1. > "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

2. @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

3. 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

4. @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

5. @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

6. @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

7. 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

8. 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

9. @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

10. 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

11. @ 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

12. @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

13. @ 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

14. 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

15. I have tried several time to register as an editor of DMOZ. I think that I am qualified to do so as
1. I speak English and Dutch
2. I lived in 5 different countries ( clear understanding of different cultures )
3. I have helped design and maintain sites from all over the world so it can not be claimed that I am biased in any one area but the Rejection letter just states " sorry we can take it no further" what would help would be a reason.
Its not personal I realise but a reason would help youunderstand.

I know what it is like to live in different cultures and to need to adapt to ways of thinking and living and have tried to justify how I feel I cna help the forum. It feels very much like a them and us attitude

That may not be the case but I would like to understand more

Kind Regards
David

Posted at 12:46PM on Dec 18th 2007 by David Wilson

16. As much as I would like to believe that the things you've said in this post are true, I have given up hope on DMOZ. I do not mean to disparage the work of those who have sunk in a lot of hours simply because they believe in the value of the directory. I have a friend who is an editor (or was the last time I discussed the topic with her) and I know that she does it for the right reasons. I'm sure there are many more like her.

But...the bad things have gone on too long. There's been no objective evidence to those of us not on the inside that anyone gives a damn when it comes to the categories that matter to us. I have watched more and more categories with shifting/disappearing editors. Personally, I know that my sites are high-value. All the letters of thanks I receive from site visitors are much more important in confirming that than any other criterion. But, with one exception, I haven't had a site added to DMOZ for the better part of 2-3 years (whether initiated by me or by an editor). If you were covering the categories properly, this would not be the case. My sites are too prominent in the search results and too well-linked from a variety of relevant sources to have been missed by anyone who was really looking.

I was very briefly an editor some years ago and had to drop out due to a sudden onset of difficult family circumstances that left me with no discretionary time. Because I believe in contrbuting to quality resources, I came back later to reapply...only to be grilled on every single site I manage (as if I was volunteering only to further my own personal agenda). I finally gave up in frustration. Here I am trying to help out in categories where I have at least a fair degree of knowledge and a good eye for quality...as well as some relevant web resources (which should be a qualification, not a reason for suspicion), and I'm being given the third degree. I feel like it would be a lot better to either pair up new editor applicants with an existing editor for peer review for a short time, or something less grueling. And, simply to try someone out, and see what they actually do...not what ones fears they might do. In other words, the path to acceptance as an editor appears to be an obstacle course. Maybe that's warranted because of the type of people that usually apply...but it drove me away. I am way too busy and have too much self-respect for that.

Either way, after watching key categories languish for so long without any moderation whatsoever, I feel as though I've been forced to the decision that DMOZ no longer really matters. I think it's sad...because an authoritative directory is clearly as important as is a relatively authoritative knowledgebase like Wikipedia. Something that stands out as a shining example of value. But I just don't see that it's so any longer. There may be categories where you're relevant, but in the ones where I have a personal interest...you're literally years out of date...which is an eternity in internet time.

I do wish you well, but I'm not expecting things to turn around.

Posted at 5:01PM on Dec 18th 2007 by Chuck

17. @David: I'm not sure exactly what you're saying was in the rejection message.

If the only content of the message was literally "sorry we can take it no further" then something might have gone wrong somewhere. You might want to head on over to http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/ where someone might be able to help you find out what should have happened.

You should have got a standard rejection message that contains a list of half-a-dozen or so common reasons why an application might be declined. If there are no additional comments then one or more of those reasons applies. Think of it as part of the application procedure to work out which it is and fix it next time. Mostly we encourage applicants who've been rejected to apply again.

On the other hand, it's possible that there was (in addition to the standard reply) a reviewer comment that suggested you shouldn't apply again. If so, then presumably something you wrote (or perhaps didn't write) in your application(s) led the reviewer to the conclusion that you wouldn't make a good editor. Sorry if this is the case, and good luck in your future endeavours.

Posted at 6:26PM on Dec 18th 2007 by chaos127

18. Chuck, thanks for taking the time to share everything above. Glad we didn't turn on the character count limit.

You raise a couple of key points, but I think one important one is that from your perspective...it might not seem like things are happening in DMOZ. That's just not the case. The fact that we have a blog and you can communicate with the editors directly is a step in the right direction.

Additionally, I'll apologize for the potential over zealous examination when you reapplied. But unfortunately, it is a part of the process. When you deal with constant, unfounded accusations of SPAM'ing or corruption, it is a necessary procedure.

But...if you feel you are a fine example of being a category expert and that category is vacant...we'd like you to reapply.

And if not you, please mention to someone who has the same level of passion for the catgories that are important to you. Capturing this data in DMOZ is important. It ensure that all the search engines will see it and raise it in prominence. PR4 is great...but acceptance into DMOZ can make that rank much much higher and ensure every one can find the sites that represent the best of that category. Globally.

Thanks again for the comment check, and please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions or additional comments.

BBQGrant

Posted at 6:28PM on Dec 18th 2007 by bbqgrant

19. This seems rather off-topic for this post, but...

If there is no "suggest URL" link on a given category, it's because that category doesn't accept public suggestions. You therefore need to find a better category (one of the sub-categories perhaps) to suggest the site to. Reading the category description might also help you understand where different sites should go.

Posted at 4:17AM on Dec 19th 2007 by chaos127

20. Following directions for submitting a url when I select the category I want (Shopping) there is no "submit url" button.

So how do I submit a url?

Posted at 6:16AM on Dec 19th 2007 by Terence M OConnor