring their conduct.

What would be the benefits?
- It would create good will between webmasters and AOL which would ultimately continue to improve AOL's image in the marketplace. Forums are a funny thing. Word gets around Bad or Good and a good image would eventually filter to users.
- Potentially create media buzz. Noone I know outside of Webmasters has even heard of the ODP. If they did a press release about the reorganization to improve the quality of ad free directory/search, this would be a great press release to the general public and help them once again in the marketplace. It would get the word out to AOL subscribers and to investors.
- If executed correctly, I think the benefits could outway the costs of creating a professional oversight group.

....Just some thoughts.

[Marcia]

What am I leading to. AOL should create a group internally whose job is to oversee the ODP and ensure that their corporate image is upheld and the standards are being met.Nice concept, but how much do corporate suits understand about a directory like ODP, and about what webmasters do, and *especially* about what SEOs do - which is probably most of what editors have to contend with?

Who would explain to the suits what kind of stuff is pulled, and how to spot the clues and recognize when ODP is getting gamed with submissions?

[krisval]

Is suits a dirty word:) You raise good questions. They are a huge company and I am sure have a ton of bureaucracy. I don't know how you would convince them, but I do believe this.

AOL is for profit and they are running a not-for profit property. Unless there are some community/social benefits to running it, they eventually will do something about it. Maybe scrap it all together, sell it, or focus on it. The budget must be minimal right now because AOL has had it share of growing pains in the past few years. If it was a significant expense, they would have already done something. However, at some point someone will realize that it is there is no benefit and make a decision. Usually these types of decisions come from new management, a consulting firm, or necessity due to poor earnings. At one point....I was a suit:) Low level suit, but a suit.

[Marcia]

However, at some point someone will realize that it is there is no benefit and make a decision. Oh, but there is benefit - huge benefit and huge value.

Maybe not for individual webmasters whose sites don't get in, but aside from anything else there sure is value for the IR community at large, and AOL has enough of a vested interest in search to know the value. That's reason enough to keep it going, just that by itself.

Nothing against suits mind you, but suits wouldn't have the slightest notion of how people game the search engines - or how they game ODP - and how to detect or even suspect when it's being done.

Seems DMOZ will be losing out on a valuable method of communication between itself and webmasters, and simply help exaggerate the complaints against it. Brian, you mean by shutting down the site status forum? If so, I posted my thoughts over here, not to take this one onto another topic

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=5784

[krisval]

and AOL has enough of a vested interest in search to know the value

Regarding benefits to the web overall, I don't want to get into that one, but I disagree with the statement that it benefits AOL/Time Warner. The question to ask is does it improve the value of the stock for shareholders? I see absolutely no current benefit to this.
- Not profitable
- Doesn't create brand recognition for either Netscape or AOL
- Probably provides minimal user traffic for Netscape and AOL
- Is a cost center
- Not even mentioned in the annual report at all never mind a benefit
- Don't see how it enhances the search. Netscape and AOL use Google's engine. If ODP data is used directly, it is certainly well disguised.
- Netscape no longer uses it directly and redirects users to web search. http://open.netscape.com/

An argument can be made that some open source initiatives help corporations. ex. Sun and Java. In the specific examples I am aware of, there is an underlying reason. Sun wanted Java to compaete against Microsoft. Make the software platform independent so that users could use their systems as well. Maybe it didn't work so great, but at least that was the idea to benefit the company's earnings. Microsoft just announced they will provide open source code, but you can bet it will somehow benefit their bottom line at some point.

If you still disagree with me, I would like to know your reasons why you think it benefits AOL/Timewarner as a for profit company.

suits wouldn't have the slightest notion of how people game the search engines

Yahoo is professionally run and pretty darn good. But I don't propose a paid editor scheme. I was referring to the choosing of editors and professional oversight of the directory as a whole while maintaining volunteers. If editors are doing things that are against policy or are creating an air of resentment, I think the "suits" could a very good job. AOL is already one of the top properties on the web. They certainly have professionals who understand search and if they didn't have the expetise, they have enough money to hire it. Nothing is perfect and adding professionals would not make it perfect, but I think it would help with oversight.

[Jeff Martin]

Nothing against suits mind you, but suits wouldn't have the slightest notion of how people game the search engines - or how they game ODP - and how to detect or even suspect when it's being done. They wouldnt need to. They only need to know that they dont know enough to run it and need to get someone who who is knowledgable to manage it overall. I think thats where your lower level suit would come in.

Hopefully this will establish a public means of communciation between ODP editors and the people of the web as well as have a policy that not only enforces quality standards but conduct standards of editors who represent the ODP. Any complaints (and praises) of an editor should be addressed and dealt with publicly and archived for trending.

It does nothing for the image of the ODP (or its owner) to have editors belittleing and insulting people in the resource-zone forums.

That being said more editors should be brought in. No more of this volunteer to be an editor, fill out a form and sample and get back a two word email (if you ever see an email) thats says..."No way."

Why not get vertan volunteers to TRAIN people who have the motivation to become an editor. Have people sign up, complete some reading and complete a few mock-up tests to show their seriousness, then assign them to small categories and let them work their way up under an establised editor. Give more people a chance to participate who are willing to show their level of commitment. Hopefully this would ease the work for editors and allows them to assist the users of the ODP more freely and openly both the searchers and the submitters.

Lets help people get into the ODP instead of helping them stay out of it.

[I, Brian]

Brian, you mean by shutting down the site status forum? If so, I posted my thoughts over here, not to take this one onto another topic

http://forums.searchenginewatch.com/showthread.php?t=5784
Regardless of how the the forum itself is run, shutting down points of communication and accountability can only negatively impact how DMOZ is perceived.

[macdesign]

Why not get vertan volunteers to TRAIN people who have the motivation to become an editor.It's not a bad idea, but I'm not sure how well it would work. Zeal, for example, provides basic training and a test. Their model is different then the ODP one, but it's appeal and culture is also totally different, I was a Zeal editor before I was ODP editor, I've done three edits in Zeal and over 18,000 in ODP. I never intended to get that involved, but the ODP structure and editors appealed to me more and got me hooked.

[Jeff Martin]

Its been my limited experience that the ODP tends to take more experienced folks as editors. It doesnt seem that this approach is working well as the amount of submissions continues to grow despite the amount of sites that are gone through day by day.

Editors should be there to help people get into the ODP. That being said they need the time to render that help. In order to have more time they need more editors. Im not saying the ODP should take every Tom Dick and Harry off the street and hand over 2k sites to do, but after an initial "commitment test" and a bit of reading they could start lending help to the existing editors probably within a month.

The beauty is that existing editors wouldnt need to spend time screening applicants and trying to find the one whos ready to hit the ground running. A volunteer could work their way into a que of volunteers who know the basics of editorial guidelines and can start to lightening the load and helping submitters with questions and getting proper placement in the ODP.

[kctipton]

Seems DMOZ will ... simply help exaggerate the complaints against it.

Not possible. The complaints are already extremely exaggerated and lead to utterly painful threads like this one (and notice that nobody has addressed my earlier point that it's rather easy to characterize something in a way that is wrong and then attack that characterization -- and ODP is being treated that way).

[krisval]

OK. I'll bite.

I think you're starting from a partially false description of how it started out.

First, I don't want to defend the original statement because it wasn't mine, but I would like to ask for you to define what the ODP is all about, how it was started and what is it's purpose.

I think if you are going to call something false and it may well be, I am not arguing that it isn't, then you should elaborate to tell why you feel that way and explain the purpose of the ODP so that others can understand your perspective.

I think that is a fair question and I am not trying to be a wise guy about this, I would really like to know your reasons for calling the statement false. Are you referring to something that is not posted on the ODP site itself as the defintion of its mission? or are you referring to what has been made available to the public?

[cbp]

It is a common tactic used in debates --- ie characterise something that it is not and then attack that characterization...

You see that all the time in DMOZ threads ... ie DMOZ is characterized as something thats it not ... then attack that characterization. (...anyone looking for a topic for a doctoral thesis on critical thinking would find DMOZ threads a rich resouce for analysis)

Most wrong or false characterizations of DMOZ are that it should be some sort of listing service for webmasters -- most attacks/criticisms of DMOZ are based on that false premise. (eg "trying to get listed"; "editors are there to process submissions"; "I have been waiting; etc etc).

DMOZ is not a listing service for webmasters...never has been and probably never will be ...

[krisval]

I concede that there are a lot of people who are just mad that they did not get in or are waiting. I am also sure that there is a ton of SPAM submissions.

The one point I differ with your response.

"editors are there to process submissions"

IMO, one of the tasks of an editor is to process submissions. I can only base this opinion on what ODP says about it in the steps to add a URL. Unless a site falls into the automated submissions where they are automatically deleted, then I assume they are placed in a queue for Human Review which takes place after step 4.

"An ODP editor will review your submission to determine whether to include it in the directory." http://dmoz.org/add.html After Submission Section.

This statement does not say may. It says will. This is a very big difference in language. Will means that it is a certainty not a possibility.

If this really is not the case, then the language should be changed. This use of language and the overall description of how to add a URL implies to a submitter that if they follow these steps someone will review it. One area that could lead to frustration.

[cbp]

I should hvae been clearer re the "processing of submissions". Editors have numerous sources of new sites, the submissions are just one (and is the worst and most inefficient source).

The plethora of directory sites that are out there (especially the new ones) do have a mission of processing submissions - they only add sites that are submited. The mission of DMOZ is different (ie build a directory). Of what use are all those newish directories that only process submissions to surfers? --- what about the all the really good sites that never get submitted? For example, can you imagine companies like, for eg, Nike, Google, NY Times, the White House etc submitting their sites to all these directories. How good is a directory to surfers if sites like these are not added?

Hence the mission of DMOZ is different ie build a dierctory vs process submissions. For DMOZ's mission, several sources if sites are used. Its the charaterization of DMOZ in the same "category" of these submission processing directories that I am refering to.

The way I sus a directory is look for the category that a site about mesothelioma goes in. Look at the DMOZ category - has about a dozen really good information sites - a few .gov's, .edu's etc - ie a valuable resource for the visitor. Look at a submission processing directory and all you get are the lawyer spam sites or the 'built forAdsense' sites about mesothelioma's. Which is more useful to the surfer? Which is more useful to search engines to give more weight to (if they want to)? I guess that the lawyer & adsense mesothelioma sites were submitted to DMOZ and either got rejected or are in the pool of waiting sites --- does it really matter to the surfer/visitor that they are not listed? .... this is the funamental difference between DMOZ and "submission procesing directories" that lead to the criticisms of DMOZ being directed at a characterization of what DMOZ is ot.

(As an aside, its good to see the lengths the UnCoverTheNet are going to by adding sites that are not submitted to add value to categories to make the directory useful to visitors)

[krisval]

CBP thanks for the detailed response and yes I understand the mission and I understand that many editors actively try to find sites vs. just reviewing submissions.

I guess that the lawyer & adsense mesothelioma sites were submitted to DMOZ and either got rejected or are in the pool of waiting sites --- does it really matter to the surfer/visitor that they are not listed

IMO, this is where DMOZ could use some more oversight to make the review process more consistent. It is very subjective which site is better. One persons caviar is another persons fish eggs. I may be the only one in this thread who likes the idea of professional oversight, but I think if a top level group, created and enforced very specific guidelines, I think it could make the ODP an even better resource.

I am for the volunteers, I am for the ODP, but I think it could be significantly improved.

[dyn4mik3]

I think the ODP should close.

Here's a snip from the dmoz about page:

The web continues to grow at staggering rates. Automated search engines are increasingly unable to turn up useful results to search queries. The small paid editorial staffs at commercial directory sites can't keep up with submissions, and the quality and comprehensiveness of their directories has suffered. Link rot is setting in and they can't keep pace with the growth of the Internet.

Instead of fighting the explosive growth of the Internet, the Open Directory provides the means for the Internet to organize itself. As the Internet grows, so do the number of net-citizens. These citizens can each organize a small portion of the web and present it back to the rest of the population, culling out the bad and useless and keeping only the best content.

Search engines are continuing to improve at a rapid pace. Even commercial directories are slowly dwindling as a source of content filtering - directories are viewed as a PR link.

I don't see a need for the ODP - when was the last time one of you went to the ODP to find a site? How much traffic do you get from an ODP listing? Are crawlers the only ones surfing through ODP links?

I am for the ideals of the ODP, I just don't see the benefit of directories for a web user in the age of search.

[Gerardism]

I'm an editor for a few smaller categories in ODP, and one issue I have is some editors having too many categories (in different sections) and just the other day I was checking for a friend how many sites were showing waiting to be reviewed for a category she was waiting for her client to get in, and there was just under 1000 sites waiting. So there's a really good chance of around a years wait to be listed I would assume.

ODP at times can be very hard for new people to become editors, I feel they should be a bit more lenient on allowing new editors for the smaller categories at least.

I don't think ODP should close, but they do need restructing on the inside thats for sure.

[kctipton]

I'm very disappointed that Danny pointed to this weird thread from his blog entry at http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050523-113618 .

That said, Danny, keep in mind that the content at Wikipedia IS the collection of articles. ODP's content is the organized collection of links, and those can't be reviewed the same way you can read articles. The links are reviewed by visiting the sites and seeing if (A) content is appropriate for the category, and (B) content fits the criteria for listing: ODP's guidelines.

It's apples and oranges. Wikipedia's articles have to be essentially "right" and that's something most people can agree upon. ODP listings have to be "listable" and that's much more subjective than judging the "rightness" of an article's content. ODP's more experienced editors tend to agree on listability, but any schmo desperate to see his links in lights won't give a damn about site content or appropriate category for listing.

Try looking at the sorry state of trulyopendirectory.com. They are trying to be a wiki alternative to ODP, and it's not a pretty sight. I think they've at least cleaned it up a little bit from when they started, but the content itself is what you'd expect from mixing non-ontologists with people desperate to see their site listed.

[Aerik]

This is a neat idea:
It's apples and oranges. Wikipedia's articles have to be essentially "right" and that's something most people can agree upon. ODP listings have to be "listable" and that's much more subjective than judging the "rightness" of an article's content.
The "rightness" of wikipedia articles is a popular representation of a concept (sometimes aka "fact"). Wikipedia insists on a neutral point of view, but otherwise what basically happens is that the people who care about a topic edit, discuss, argue, and sometime get an outside mediator, until they agree on an interpretation.

A website has some content. People can look at the content and describe it in different ways - but the website is the website, unchanging (like a "fact"). The people that care about it can follow the same process to come to some consensus about the best description.

Try looking at the sorry state of trulyopendirectory.com. They are trying to be a wiki alternative to ODP, and it's not a pretty sight.
Well, yes. But this is only one example, and not a great one. I am also running a wiki-based general directory (which I won't name or link to, so as to have less risk of violating a "self-promotion" rule), but I must say that we don't have the issues the trulyopendirectory has - at least not in those volumes. It's a different implementation. I will freely admit that a wiki is a fragile thing, and that it's survival depends on the goodwill of people and the smartness of the software outweighing the cleverness and stubbornness of spammers and vandals, but they can (and do) work... maybe not for all topics, but I think a directory is a great subject for a wiki (I'm biased). But don't take trulyopendirectory as the only example.

Best Regards,
Aerik

[Jeff Martin]

Search engines are continuing to improve at a rapid pace. Even commercial directories are slowly dwindling as a source of content filtering - directories are viewed as a PR link. Maybe this has become a reality and some ODP editors refuse to believe it, which is why some of them have become disgruntled towards submitters in their forums.

My experiences have been that if you go to any forum and look long enough when a discussion talks about link building, directories or off page SEO in general and the ODP comes up, that its mostly mentioned in the context of being a major backlink. I dont hear "Make sure you get into the ODP because they'll send you alot of relevant traffic." It just inst so. All the years Ive been doing this and the ODP has never been a major source for traffic.

The ODP has gained much and they can be proud of what they have accomplished. However, Rich Skrenta and Danny have it pegged, the internet has moved on. Maybe we should too. And maybe those ODP editors, whomever they may be, who think they are out there curing cancer can come to terms with the reality that the ODP, based on my observation of others, has become a BL stop.

[krisval]

However, Rich Skrenta and Danny have it pegged, the internet has moved on.

I am in agreement with this to a point. Right now, the engines rule for the users, but as the engines evolve who knows what it will bring. Does anyone remember that Lycos started as a search engine and then decided that it was better to be a portal....search was dead. Yeah Right.

My point is that in their current form, directories may be losing their appeal, but they may evolve into something better. Directories are also better IMO than search engines for certain queries.

Example: Search Google for Accountants New York then Look at the ODP listing for http://dmoz.org/Business/Accounting/Firms/Accountants/United_States/New_York/

I think the ODP listings are much better. The Google results display portals and info web sites when I was actually looking for accounting firms.

I think some form of Clustering technology may eventually be able to group results much better in the future - more like directories. Maybe some of this will require human intervention? Also, I think the standard directory may start to fade, but a site like wikipedia will continue to grow...Info plus resources.

[Duncan Pollock]

It's a few years since I was an ODP editor -- a period in my life that I look back upon with some fondness because, if nothing else, it taught me so much about how well a website could and could not be designed, let alone submitted -- but I finally became the victim of the sheer volume of spare time that was being taken from me. I had step by step become responsible for some 10,000 sites and was faced with two or three hundred new ones every day, quite apart from what looked like a two year task to "clean up" what was already there.
Anyway, from this (rambling) introduction, let me stick my neck out with an idea that, assuming AOL could/would pick up the tab, could, to everyone's benefit, kind of automate the submission/acceptance process.
The real trouble is that nowhere near enough webmasters actually read the submission guidelines. For example, they're clearly told by ODP to make the title either the name of the company/organization (e.g. "ABC Real Estate Ltd") or a phrase that captures the thrust of the website content (e.g. "The principles of due diligence"). But no, ODP gets "The leading real estate company in XYZ town" or "We can help you check on what the financial statements are saying."
So, says I, why can't someone programming genius create a Submission Form that keeps on telling the webmaster "Sorry, that isn't a title that meets the ODP Guidelines. Try changing it to the name of your company."? I mean, this happens to us everyday when we're told "Not a vaid login name" / "Password not recognized" / "Incorrect account number" / etc. Or how about Google's prods about "Do you mean ....?"?
And, although it would call for a more involved YesNo handling, the same approach could ensure that the Description ends up being the "third person objective" sentences it needs to be.
cbp and the other ODP editors in our midst here can confirm that experienced and senior editors know to the letter what's right and what's wrong. Why, then, can't their knowledge be codified into a step by step process that would give the relevant editor an acceptable site at least in terms of the required title and description? All that would be necessary after that would be to see if it's a duplicate submission (i.e. already in ODP, though perhaps in a different category) or one that belongs in a more appropriate category? And I really don't see why this, too, couldn't be managed by the submission program.
All easier said than done, needless to say. But how do the spiders cope with the hundeds of thousand new sites that they have to visit day in and day out? Sure, they end up with the hype and scam they're presented with, but an ODPAutoSubmit process wouldn't, I'm sure, be beyond the programming geniuses that AOL could hire.

Duncan :D

PS. Alternatively, maybe the Google Guys might be willing to toss a few dollars towards the cost of the idea?

[Aerik]

Duncan, you raise a fantastic point, and an excellent suggestion. Even in the small, wiki based directory I'm running, the majority of my work (as an editor) is exactly as you described - the submissions are full of marketing hype. I'm no programming genius, but I agree with your proposed solution (or, at least a filter for some of the worst offenses). I haven't implemented anything yet because I'm so small that I don't want to add hurdles to submission yet, but a simple filter for common phrases ("your resource", "the best", "number one" etc) should go a long ways to improving the situation.

Smarter software - software that holds your hand through the process - is the key to solving a lot of common complaints (another good example is the relevancy of poorly formed seach queries). The trick is to build the right balance of helpful and quick (unencumbered).

Best Regards,
Aerik

[linz]

DMoz has so much information it must be taken seriously, and editors of course have a natural tendency to want information to reflect their own personal preferences. Delays and pay-offs are more serious questions.

It seems to me that the future is best envisaged as a combination of machine and human organization. Why not allow sites to be added by any user and then have them 'self-organize' as well? Sites could appear whether or not they have been approved. Those that have not been seen by an editor could be put in an unedited section, to show that they are in waiting, but they would appear. The question is how to avoid the bulk of spam
-- having 'smarter software' screen for some words might go some of the way towards this.

[davidn]

I've submitted 2-3 times over the past few years and have always been rejected. Funny, the site I manage is in on the first page of Google and Yahoo for over 40 key words relevant to our industry. But we're not relevant according to ODP. It's a clear abuse of power by biased editors (whose own sites are likely listed).

[cbp]

davidn - are you pepared to post your URL? Or add it to you profile? Any number of editors that post here may be willing to have a look. If is abuse, the editor that did it will be promptly booted from the project.

[jimnoble]

I've submitted 2-3 times over the past few years and have always been rejected.Has somebody actually told you that at RZ or somewhere? If not, how do you know it's been declined? It could be still awaiting review somewhere.

If is abuse, the editor that did it will be promptly booted from the project.I couldn't promise that so I'm not sure how you can :).

Sometimes, what looks like abuse is actually lame editing. "Never ascribe to malevolence what can safely be attributed to stupidity".

[cbp]

I couldn't promise that so I'm not sure how you can
Maybe I should not have said it that way :rolleyes:

If there is a problem, then a more senior editor will deal with it. If it is systematic abuse by the editor concerned, then thats a different story.

[mcanerin]

To be fair, without more information no one here can tell whether or not the site is truly a good one or simply optimized well for a search engine.

I've seen scraper sites show up well for lots of keywords, yet the fact that a search engine might be tricked into thinking they are relevant doesn't mean that a human would.

I'm not accusing you of anything Davidn (how could I? I have no info) but from where I sit I can't draw a clear cause and effect between a site ranking well and being rejected because the editor is corrupt. It's too far of a stretch to make given the information available.

It could be. But it could also be hundreds of other reasons, as well.

For example, back when I was a DMOZ editor I would do searches in Google and Yahoo for sites relevant to my area, and more often than not only a few the sites that came up for the searches were actually worth putting into a directory (and most were already in). A lot of sites that the SE thought were good were total crap.

That's why the search engines are pulling from ODP - to improve their listings. It would be pretty odd if the ODP then turned around and pulled from the search engines. Something to think about.

This is actually one reason I think editors should spend more time going through submissions - it's the great sites that the search engines don't know about that should be listed by humans - otherwise, how else would they be found?

Of course, I had a small area with very little PR, so I probably had the luxury of actually having most of the sites submitted actually being pretty good submissions - it may have made me biased.

Ian

[agbarbosa]

Its been my limited experience that the ODP tends to take more experienced folks as editors. It doesnt seem that this approach is working well as the amount of submissions continues to grow despite the amount of sites that are gone through day by day.

Editors should be there to help people get into the ODP. That being said they need the time to render that help. In order to have more time they need more editors. Im not saying the ODP should take every Tom Dick and Harry off the street and hand over 2k sites to do, but after an initial "commitment test" and a bit of reading they could start lending help to the existing editors probably within a month.

The beauty is that existing editors wouldnt need to spend time screening applicants and trying to find the one whos ready to hit the ground running. A volunteer could work their way into a que of volunteers who know the basics of editorial guidelines and can start to lightening the load and helping submitters with questions and getting proper placement in the ODP.

That's what I really agree with. I'm someone with experience in a category and would like to help by serving as volunteer. This "volunteer" name should be changed in DMOZ. They looks like they don't want help. It is like a "closed club" where you can only get in if you know someone inside. I think a solution should be a audit group to check the rejections reasons. No one could explain to me why I was rejected.

[cbp]

This "volunteer" name should be changed in DMOZ.
Why? Editors do not get paid - its vouluntary
They looks like they don't want help.
DMOZ always wants help, especially from those who demonstrate in their application they have the skills that are needed to be an editor.
It is like a "closed club" where you can only get in if you know someone inside.
Not even close to being true
I think a solution should be a audit group to check the rejections reasons.
Accountable to who?
No one could explain to me why I was rejected.
It would have been in the rejection email you got.

[macdesign]

I've seen a lot of new editors get accepted, and occassionally look at their work. For the most part, the initial quality of editing is not generally that good, (neither was mine when I started). But it's assumed that will improve with experience.

A lot of editors get rejected because they make no attempt to read the guidelines, want to edit and review things their way - not the ODP way, have the wrong attitude, and fail to be honest on their application.

I don't review editor applications, but I see the dialogs that go on on resource zone about editor applications, and it's surprising what I read there. You will see there:

.. would be editors insisting they are able to edit a category with 500 sites, and refusing to accept less.

.. wanting to submit applications without any web sites attached

.. claiming that if you read their resume that should be enough to prove they would be a good editor

.. showing such a bad command of English in the post, that the chances of being an editor are zero

as cbp said, rejection notes explain the reasons for each case.

[morepro]

From cbp
It would have been in the rejection email you got.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but we've been submitting to DMOZ for over 6 years now using legitimate websites and email addresses for submission.

I can personally say that we have NOT RECEIVED ONE rejection email from an editor or from DMOZ.

[cbp]

The question and answer about the rejection email was about an editors aplication and NOT a site submission (no rejcetion or acceptance emails given for that).

[morepro]

My apologies... I read backwards, but evidently not far enough.

[Jeff Martin]

have the wrong attitude And what attitude is that? Would it be the attitude I saw run rampant in the forums belittling people and being down right rude and disrespectful? If I worked for someone and I talked to their clients that way I would be fired. Just because they are volunteers and are not being paid is no reason to adopt a poor and abusive attitude. No, not all editors in the resourcezone forums were a jerk, but there were enough of them to make quite a few threads down right ugly.

We aren’t talking about editorial guidelines or about acceptions or rejections, but about common courtesy and professionalism.

[agbarbosa]

Well, I can assure you I did the right application and none of the items in the "automatic reply" was saying what was my rejection reason. And this was not only one or two tries, I can assure you too. I'm Brazilian and as far as I know, there are only few editors for the category Regional / South America / Brazil and if it is true the directory needs more help and they are glad to receive new good candidatures, I can't undestand why the person who evaluate mines couldn't say just a word about the rejection. For me, their work look something like "press a red button" and it is done. Let's be honest with ourselves, they don't care to have more good editors in DMOZ, and because they are humans, they just care in to maintain their own interests, that's my oppinion. I'm sorry if I'm being too rude, but I'm very frustrated with my tries in to be an editor.

[cbp]

I can assure you I did the right application
So why was it rejected? It would have been rejected for a valid reason.
they don't care to have more good editors in DMOZ
Why do people make up such BS? Several hundred new editors are added each month.

Imagine the harm done to DMOZ if the standard needed to become an editor is lowered so more can be added .... after poor editing is found, a senior editor then has to go through and correct it all - that takes time.

It could have been in your appliction that you:
* the sample sites you suggested in the application may not have been eligible for a listing in the category applied for (imagine the damage done to the directory if you were allowed to edit)
* you may have applied for a higher level or larger category (imagine the harm you could don to such a large section of the diretory if you were let lose in such a large area with an unknown trach record ....until a senior editor can see that you can edit following guidelines)
* the descriptions of sample sites you submitted were not guideline compliant (imagine the harm you could have done to the directory in adding lots of sites with inappropriate descriptions)
* maybe you did not disclose honestly all your affiliations
* etc
* etc

[agbarbosa]

cbp,

I don't know if you believe in what you are saying because you are a good and honest editor or because you don't know some people inside the directory doesn't want to approve new candidatures of good editors because of personal interests. Just to help you on your conclusions, I've informed in my submission I am an student, concluding my MBA in IT and was interested in to be an editor for the category "Top: World: Português: Regional: América do Sul: Brasil: Negócios e Economia: Informática: Ciências da Computação". Just to translate that for you, it is a category about Computer Science (very generic). There is no volunteer, and only two sites are listed there. I think I could be useful there, so I've listed a lot of sites which could be there and in my list of sites affiliated I've listed all of those I've participated on the creation and my personal blog. I've read the guidelines (http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/) and followed all the instructions to submit the information and be evaluated if I'll be good as editor or not (it is not something difficult for a MBA student). So, I don't know your next conclusions but I prefer to believe what the following article is saying about DMOZ, see: http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/2005/sep/16prt.html. Rgds.

[cbp]

because you don't know some people inside the directory doesn't want to approve new candidatures of good editors because of personal interests.
You really have to stop talking about factual errors - thats just not true. .... if this was the case then please report the facts, so the meta editor that rejected you for personal reasons can be removed from DMOZ.
So, I don't know your next conclusions but I prefer to believe what the following article is saying about DMOZ
LOL - if you know so much about DMOZ, you would quickly see the factual errors in that article... Wishful thinking and opinion does not make DMOZ dead. Far from being dead, DMOZ just past the 5.1 million sites listed!!! Its still the fastest growing directory and no other directory comes remotely close to the rate of growth of DMOZ!!!

[agbarbosa]

You really have to stop talking about factual errors - thats just not true. .... if this was the case then please report the facts, so the meta editor that rejected you for personal reasons can be removed from DMOZ.


I don't know if you didn't perceive yet, but this is not the DMOZ-Resource Zone forum. Don't say what I should say here. This is a free channel for oppinions and I will express mine until someone moderating this forum say what I can and what I cannot say.

I would like to say for you that I know the specific person who rejected my application but one of the DMOZ failure is just this missing feature: Obligate editors to put at least a comment for rejections and inform the candidates the Editor who denied your request. This calls transparency, consideration and respect for candidates.

I don't think DMOZ will die, even because I still believe it can be better. But I believe in what the article is saying.

cbp, I'm not proving anything here and this is not my intention. I'm just sharing with my coleagues my experiencing on being a candidate for DMOZ.

[jimnoble]

Obligate editors to put at least a comment for rejections and inform the candidates the Editor who denied your request. This calls transparency, consideration and respect for candidates.Specific reasons why an application has been declined
Where a candidate has been declined for one or more of the most common reasons, the bad news email usually includes this list of ones which might apply. Incomplete application. Insufficient information has been provided in some fields including reason, affiliation and/or Sample URLs. Improper spelling and grammar. Sample URLs are inappropriate for the category which one has applied to edit. They may be too broad, too narrow, completely out of scope, poor quality, or in a language inappropriate for the category. All non-English sites are listed in the World category. Applications for World categories that include sites only in English will be denied. Likewise, applications for World categories that include sample URLs in languages other than the one appropriate for the applied category will be denied. Not properly disclosing affiliations with websites that are, or have the potential of being, listed in the category. Titles and descriptions of sample URLs (and other information provided) were subjective and promotional rather than unbiased and objective. ODP editors do not rank or write website reviews. ODP editors provide objective and unbiased descriptions of websites and their content. Self-Promotion. Application which leads us to believe that the candidate is interested primarily in promoting his/her own sites or those with which the applicant is affiliated. The ODP is not a marketing tool, and should not be used to circumvent the site submission process. If this is an applicant's motivation for joining, then we ask him/her not to apply. Editors found to be inappropriately promoting their own site will be promptly removed.We rarely say things such as "The word professional only has one F but does have 2 Ss" or "All of your suggested websites are owned by you". Quite frankly, any candidate who can't figure out which of the above list of reasons applies to them, probably wouldn't make a good editor anyway.

If the reasons are off the list, I'll usually spell them out.

I evaluate many editor applications and basically I'm looking for three things. Communications skills Integrity Attention to detailI could write an essay about each one of these topics, but I won't. Most readers here should be able to figure out that they'd be looking for exactly the same things if they were recruiting.

Meta anonymity
Metas are not much loved by some sectors of the web community. It's not unknown for them to be harrassed electronically and, on rare occasions, physically. That's the exact reason why I take some care to surf safely.

However, whilst the rejectee doesn't know who did the deed, all other meta editors do, because everything logged.

Transparency
I don't know of any organisation that lays all the details of its inner workings and individual decision makings before the public at large. Does anybody here do that with their organisation? What ODP does have is extensive public domain policy and guidelines documentation coupled to an abuse reporting mechanism to permit violations to be reported. That goes a heck of a lot further than most do.

Why do I never hear this transparency issue raised about Google or MSN?

I would like to say for you that I know the specific person who rejected my application but one of the DMOZ failure is just this missing featurePlease raise an abuse report which includes your proposed editor name, application date and category. All abuse reports are handled by the meta community in a way visible to the entire meta community and are taken very seriously. It just wouldn't be possible for a specific meta to bury the allegation.

If you choose not to raise an abuse report, it won't be possible for us to investigate your allegations.

[agbarbosa]

jimnoble,

If you read the entire conversation here, which is very long, the begin of this long conversation started with someone’s allegation something like:

As Lords they are judge, jury, executioner and responsible to no one.

and you said something like:
I evaluate many editor applications and basically I'm looking for three things.
Communications skills
Integrity
Attention to detail

so, I hope you understand people can sometime make some language mistakes and this is because we are human. Of course you need to have strong criteria to evaluate good candidates, but that "automatic reply" don’t allow common humans to learn with their mistakes. That's why coaching and a good feedback helps.

To show you a good example, let's consider you have passed by the same criteria to be an editor... If I was you evaluating your candidacy, you should never be one Editor because of basic english mistakes (and english is also my second language).
I don't know of any organisation that lays all the details of its inner workings and individual decision makings before the public at large. Does anybody here do that with their organisation?
Notice that "organization" noun uses "z" not "s".

I think you were sensate in your point of view and I will take your suggestion and the challenge behind that. I'll be getting into the process again and report directly to you my experience before make it public again.

If you and cbp are being sincere, I will be pleasant to go back in my allegations and also make it public. What we both want is the true, right?

You know, I think ODP should have some Editors coaching others. This is my first experience with ODP editor candidacy, so, your help would be very appreciated, and I will use my journalist work here to investigate what the ODP Editors are saying.

Deal ?

[jimnoble]

Notice that "organization" noun uses "z" not "s".Absolutely correct - but only in some parts of the world.

You'll note that I come from Southern England, where we spell it with an s :p .

That aside, thanks for taking my comments seriously. We look forward to your next application :) .

<added> I wouldn't decline an application because of a single typo BTW. <added>

[cbp]

Notice that "organization" noun uses "z" not "s".
lol ---- most of the world use it with a 's' -- only one smaller part of the world use it with 'z'....

[Marcia]

There may be a particularly sticky issue with applicants for whom English is a second language. Someone can be a PhD from another country who is highly literate in their native tongue, with perfect grammar and spelling, and yet there could easily be spelling or grammar errors when they're writing in English that could affect their ability to edit and/or have their application accepted.

Those very people may be applying for a category that's local to them and be the most qualified imaginable because of their familiarity, or be otherwise highly qualified by the nature of their field of expertise (which may not necessarily even be commercial), and yet the language issue could be a hindrance.

Sorry to tell you this, agbarbosa; but you (and others) could easily have fallen through the cracks and been denied for this very reason, rather than some arcane reason that you might suspect.

You know, I think ODP should have some Editors coaching others.In cases of ESL issues, that might not be a bad idea if it could possibly be implemented, though it's hard to imagine how much work it would entail when it comes to crafting grammatically correct descriptions with everything spelled right on an ongoing basis.

[cbp]

You know, I think ODP should have some Editors coaching others.
They do. All new editors are mentored.

[jimnoble]

I wouldn't decline an application because of a single typo BTW.I'd like to expand upon that. Meta editors are well aware of the English language spelling, grammar and word meaning variations around the world. These are acceptable in an application. Too many spelling or grammatical errors outside of that variation are not.
There are usually clues if an applicant's first language is not English. If his/her English language skills aren't up to editing an English language category, and the rest of the application holds promise, I often suggest that they request one of the World categories instead. There, they'd be working in their first language - and probably having a more comfortable and rewarding time in the process.
ODP is not an ESL training school. That experienced editors should spend time acting as amateur ESL teachers instead of editing doesn't seem a good idea to me when there are many other specialist resources that can do the job more effectively.
In my experience of looking at applications, those whose first language isn't English take far more care to get things right. It's the folks that don't know that they have a problem that have a problem

[agbarbosa]

Just to inform you, my application was in my native language which is "brazilian portuguese".

And jimnoble, my mistake. I didn't know there was other spelling for organization. :o

[PhilC]

if you know so much about DMOZ, you would quickly see the factual errors in that article... Wishful thinking and opinion does not make DMOZ deadAs the author of that article, I think I can safely say that the article doesn't even suggest that DMOZ is dead - just that it's original concept is dead. Perhaps you should read it again, cbp ;) And there are no factual errors in the article.

I can also comment from some good experience about editor applications. It was, and I assume it still is, very uncommon for the exact reason for a rejection to be given to the applicant - that's one way that DMOZ has turned away a great many potentially good editors, which, in turn, has contributed to the huge backlog of unreviewed sites.

There are some reasons why it is better that the exact reason isn't given. Grammar and spelling are two such reasons. If the applicant is told that the grammar and/or spelling is not good enough, then s/he will get somebody to check it out for the next application, and DMOZ may end up with an editor who isn't capable of good grammar and/or spelling. Perhaps one or other of those is the reason for agbarbosa's rejections. Another (lesser) reason for not stating the exact reason might be that the suggested sites don't belong in the category that is applied for, or maybe they are already listed elsewhere, which would suggest that the new editor would add sites that don't belong in the category, although if new editors are watched, that's something that could be sorted out.

It's true to say that DMOZ turns away many potentially good editors, and I think it's fair to say that they are not even trying to get as many good new editors as possible. I read a few of the threads in the the RZ Editor Applications sub-forum recently, where I kept seeing "it's still waiting to be reviewed" to "what happened to my application?", where the person had applied at least month earlier. If they were keen to get good new editors, they wouldn't be leaving applications anywhere near that long, so it's fair to say that they aren't all that bothered about increasing the number of editors.

[jimnoble]

If they were keen to get good new editors, they wouldn't be leaving applications anywhere near that long, so it's fair to say that they aren't all that bothered about increasing the number of editors.Some applications are evaluated and processed within a few hours and others can take a couple of months. Here are some reasons for that. Many meta editors aren't happy to review applications written in a language they don't understand.

Many meta editors aren't happy to review applications for a topic that they don't understand.

Meta editors are volunteers too.
Do you have a problem with any of those?

[PhilC]

I don't have a problem with them personally, Jim. I don't have a problem with anything that DMOZ does or doesn't do, because I'm not personally interested in DMOZ. But, if some editor applications are left waiting for a couple of months, as you said, then it supports what I suggested - that DMOZ isn't all that bothered about getting new editors. I didn't suggest that DMOZ should review applications quickly. I merely observed that they don't appear to be all that bothered about them. And, to be perfectly honest, I can't imagine that any reason could account for a 2 month delay in processing an application from someone who simply wants to help. That's 2 months of ignoring the person, remember.

In the RZ threads that I referred to, the responses really were as short and cold as I said - "your application is still waiting to be reviewed". It seems to me that, if DMOZ really does want to get new editors, then, even if a long delay is necessary, the responses would be more encouraging - a brief reason as to why the application is taking so long, for instance?

And, for those applicants who are left in limbo, let's not forget the many meta editors who don't fit any of the above list - except that they are volunteers.

[agbarbosa]

There are some reasons why it is better that the exact reason isn't given. Grammar and spelling are two such reasons. If the applicant is told that the grammar and/or spelling is not good enough, then s/he will get somebody to check it out for the next application, and DMOZ may end up with an editor who isn't capable of good grammar and/or spelling. Perhaps one or other of those is the reason for agbarbosa's rejections.
Hello PhilC, nice to see you here. Well, I don't think I made spelling mistakes with my application in my first language but I agree with your oppinion. That's just what I doubted in the reasons behind a rejection. I could be rejected for an english application but not portuguese.
Thanks for being here participating on this discussion since I've raised up an issue using your article and no one is better than you to explain the factual behind that.

[PhilC]

I'm here almost daily, agbarbosa. Todo ben?

I had some more thoughts about Jim's last post:-

Many meta editors aren't happy to review applications written in a language they don't understand.Then wouldn't it be a good idea for metas who are fluent in a language to be specifically responsible for processing applications in the language?

Many meta editors aren't happy to review applications for a topic that they don't understand.Then wouldn't it be a good idea for certain metas to have the responsibility for processing application in certain areas?

Even as volunteers, delays of up to 2 months aren't necessary if application processing is organised - as any business would do. I'm sorry, Jim, but I don't see that such delays are necessary for any reason. Imo, they occur because DMOZ isn't particularly interested in getting new editors. I'm not saying that DMOZ should be particularly interested; I'm saying that you aren't particularly interested. If you were, there wouldn't be delays of up to 2 months, and enquiries about applications would be met with such short, cold reponses.


Getting back to the orginal post...

But what has become upsetting is I have heard that a directory that started out with a meaningful purpose run by volunteers, under the banner of open-source, who wanted to not just help the community, but to help people, has fallen into disarray.The original aims of DMOZ turned out to be impossible to achieve, and the directory has become just another directory - big, but not the catalogue of the Web that it was intended to be. I don't know if it ever actually tried to be the catalogue of the Web, but it doesn't try now, as the slow responses to editor applications, and even the rudeness to applicants, indicate. Yes, Jim, it's rude to have people putting their time into an application, only to be ignored.

[agbarbosa]

Interesting... the response this time was very fast. In one day I got the rejection of my application, but again, with no comments or good explanation for the reasons behind that.

Jim, could you explain that, since you told us everything is logged? The category and email address was sent in your particular messages in the resource-zone. Let's see if we don't are talking about abuse and problems with DMOZ systems.

[jimnoble]

We don't make subsequent comment on the reasons why an application might have been declined. The email you received will have included this list of common ones. Incomplete application. Insufficient information has been provided in some fields including reason, affiliation and/or Sample URLs. Improper spelling and grammar. Sample URLs are inappropriate for the category which one has applied to edit. They may be too broad, too narrow, completely out of scope, poor quality, or in a language inappropriate for the category. All non-English sites are listed in the World category. Applications for World categories that include sites only in English will be denied. Likewise, applications for World categories that include sample URLs in languages other than the one appropriate for the applied category will be denied. Not properly disclosing affiliations with websites that are, or have the potential of being, listed in the category. Titles and descriptions of sample URLs (and other information provided) were subjective and promotional rather than unbiased and objective. ODP editors do not rank or write website reviews. ODP editors provide objective and unbiased descriptions of websites and their content. Self-Promotion. Application which leads us to believe that the candidate is interested primarily in promoting his/her own sites or those with which the applicant is affiliated. The ODP is not a marketing tool, and should not be used to circumvent the site submission process. If this is an applicant's motivation for joining, then we ask him/her not to apply. Editors found to be inappropriately promoting their own site will be promptly removed.At least one of those presumably applies in your case, otherwise the reviewing meta would have sent an entirely different message or added some specific notes. If you know what you wrote, you should be able to work it out.

I couldn't comment further even if I wanted to - I don't understand Portugese :)

[agbarbosa]

Jim, I`m sorry but none of the items in this list seems to reveal the real problem in my submission. Well, if you don't understand portuguese, who does? And how can we assure we are not talking about abuse here? Are you saying I should submit for a world/portuguese category writing in english instead of portuguese?
I think we really have a problem with DMOZ here.

[jimnoble]

Well, if you don't understand portuguese, who does?We have meta editors of many nationalities, some of whom speak Portuguese as their first languge.And how can we assure we are not talking about abuse here?By whom and for what reason? Please clarify.Are you saying I should submit for a world/portuguese category writing in english instead of portuguese?I never suggested such a thing. If you want to edit a Portuguese language category, your candidate websites and associated descriptions should be in Portuguese. The other questions can be answered in whatever language you wish.

[agbarbosa]

By whom and for what reason? Please clarify.
I have no idea. But that's what we are trying to figure out here. Why many editors are being rejected including myself? And I'm telling you, none of the reasons in that automatic reply is explaining the reason for my rejection. None of them make sense to me.

Well, when I go to the resource-zone forum I see a lot of messages saying to people like me (poor candidates) "keep trying". I won't anymore. DMOZ is saying they need help, not me. I think no one is really trying to help new editors. I don't believe DMOZ wants more help, for me this is a fact and I can say by experience. Surelly the system should be improved and for portuguese language, DMOZ is doing a very poor job.

My best regards.

[donaldb]

Top: World: Português: Regional: América do Sul: Brasil: Negócios e Economia: Informática: Ciências da Computação (http://dmoz.org/World/Portugu%c3%aas/Regional/Am%c3%a9rica_do_Sul/Brasil/Neg%c3%b3cios_e_Economia/Inform%c3%a1tica/Ci%c3%aancias_da_Computa%c3%a7%c3%a3o/)
agbarbosa,

I don't know why your applications were denied because I haven't looked at them, but one thing I was thinking of when I saw you post was that I suspect that the web sites that you might be suggesting for the category might be incorrect. The category that you mentioned in your previous post might not be a good category for a new editor, as there wouldn't be many web sites that would fit there. The only sites that would be listed at a national level like that would have to be organizations with a national scope, or companies with multiple addresses within Brasil. Most companies are going to be listed down at the Municípios level. And if there is no Ciências da Computação category down in the municipal level, the sites would be listed in the Negócios e Economia of the specific locality, for example in São Paulo (http://dmoz.org/World/Portugu%c3%aas/Regional/Am%c3%a9rica_do_Sul/Brasil/Estados/S%c3%a3o_Paulo/Munic%c3%adpios/S/S%c3%a3o_Paulo/Neg%c3%b3cios_e_Economia/). Would the example web sites that you listed in your application really be appropriate to the national category?

[agbarbosa]

Hi donaldb, I'm very happy with your message. Shows you're interested and want to help. Well, maybe I've applied to a category too generic but which contains only few sites listed, that's why I want be there to help.
But I'm sure the sites I've suggested fit very well to the category and they are regional. But anyway, thanks for your input.

[littleman]

I hate to say it because I use to love DMOZ, but I believe it has corrupted itself into insignificant. The most egregious is the passive manipulation by keeping results from being reviewed in curtain categories.

I think that's why DMOZ is so slow to approve editors, you can't use the excuse of 'the site is still not reviewed' unless there is an editor shortage.

An example:
I have submitted mom and pop ecommerce sites over two years ago which have never been accepted or rejected -- they just sit in indefinite limbo. When I first submitted them to DMOZ ODP was still viable, today, well the karma effect has been realized.

[PhilC]

This thread came back to life.

I just re-read donaldb's post, and your reply, agbarbosa, and I formed an opinion that may be incorrect.

You applied for a national level category, and not a local one. You think that, because the category has very few sites listed, that more should be listed in it. But there is usually a reason why a national level category doesn't have many sites listed - because most of the country-specific sites belong in local categories. For instance, it would be very easy to think that a company that is very well known in a country belongs in a national category. It would if the company had branches all over the country, but not if it is just one building.

Harrods in the UK is a good example. It is very well known all over the world, but it doesn't belong in a national level category, because it is just one shop in London.

From your reply, I suspect that your suggested sites really did not belong in a national level category, and, if they didn't belong there, the application would be rejected.

You said you are sure that your suggested sites would fit in the category you applied for. The Harrods site would fit very well in a national category, but fitting a category is not the way that DMOZ does it. A site has to be in the right category - not in one of the many that it will fit into.

[riz]

The most egregious is the passive manipulation by keeping results from being reviewed in curtain categories.
This allegation is very specific. Would you be kind enough to elaborate?

[Marcia]

Actually, it isn't specific or it wouldn't have been left in the thread. It's a tipo. :D

How about "certain categories"?

[macdesign]

http://dmoz.org/Business/Construction_and_Maintenance/Materials_and_Supplies/Doors_and_Windows/Glazed_Curtain_Walls
http://dmoz.org/Business/Construction_and_Maintenance/Materials_and_Supplies/Doors_and_Windows/Specialty/Doors/Air_Curtains
http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Oklahoma/Counties/McCurtain
http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Oklahoma/Localities/M/McCurtain
http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Oklahoma/Localities/M/McCurtain/Education
http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Oklahoma/Localities/M/McCurtain/Maps_and_Views
http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Oklahoma/Localities/M/McCurtain/Society_and_Culture
http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Oklahoma/Localities/M/McCurtain/Weather
http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Home_and_Garden/Bathroom/Shower_Curtains
http://dmoz.org/Shopping/Home_and_Garden/Windows/Window_Coverings/Draperies_and_Curtains

[Marcia]

Aha, the big money categories. There must be a ton of high rollers and big playas submitting multiple spammy sites to those categories every week.