Dec 14th 2007 3:19PM
Team DMOZ
As a follow up to our last post and as a chance to continue allowing our editors the chance to share their experiences with the world at large, here is a post that came to us from a fairly new member of the editorial community.
Unlike the previous post about why folks join, this speaks to a perception of DMOZ/ODP as a group of elitist few or a tribe of warring editors. A popular mis-conception that seems to pop up when whenever DMOZ pops up.
In fact, what the DMOZ community is...is a team. A collaborative group that partners to produce the data and results that so many people around the planet rely on.
Read away and let us know what you think.
-----------------------------------
Team that is ODP
I am now three months into my ODP "career" and enjoying it even more than when I started.
My eyes are still being opened daily about the enormity and complexity of the directory but one thing that has struck me most of all is the fellowship and the "team" nature of it all. The team spirit is obvious in many things that we do and very apparent from all people involved from those in staff to editors.
I have chosen my words in my last sentence very carefully and for a reason. You will notice that I did not say something like "...very apparent from all people involved from those in staff down to editors" or "very apparent from all people involved from those in all levels".
The overriding feelings that I get is that we are all in this because we care about the directory. Yes there are different people doing slightly different jobs but the overwhelming care is about the directory and I have met no one that seems only out for their own agenda. Of course there are disagreements about how things should be done, that will happen in any organization which is made up of people from the whole planet, but things are discussed, usually at length, and resolutions are come to.
Over the last few months I have been seeing things from a slightly different perspective than before I was an editor. I can see that many of the accusations made against the ODP are unfounded and sometimes downright wrong.
I do feel that some of the accusations come from people who think that the ODP is a "mutually exclusive club for the few" that no ordinary person can join and that the directory is a place that you would not be allowed access to unless you are part of that exclusive club. I must start off by saying that I am just an ordinary person who liked the look of the directory and applied to become an editor. I did not know any editors and I did not have any sites in the directory.
Anybody can apply to become an editor and as long as you have the skills to do the job then you will be welcomed. I have seen posts from people that have been rejected and are quite upset by this. We are very proud of this directory that we are all helping to build so it is without reservation that I say, the integrity of the directory has to be protected or it would just end up in chaos and would not be an entity worth doing. Some people are better at some things than others. Some people have the right skills for editing, some do not. That is no reflection on them as a person, which is how it is seems to be taken.
I would be willing to wager a lot of money that they will be capable of doing things that I am not. For instance, I am totally inept and drawing and artwork. Where would we be today without all the wonderful artists in the world. If I applied for a job as an artist, no matter how much I wanted it, I would be rejected. There are also many places within the directory that I could not edit in. The many parts of the directory that are not in the English language are out of bounds for me personally as I cannot speak any languages fluently enough to edit in them. If I applied to edit in these parts of the directory I would be rejected quite obviously.
There are some people out in Internet land that are vehement ODP haters and no matter what anybody says that will be their attitude. That is their business. I have also seen many folk slagging off the ODP and using unsubstantiated claims to forward their point of view. The ODP team has an official way of dealing with any claims of wrong doing and if substantiated these instances are dealt with both severely and unequivocally.
I would like to say that if you see anything that does not look right, DO NOT HESITATE to report it and the matter will be investigated. No one person is above ODP.
I have really enjoyed being part of this team and I would cordially invite all those who would like to be part of it as well to become editors. It is a really rewarding hobby and I would recommend it to anyone. I would also say to those that do not want to become editors but want to participate that your help is also most welcome. Please feel free to submit sites that you find on the Internet and are not listed and as discussed above please do not hesitate to let us know of problems that you find. Together we can make a great directory and the Internet a better place.
-----------------------
While this editor has remained nameless, feel free to ping me directly from this site :)
BBQGrant
Unlike the previous post about why folks join, this speaks to a perception of DMOZ/ODP as a group of elitist few or a tribe of warring editors. A popular mis-conception that seems to pop up when whenever DMOZ pops up.
In fact, what the DMOZ community is...is a team. A collaborative group that partners to produce the data and results that so many people around the planet rely on.
Read away and let us know what you think.
-----------------------------------
Team that is ODP
I am now three months into my ODP "career" and enjoying it even more than when I started.
My eyes are still being opened daily about the enormity and complexity of the directory but one thing that has struck me most of all is the fellowship and the "team" nature of it all. The team spirit is obvious in many things that we do and very apparent from all people involved from those in staff to editors.
I have chosen my words in my last sentence very carefully and for a reason. You will notice that I did not say something like "...very apparent from all people involved from those in staff down to editors" or "very apparent from all people involved from those in all levels".
The overriding feelings that I get is that we are all in this because we care about the directory. Yes there are different people doing slightly different jobs but the overwhelming care is about the directory and I have met no one that seems only out for their own agenda. Of course there are disagreements about how things should be done, that will happen in any organization which is made up of people from the whole planet, but things are discussed, usually at length, and resolutions are come to.
Over the last few months I have been seeing things from a slightly different perspective than before I was an editor. I can see that many of the accusations made against the ODP are unfounded and sometimes downright wrong.
I do feel that some of the accusations come from people who think that the ODP is a "mutually exclusive club for the few" that no ordinary person can join and that the directory is a place that you would not be allowed access to unless you are part of that exclusive club. I must start off by saying that I am just an ordinary person who liked the look of the directory and applied to become an editor. I did not know any editors and I did not have any sites in the directory.
Anybody can apply to become an editor and as long as you have the skills to do the job then you will be welcomed. I have seen posts from people that have been rejected and are quite upset by this. We are very proud of this directory that we are all helping to build so it is without reservation that I say, the integrity of the directory has to be protected or it would just end up in chaos and would not be an entity worth doing. Some people are better at some things than others. Some people have the right skills for editing, some do not. That is no reflection on them as a person, which is how it is seems to be taken.
I would be willing to wager a lot of money that they will be capable of doing things that I am not. For instance, I am totally inept and drawing and artwork. Where would we be today without all the wonderful artists in the world. If I applied for a job as an artist, no matter how much I wanted it, I would be rejected. There are also many places within the directory that I could not edit in. The many parts of the directory that are not in the English language are out of bounds for me personally as I cannot speak any languages fluently enough to edit in them. If I applied to edit in these parts of the directory I would be rejected quite obviously.
There are some people out in Internet land that are vehement ODP haters and no matter what anybody says that will be their attitude. That is their business. I have also seen many folk slagging off the ODP and using unsubstantiated claims to forward their point of view. The ODP team has an official way of dealing with any claims of wrong doing and if substantiated these instances are dealt with both severely and unequivocally.
I would like to say that if you see anything that does not look right, DO NOT HESITATE to report it and the matter will be investigated. No one person is above ODP.
I have really enjoyed being part of this team and I would cordially invite all those who would like to be part of it as well to become editors. It is a really rewarding hobby and I would recommend it to anyone. I would also say to those that do not want to become editors but want to participate that your help is also most welcome. Please feel free to submit sites that you find on the Internet and are not listed and as discussed above please do not hesitate to let us know of problems that you find. Together we can make a great directory and the Internet a better place.
-----------------------
While this editor has remained nameless, feel free to ping me directly from this site :)
BBQGrant
1. the submission doesn't seem to be working on dmoz.org. the captcha comes back with a "Please check again"-message every time i try to submit
(sorry, couldn't find an email address on dmoz.org, nor a "report a bug", hence me posting here)
Posted at 3:37PM on Jan 23rd 2008 by daniel
2. @daniel: You should probably have a look at http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49508
Posted at 5:28AM on Jan 24th 2008 by chaos127
3. You are the best people's of the net. I want to be in with your team.
Posted at 12:42PM on Jan 25th 2008 by SavaS
4. Dear BBQGrant,
I need to communicate with an editor, and I chose you because I was impressed with your post. Although I have no way of absolutely verifying your sincerity, I had the sense it would be extremely difficult and probably not worthwhile for any person to attempt to concoct such a statement. I therefore trust you.
I visited http://www.dmoz.org/user-banners, which indicates that users have submitted banners, but does not tell us how or where to send them. I have created a banner, but instead of submitting it, I would prefer to create a website (when I have time) that would allow visitors to capture a string of HTML code, insert it into the body of any web page, and thereby add the banner to that page. The banner is thus unique, in that it does not consume DMOZ's resources; furthermore, unlike the others, it allows the user to *interact* with it.
I would like to upload this banner to a secret URL, which I would submit to the appropriate editor for approval, because I would not want to use any such banner unless DMOZ is happy with it. I believe it offers an alternative way of linking to your site that would be appreciated by DMOZ enthusiasts.
I would be grateful for any advice you could provide, and again, I appreciate the attitude and tone of your post.
Yours truly,
Howard Earle Halpern
P.S. In case you should look at one of my websites, I will mention that I have emulated the DMOZ logo and uploaded it, with a link, to a few sites—but it is straightforward, harmless, and boring. The one I wish to submit has an original, interactive component, and that is the banner for which I seek approval, before making it public.
Posted at 7:21PM on Feb 11th 2008 by Howard Earle Halpern
5. Hi Howard...all claims are honest and sincere and I appreciate you taking the time to post : )
I'm a relatively new addition to the ODP community, so in terms of getting the banner into the right portion of the site, upload protocol...I'll need to follow up with the community and see.
Will add this comment to the forums and I expect one of our editors will reply to this post and provide insight.
Thanks again for the comment.
Posted at 7:27PM on Feb 11th 2008 by bbqgrant
6. Hi BBQGrant,
You're welcome. My first and only post to this blog was made Feb. 11 at 7:21 p.m. You responded within six minutes, in an appropriate manner. I think this shows that it is possible to communicate with a DMOZ editor and receive a prompt and reasonable response. It certainly exceeded my expectations . I look forward to hearing from an editor familiar with the procedure for banner submissions. I checked the box that allows me to receive an email when someone replies to my comment. If all goes well, I will be able to make a significant contribution toward publicizing the DMOZ directory. I think it is important to have a human eye on the web—after all, most websites were designed with the human eye in mind. I intend to make heavy use of DMOZ myself when I greatly expand the number of links that exist on my many websites. Most of us want links. One way to earn links is to give links. But what's the point in linking to sites of low quality? And how can we find quality if we rely solely on assessments made by mechanical entities that are insentient and have no capacity to think or feel? This is why I am here.
Regards,
Howard
Posted at 1:47AM on Feb 12th 2008 by Howard Earle Halpern
7. > "No one person is above ODP."
Unless of course your name starts with "R" and ends with "ich Skrenta" :P
I'm sure DMOZ is a nice cozy place on the inside, but from out here it just looks like a black hole. A lot of people here seem to be asking for a feedback system so we can tell how our submissions are doing. Are there any plans to implement something along those lines?
Posted at 2:25PM on Dec 15th 2007 by Phil
8. Still waiting for word on my reinstatement request (more than a month) and inclusion of our store (more than four years).
Posted at 11:22PM on Dec 15th 2007 by Ian
9. @Phil
Thanks for your comments.
You are making a reasonable point so was there in fact any need for the first line ;-} If this blog is kept to reasonable points and not point scoring then it may start to solve the perceived problems. There are plenty of places in cyberspace to step into the ring to sling punches.
What I would start with is this. We accept "suggestions" of sites from anybody. That is the nature of ODP. They are not submissions. You may think that is being a bit pedantic. I do apologise if you think so but it is quite an important difference. The word submission gives the "impression" that the person doing the "submitting" has some personal attachment to the site or personal want to have the site listed. A "suggestion" to me is that the person has seen a site that they think would be worth sharing with others with no other motive than to help others. The latter is what ODP is all about.
The point that you bring up is, as I say, a valid one that many have tendered. What I would say to you is that if , as you describe, ODP is a black hole, then are you not adding to that problem by adding more work to the editor plate by having a feedback system?
When I am in my categories editing away, I don't know if this would surprise you or not, but AT LEAST 80% (probably more actually) of the sites I add are NOT suggested sites. I find them myself for the category. This is actually a much better use of my editing time and far more productive as I am looking for specific sites, adding correct tiles and descriptions as I go and they are specific to the category I am working on. When I wade through suggestions, which are in the category it takes me far longer. In fact to be perfectly honest, in my opinion (and not ODP's) if they actually switched off the suggestions it would become a far easier place to work. I am not advocating it should be done but just trying to illustrate my point.
ODP is ever-evolving and new things are being done all the time but I would expect that a feedback system may not be a high priority as this handling submissions is not the biggest priority (in my opinion), the biggest priority is the same as it has always been, building a great resource for users.
Posted at 8:08PM on Dec 15th 2007 by laigh
10. @Laigh
Sorry if you thought that was a cheap shot, but the preferential treatment of topix.com isn't doing much to instill confidence in the system. DMOZ needs to acknowledge that it has an image problem and start doing something about it.
Providing a basic level of feedback shouldn't slow up the editors at all. I imagine most submitters simply want to know if their submissions are (a) queued for review by a DMOZ editor, (b) currently under review, or (c) rejected/accepted. It's quite possible that this information is already available within the DMOZ editing system, in which case it could be accessed without increasing the editor workload at all.
Making this information available to submitters would involve a little bit of work (i.e., a simple database to manage submitter logins), but I think it would be to everyone's benefit. Without it, submitters are being left completely in the dark for weeks, months, sometimes even years.
People expect a bit more interactivity from the web these days. DMOZ is still stuck in the 1990s.
Posted at 5:57AM on Dec 16th 2007 by Phil
11. @Phil
I appreciate that you feel a certain way about topix.com and that is your prerogative. This is not the post to discuss it on though. There may well be discussion of such specific things in future posts. I didn't mean to infer that you were taking a cheap shot, all I was meaning was that if we ALL resist from making derisory comments and keep it sane, this blog may well help/solve problems and perceived injustices that many may feel and ODP can continue on to be the best resource on the net for all of us.
I further appreciate what you are saying about feedback and if I get you right you would like a sort of automatic system. Again, in my opinion only, this may well be along way off IF it ever is considered. My reason for this thought is basically as I said before. My PERSONAL reading of the basic ethos of ODP, and a major reason why I volunteer to edit, is to create and maintain a resource for USERS of the Internet. Webmasters/owners/site promoters are nowhere in that equation at all. So to actually create something that would assist them is almost a waste of time, energy and concentration of resources. Please do not take this as a jibe. As you can see from my blog post (last one) I am a webmaster, owner etc. etc. so I can genuinely see both sides. NONE of my sites are in the ODP and they are doing fine.
I will give you another instance. I personally have found over 4000 new sites and added them to the directory. To find those 4000 I have probably looked at over 6000 sites. Most of these sites have been added to a particular part of the directory that I am an editor in. That part of the directory, in my opinion, is a far better resource for my intervention. I am not being smart here, obviously there would be no point in me doing what I am doing if it wasn't making it better. ;-}
Of those 4000 sites 80%, at least, were found by me so they had not been suggested by the webmaster/marketer etc. So basically to improve the directory, in that part, it did not really involve suggestions so that is really why IMO that suggestions are not as important in the directory as webmasters etc feel they should be. If I had to go off and do other submissions in another part of the directory OR had to wait until the webmaster submitted then the category would not be as good as it is now. So with this explanation, basically what you are asking for is not just a simple database, what you are asking for is a complete change of ethos and direction of ODP. If submitters have to wait years then unfortunately that is a fact. We are not set up for submitters, it is not all about that. The directory is not for submitters it is for users. As I said above. I could still do my job as an editor if all submissions were switched off!!!!!
With regards the ODP being stuck in the 1990's. I actually think this is a bit harsh. If you are referring to it's technology well that is getting worked on but I believe out thoughts are very much for now and we are all working towards it.
Posted at 12:34PM on Dec 16th 2007 by laigh
12. @Laigh
I'm a bit confused by your reasoning -- you said that providing submitters with automatic feedback is unlikely to happen for the same reason you mentioned before (i.e., it would take up too much of the editors' time). But an automatic system such as the one I suggested needn't take up any of the editors' time whatsoever. I don't understand your objections to this idea.
When I said that DMOZ is stuck in the 1990s, I was implying that it fails to provide the sort of interaction people expect from "modern" services like Digg. I'm not advocating a complete change of ethos and direction, but I don't think DMOZ can expect to be around for much longer unless it does more to acknowledge ouside contributions and give contributors a sense of ownership.
The efforts made by editors such as yourself to seek out and add new sites are commendable, but you're never going to find these sites by yourselves unless they've already been picked up by the search engines. If you don't make a positive effort to solicit fresh contributions, then I'm afraid you're wasting your time. The search engines will always be able to provide results that are far more comprehensive and up to date than anything you're capable of providing.
The simple fact is that DMOZ is becoming irrelevant. If you don't think this is a fair criticism, take a look at the the number of sites using ODP data. Today there are 239 [*1], down from 307 a year ago [*2] and 375 the year before [*3]. The page view stats at alexa.com tell a similar story -- down by 75% over the last 2 years [*4]. At this rate, DMOZ (in its current form) will cease to exist in about 3 years. Perhaps all the time and effort you put into building this site will have been wasted.
Now I can't be sure that simply providing submitters with feedback is going to reverse this trend, but at least it would be a step in the right direction. One thing's for certain: unless some changes are made, this place is finished.
[*1] http://tinyurl.com/3bosrg (sites using ODP data)
[*2] http://tinyurl.com/2qvltx (ditto, cached 2006/12/15)
[*3] http://tinyurl.com/36zeu6 (ditto, cached 2005/12/16)
[*4] tinyurl.com/2wozwy (dmoz.org traffic stats)
Posted at 4:12PM on Dec 16th 2007 by Phil
13. Looks like a lot of webmasters are stuck in the 1990's too - they still think a link from DMOZ is important.
Posted at 5:12PM on Dec 16th 2007 by justfordmoz
14. And as far as reporting abuse, who do you think the reports go to?
You can't report abuse to the abuser and expect them to do something about it.
The top level editors band together and stick to the decisions that have been made, for whatever reason...even when it is discussed internally.
Posted at 5:19PM on Dec 16th 2007 by justfordmoz
15. @justfordmoz
Abuse reports can be submitted via http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ -- but please make sure you provide sufficient evidence. (Hint: "my site has not been listed" doesn't count.)
These reports are evaluated by meta editors and appropriate action will be taken against editors proven to have abused their position. I can assure you that the meta editors take allegations of abuse very seriously and will act swiftly when evidence of wrong-doing is uncovered. See: http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/meta/abuse.html
We will also not stand for abuse within the meta community, and in the past several metas have been removed by staff. If you have evidence of abuse from a specific meta editor, then I believe you can still use the abuse report system linked above, or perhaps get in touch with one of the admins (see http://www.dmoz.org/guidelines/admin/ ).
If you don't trust the meta editors to properly investigate and act on abuse reports, then presumably you can't trust the AOL staff who have entrusted this aspect of the community management to the meta community. In that case, there's not much point in you having any faith in any aspect of the project.
Posted at 5:56PM on Dec 16th 2007 by chaos127
16. I'm not interested in becoming the DMOZ police. I was just pointing out a flaw in the system.
That's cool that you didn't delete my post though :)
Posted at 6:07PM on Dec 16th 2007 by justfordmoz
17. @ Phil - the sites you are pointing out are those who "truthfully" report.
There are thousands of sites who take the data and fail to hold up their end of the social contract. There's a list of those and we're certain they know who they are.
Which essentially validates that opposite of your point. DMOZ is still very much relevant.
We're is the starting point for any search engine. We are the starting point for virtually every form of vertical search. We have a global footprint and a growing population of international editors.
On the topic of receiving submission feedback, we understand that it is currently a frustrating experience. At the same time, we receive a large amount of submissions on an hourly basis and our volunteers can't personally "congratulate," "sorry" or alert every submitter. That in itself would be a full time volunteer past time.
I will say, that we're making several improvements and invite you to continue coming by to see what's happening. Feedback is a portion of that.
Posted at 6:52PM on Dec 16th 2007 by bbqgrant
18. @bbqgrant
You seem to be suggesting that the number of honest sites using DMOZ content is inversely proportional to the number of dishonest sites that use it. Do you have a similar explanation for the 75% drop in traffic?
Just for the record, I was proposing an AUTOMATIC feedback system. One that doesn't require any additional input from DMOZ editors. For example:
1. Editor logs in to editors.dmoz.org, as usual.
2. Editor accesses list of websites awaiting review, as usual.
3. Editor clicks on a link to review one of these websites, as usual.
4. (This is the clever bit) Instead of taking the editor straight to the site
in question, the link first directs the editor's browser to a script that
registers the fact that this site is now being reviewed by an editor.
5. The script doesn't require any human input, so it can immediately issue an
HTTP header to redirect the editor's browser to the website in question,
as usual. As a result, the editor's experience is completely unchanged.
Similar processes could be put in place to register when links have been accepted or rejected by editors. It wouldn't take much effort to make this information available to logged-in contributors. This really isn't rocket science.
Posted at 8:17PM on Dec 16th 2007 by Phil
19. @ Phil
"Traffic"
Ah, thanks for bringing that point back up. Alexa data ( with all due respect ) is worthless. Well, maybe next to worthless.
From a recent article on TechCrunch:
----------------------------------------------
Alexa traffic reporting service has little credibility left among people who follow traffic trends.
Example: In August Alexa said that YouTube passed Google itself in total page views. They were wrong, but their data continues to perpetuate this alternate reality.
Now, another embarrassing error. Alexa says that Facebook, on a steady growth curve for the last two years, now has a larger audience than MySpace.
-----------------------------------------
Our in house metrics show that our audience is growing from both a UV, PV and-in our opinion the most critical metric-editor applications approved and sites accepted.
The submission concept you've outlined is sound. And as we mentioned, this is an area we are looking to improve.
Appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing from you again.
Posted at 8:34PM on Dec 16th 2007 by bbqgrant
20. I'm a longtime ODP editor and I write simply to confirm that in my opinion, all of the points made by the unnamed editor in the first post are true. I'll add this to the observations made by editor laigh: I know just how much time would be involved in looking at 6,000 sites and adding 4,000 of them to the directory, because I have done similar work. It is an incredible donation of volunteered time, and I'm still not sure why any of us do it. I think it's based on the belief that what we do may have lasting value. The corollary is that it is only possible because we have each made an individual choice to participate as a team. The 4,000 sites added by laigh honestly wouldn't amount to much on their own, given the scale of the online world. But coupled with the thousands of sites that I, and hundreds of other volunteer editors like me, have also added and annotated, together with the invaluable ontological organization that we dvelop and refine as we go, laigh's contribution takes on real meaning. Online or in-world, many of long for meaning. To volunteer and become part of a team whose ultimate significance cannot be known for sure is a leap of faith, one I am glad to have taken.
Posted at 10:05AM on Dec 17th 2007 by tedk1