55 replies to this topic

[leadegroot]

What does having little or no understanding of the web have anything to do with looking at a site and deciding it meets DMOZ guidelines and add value to a category???

I firmly believe that accessability is a key requirement for a good website.
Perhaps an inaccessable website should be included in the ODP - but to say that it is just fine for an editor to have no knowledge of how accessible their entries are is a very poor statement that will help neither the future of the web, the ODP's users nor the ODP itself.
OWG:

Am I right in saying that no category is without an editor technically, because the editors above will drill down and edit the cat?

Yep, OWG, thats correct.

[qwerty]

Knowing the status does not help in any way as there is nothing more that can be done. Either you get listed or you do not. Of what use is it to know the status?

Anyone who was ever instructed at the Resource Zone that the submission about which they were asking had been misplaced and that they should resubmit would disagree with that statement.

This was before some of the rules changed regarding how long one should wait before asking but have a look at this thread about my own site. Had I gone the submit it and forget it route, my site would not be listed now.

[torka]

It's simply basic human nature to abhor unfinished business. For most of us, leaving things hanging is unpleasant and uncomfortable. Not just DMOZ submissions, anything.

How hard could it be to program some sort of automated notification? A simple one-way e-mail confirming that the submission was received, another simple e-mail informing the submitter that the submission was accepted (and into what category) or that it was rejected. No explanations, no "entering in to a dialog", no arguing, no bargaining, just a simple notification. I believe this would have satisfied at least 90% of the people who posted in the RZ "status check" threads.

I can't imagine that this is a monumental programming task. One is left to ponder just why the PTB at DMOZ didn't come up with the idea themselves -- or if they thought of it, why they rejected it.

What harm would be done by letting people know the status of their submission? I honestly can't think of any.

I can't believe that such a simple solution as automated notification has eluded the great minds behind DMOZ, so I can only assume that they have considered and rejected the idea. I would be curious to know why they'd prefer leaving people angry and frustrated, when a few hours of simple programming could have solved the issue before it became a problem.

--Torka

[OldWelshGuy]

Torka I think you have hit it squarely on the head with that post. The people who are complaining know all too well how easy it would be to correct the position, and I think it is because of that the bad feeling exists.

[Randy]

I can't imagine that this is a monumental programming task.

Ten minutes tops Torka. Starting from scratch, which isn't necessary either.

I have to admit that this single issue is the one that I always wondered about too. To me such a system would free up soooooooo much time that it's never made sense that some sort of notification was never put into place.

[nedguy]

Ouch! Sorry to touch a nerve there cdp! (A few posts back)


But I can't say your protestations have really swayed me.

My point is that when things start to smell funny, it's usually because they are dead.

And Dmoz is beginning to smell funny.

I applaud your passion and I've always been a fan of the ODP in the past, but it's a 'critical mass' thing, and I don't sense that enough of your fellow editors still have the passion that you demonstrate.

NG

[leadegroot]

Torka, *exactly* what they need to do to reduce a lot of the problem!
Given how often the search is broken and how often submissions just disappear, I have to conclude that they don't have a large amount of technical ability.
Not sure why that would be the case, given the size of the editor population.
The other thing they could do is develop some actual documentation, rather than just refer people to 'go read the [incredibly huge] forum' (the internal one, not the RZ).

and the third thing would be kill the arrogance - if people speaking for the ODP, officially or unofficially, were to drop the attitude of 'we know we are right' and move to even 'we think we've got it right, but we're happy to hear your ideas' things would be a lot better.

** would someone help me down from here?

[cbp]

I wrote:

Knowing the status does not help in any way as there is nothing more that can be done. Either you get listed or you do not. Of what use is it to know the status?

Qwerty wrote:

Anyone who was ever instructed at the Resource Zone that the submission about which they were asking had been misplaced and that they should resubmit would disagree with that statement.

Almost all of those in this situation would have asked for a status check in a category that they did not submit to, hence the editor could not find it and advice to resubmit .... the site would have been somewhere and would have been reviewed at some stage and moved to the correct category. It is not possible for a RZ editor to search to find where a site is waiting, only the specific categories can be searched. If you get the 'submission received' screen after submitting, then assume it there.

Every now and then I get a submission to one of my categories of sites that are not even remotely related --- assume that they did this accidently and can not read guidelines. For me to deal with this, I have to look at the site, try and work out what its about, then search DMOZ for the correct category, then move it -- all that takes time ... given I am having to do the submitters job, my tempatation is just to delete it (but have only done that once for a foreign language site, that I could not work out what the language was, so it was trashed) .... if they can't read guidelines....

leadegroot wrote:

and the third thing would be kill the arrogance - if people speaking for the ODP, officially or unofficially, were to drop the attitude of 'we know we are right' and move to even 'we think we've got it right, but we're happy to hear your ideas' things would be a lot better.

You and I disagree if accesibility should be part of the criteria if DMOZ should list a site, you then resort to name calling (ie "arrogance").....
If you think DMOZ should be some sort of internet police, then become an editor, initiate discussions in the internal forum, get a consensus and DMOZ will become what you want it to be. To resort to name calling becasue DMOZ is not something you think it should be does not move things forward.
DMOZ is always happy to hear ideas, but get facts right first. Don't characterize DMOZ as something that it not, then critisize that characterization (this is a commonly used flawed tactic used in debates) ... thats why threads lke this always degenerate...

Re: Automated statis checks
That is unlikely to ever happen. If it did, it could be harmful to DMOZ in that there are so many scammers and DMOZ spammers that try all sorts of devious ways to get multiple listings for mirrors (for eg), dublicate submissions etc, that if there was a automated system for checking status, these idiots (who ruin it for everyone else) will know immediatlely when there latest scheme failed, so they can try again with a different tactic ... the battle continues. If they were kept guessing or did not know they were detected, then they are less likely to try again...this keeps the crap that editors have to deal with down.

I think most would be amazed at the lengths so many go to to scam DMOZ, trying to list redirects, mirrors, doorways etc (I always fail to understand why, as it just a good link, nothing overly special) ... you would be even surprized at how many plead their inocence and outright lie when posting at RZ (I understand this also factored in to the decision to stop status checks).... the one thing I will miss about the status checks is when I see an argument start, I head over to DMOZ and check the edit history of the URL involved ... its often then easy to see the BS from the submitter and the reason the terse responces from editors .... the problem then is that its not often possible to reveal this informtion publically as it gives to much info to the scammers on how their latest scheme was uncovered ...it all about keeping them guessing.

Lots is being done internally about this and is working to some extent to cut down it to the levels its at now! - its just not being made public, as this too gives too much information to them.

From what I undertsand DMOZ:
* gets around 6000-7000 submissions a day
* lists around 1000-2000 sites a day
* the size of the pool of unreviewed sites is not growing

Conclusion: editors spend time deleting 5000-6000 spam and unlistable submissions a day .... and that is after strategies have been implemented to reduce it.

The easiest solution would be to turn off the 'suggest a site' function.

[leadegroot]

If you think DMOZ should be some sort of internet police, then become an editor, initiate discussions in the internal forum, get a consensus and DMOZ will become what you want it to be. To resort to name calling becasue DMOZ is not something you think it should be does not move things forward.
DMOZ is always happy to hear ideas, but get facts right first. Don't characterize DMOZ as something that it not, then critisize that characterization (this is a commonly used flawed tactic used in debates) ... thats why threads lke this always degenerate.

Actually, I am an ODP editor, but I see the same attitudes inside that I see outside and frankly, I am busy with that paying job thing and maintaining my cat and am not interested in wasting my time playing politics on issues I can't win.
I have no delusions that the ODP is perfect, nor would it ever be. It could be better, but there is a quite obvious, huge, immovable attitude problem there.

And this is HR - I see no degeneration, nor am I likely to.

[slstg]

When a DMOZ category says "volunteer to edit this category" does this mean there is NO editor for the category at all? And then it is unlikely my site will be reviewed anytime soon.

[cbp]

When a DMOZ category says "volunteer to edit this category" does this mean there is NO editor for the category at all?

You asked that on page 2 of this thread and were given the answer by 2 posters! --- no category is without an editor.

[projectphp]

thats why threads lke this always degenerate...

I disagree. The reason they degenrate is because DMOZ editors get their backs up. Time and time again it happens.

And this is HR - I see no degeneration, nor am I likely to.

Here here!!! That is always the ODP defence: these threads degenerate, people attack DMOZ unfairly etc etc, usually followed by excuses for not changing what isn't broken that people are complaining about.

It is true that DMOZ cops more than its fair share of abuse. But neither is it fair that places like this and Cre8 get lumped in and treated poorly because DMOZ supporters have been burned in the past. It is like teh kid that gets picked on who is ready for a fight before it starts.

This isn't every other forum. Here we pride ourselves on professionalism. We won't allow abuse or nastiness, and there won't be any degeneration on my watch

From what I undertsand DMOZ:
* gets around 6000-7000 submissions a day
* lists around 1000-2000 sites a day
* the size of the pool of unreviewed sites is not growing

Conclusion: editors spend time deleting 5000-6000 spam and unlistable submissions a day .... and that is after strategies have been implemented to reduce it...he easiest solution would be to turn off the 'suggest a site' function.

Funny, but if this is an issue, why doesn't DMOZ do anything about it? As I said here, there are things that can be done, but none have never even been tried. Surely there is some middle ground between no submissions and anything goes?

Heck, changing the name of the submission script daily would be a start. If it only got 10% of spam, that is still, by the figures quoted above, 500-600 less submissions to deal with.

And that is just one "off the top of my head" idea. I am sure that the smart people around can come up with hundreds more

[OldWelshGuy]

Well Said PHP

I know I sometimes come across as ODP bashing, but my problem is that a partial solution is blindingly obvious but no one will look up from the battle to look for it. It reminds of a sales cartoon I once saw.

A guy is knocking a castle door trying to get to see the lord of the manor to sell him his new invention, a machine gun. While inside the Lord of the manor is preparing to go to war. The doorman goes over and tells the lord about it, but the Castle Lord replies 'tell him to go away, I am getting ready for a battle here'

Many people make the mistake of taking criticism of the corporation as criticism of THEM, when clearly it is not. In this thread I have seen compliments like 'by people who are less enthusiastic and dedicated as you 'etc. CBP, this is not a personal attack on you by a bunch of ODP haters, it is a decent debate about an organisation that you are a small part of.

Life is about selling, from birth we cry when we are hungry as it is the only way we know how to sell our hunger to those that can deal with it. As we get older, we get better at it (ask any parent) .

Really successful salespeople have a talent though, they have mastered the art of empathising. True greats in selling know exactly what the other person is thinking, they can do this as they have the ability to see it from the other persons position. Here is the thing though, they can do that without allowing it to affect their own angle.

I know I might be going on a bit here, but maybe if this snippet from an article I wrote about dealing with objections was sent to all the editors it would help to calm the storms that rage around the internet with regard the ODP.

------------------------------------------------------
The stages are the same for all negotiations: -
1) Agree with the customer and create some common ground
2) Question why they feel the way they do
3) Lay out the pros and cons resulting from that action.

Agreeing with the customer is important as it knocks down the wall of objection and gets them onside with you in getting an agreed result.

Questioning their motivation is also important as it gives you the means to counter and build your argument.

Laying out is important as it wins the war.
----------------------------------------------------

Unless these steps are taken then there will always be heated debate.

I am sure that I can speak for almost everyone here, when I say that we do not want the ODP to go! all we want is for it to get better.

[kctipton]

re: usability

Sites that can't be navigated or understood or otherwise used are very poor candidates for listing. That's already in the guidelines.

[Debra]

I am sure that I can speak for almost everyone here, when I say that we do not want the ODP to go! all we want is for it to get better.

Unfortunetly, I don't think that's going to happen given the way it's currently set up. Run the thing like a business instead of a past time (which is what it is for most of the editors) and you'll see it improve tenfold.