Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

DMOZ - Discontinuation of Site Status


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
50 replies to this topic

#1 whitemark

whitemark

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1071 posts

Posted 20 May 2005 - 07:05 PM

Following discussion by, and consensus of Moderators and Administrators of this forum, we have chosen to discontinue site status checks effective May 21, 2005 ... There were a number of factors involved in making this decision, but probably the biggest was that these requests were always beyond the mission of this forum. The original mandate of this forum was to put a better light on the ODP by allowing the public to interact directly with the editors. At some point the submission status requests seem to have taken over and almost become the focus."

[Excerpts from: Resource Zone]



#2 Tim

Tim

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3094 posts

Posted 20 May 2005 - 07:13 PM

Good change, IMO. It should reduce the amount of people complaining that their sites aren't yet listed in DMOZ. :)

#3 BillSlawski

BillSlawski

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 15644 posts

Posted 20 May 2005 - 09:49 PM

At some point the submission status requests seem to have taken over and almost become the focus.


I would say that might be a little bit of an understatement.

The Site Submission Status forum was definitely the most popular public forum at Resource Zone.

Site Submission Status Forum (numbers current at time of this post):

Threads: 20,131
Posts: 100,137

Rest of Forum:

Threads: 9,904
Posts: 69,936

I think that it bears keeping in mind that the Resource Zone wasn't an official part of DMOZ, but was rather an effort by a number of editors to do something positive and open communication to people who aren't editors. All of the folks involved should be applauded for that attempt.

I do think that forum served a useful and helpful purpose, but it's understandable why they might have wanted to stop. I do think that it's a little sad that some of that communication is ending.

I did do a little looking back at the origin of DMOZ after reading this thread. The original GnuHoo started as a response to Yahoo!, and the difficulties people had in getting listed there.

Here are a couple of articles that I hadn't seen about DMOZ before that I thought were pretty informative about the directory.

Chris Sherman's Humans Do It Better: Inside the Open Directory Project

A Salon Article - Google: Were Down with ODP

The wikipedia entry on DMOZ is also interesting, though possibly controversial to some: http://en.wikipedia....rectory_Project

Somehow, I think the Open Directory lost something important with this decision. But, if the numbers I quoted above are right, the editors who were handling all of those Site Submission Checks are going to have a lot more time to edit sites. Good luck guys.

#4 Respree

Respree

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5901 posts

Posted 21 May 2005 - 12:21 AM

In my view, they never should have put it there in the first place. You can never get an answer except "The submission has been received and is awaiting review in _________. If you don't see it listed sometime in the next six months, please feel free to return for a status update on or after 24 December."

#5 AbleReach

AbleReach

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 6467 posts

Posted 21 May 2005 - 01:16 AM

In my view, they never should have put it there in the first place. You can never get an answer except "The submission has been received and is awaiting review in _________. If you don't see it listed sometime in the next six months, please feel free to return for a status update on or after 24 December."

Agreed. Google doesn't suggest that site owners check directly with Google programmers to see if or when specific sites will be cached or PR-ed or otherwise assessed. Why should DMOZ editors be any different? Webmasters should make web pages. DMOZ should do the stuff of DMOZ. Google is a search engine, not a public relations engine for web sites. I am all for being open, but there comes a time when too much leads to easy fingerpointing (eg I can't get anywhere because Google or DMOZ did/didn't do thus and so) or other crapola like strategic spammy SEO.

Elizabeth

#6 jimnoble

jimnoble

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 21 May 2005 - 02:55 AM

Just to stress that the other sections of RZ such as[list] will continue because they are still perceived as providing a useful communications channel - in both directions.

The Site Submission Status threads were not particularly useful to anybody and, quite frankly, stopped being fun for the handful of editors still prepared to volunteer there.

#7 whitemark

whitemark

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1071 posts

Posted 21 May 2005 - 01:47 PM

... they never should have put it there in the first place. You can never get an answer except "The submission has been received and is awaiting review in _________ ..

That also seems to be one of the reason why they discontinued the service.

Our feedback indicates that the information we are giving out really is not a practical help in the vast majority of cases. People want information we either simply do not have or cannot for confidentiality reasons give out ... the existence of the status check forum raises unrealistic expectations, leading to more frustration but no satisfaction, for anyone.



#8 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 21 May 2005 - 09:13 PM

If I can make a suggestion: why not have some automated feature? Type in your URL, and recieve a status report. That would take like what, 10 minutes to build? If people were required to enter the category as well, that would make it a useful feature and a time saver for all concerned.

#9 BillSlawski

BillSlawski

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 15644 posts

Posted 21 May 2005 - 10:06 PM

It's probably time to make a change to the wikipedia Open Diectory entry:

In striking contrast, ODP now has approximately one million unreviewed site submissions, in large part due to spam and incorrectly submitted sites, making the average processing time for a site properly submitted to ODP approximately six months. Moreover, because of concerns about abusive e-mail, ODP's volunteer editors are discouraged from communicating with site submitters, leaving many submitters to wonder whether and when their site has been considered for inclusion in ODP. ODP editors have set up a public forum where queries about site submission status can be posted.


I submitted a site to DMOZ today. It was the first one in about two years. The page probably should make it into the directory. It has unique and original content, and fits well into the category I submitted. I read over the guidelines, and tried to make sure that I followed them.

Sure, I would love to have some way to check in three months or six months or whenever that it has been received, or that it was rejected. If it makes it, it makes it. If it was rejected because of punctuation, or something similarly inane, it's the Directory's loss. :)

#10 whitemark

whitemark

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1071 posts

Posted 22 May 2005 - 10:30 AM

If I can make a suggestion: why not have some automated feature? Type in your URL, and recieve a status report.

I had made that suggestion in the resource-zone forum. One problem is the huge amount of manual and automated spam submissions they get. A status report tool could tell a spammer when the spam was detected possibly alerting them to whether it was detected manually or by by some scripts. I suggested introducing a random time delay greater than a year to offset such a situation. Now the status scripts starts getting complicated as it has to communicate with other scripts, store information etc.

But there are other problems too. Basically the site status can only say - 'pending', 'accepted' or 'rejected'. And it can take several months to years where a site may be 'pending' before an editor reviews it. It really doesn't help much right?

One also tends to forget that owners of DMOZ are a corporation. But the DMOZ editors are volunteers, and some might lack an understanding of professional etiquette. And if such editors write anything in an 'emotional outburst', the parent company could get dragged into a potential lawsuit. Hence the idea of discouraging editors in not contacting submitters directly.

Anyway, I am not a DMOZ editor, so take all this with a pinch of salt.

#11 whitemark

whitemark

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1071 posts

Posted 22 May 2005 - 10:58 AM

Sure, I would love to have some way to check in three months or six months or whenever that it has been received ...

Here's one thing you can try to learn when it is listed in the directory. Create the following Google alert:

1. site:www.google.com/Top site url

2. site:dmoz.org site title and/or words from descriptions


For example, if you wanted to find out if your submitted site cre8asiteforums.com is listed you would create the search alert as:

1. site:www.google.com/Top cre8asiteforums.com
2. site:dmoz.org cre8asite

The Google directory doesn't update itself immediately with the DMOZ data. So you may want to search DMOZ too.

Unfortunately, DMOZ doesn't publish the site url so you have to guess the keywords that DMOZ editors will associate to your submitted site in the site title and site description. If you follow the guidelines, than most often than not your site title as keyword should work fine.

#12 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 22 May 2005 - 05:55 PM

Great advice whitemark!!!

One problem is the huge amount of manual and automated spam submissions they get

See, again, there has to bea better way. I know we have had this discussion numerous times, but surely there are better ways to manage submissions, sort queues and make editors lives easier!!!

IMHO, if you get 10,000 questions asking the same thing, that is pointing out a flaw in the way you do things, and you need to look ata fix. Thousands of "site status" questions? Solve it automatically. Lots of automated spam etc? Look at ways to reduce it (like the images some sites have, or changing the location of the submission form weekely etc).

It would be excellent if the world was a better, nicer, friendlier, more professional place, but unfortunately it isn't, and some problems need solving even if we don't want to solve them!!!

#13 macdesign

macdesign

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 22 May 2005 - 07:30 PM

It's not automated spam that's the main problem, it's well planned spam, of different URL's that in the end are just the same company masquerading as different entities.

Like the guy I caught that had 15 different sites for his products, and had actually managed to get one extra listing. Something like that can waste a couple of hours. And it takes a human editor to actually have the gut feel that something is wrong and decide to spend that time.

No automated system can catch all of this. There are tools in place to deal with some issues, but they are not for public discussion.

Sure occassionly someone submits 100 copies of the same site, but that's not the main problem.

#14 whitemark

whitemark

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1071 posts

Posted 22 May 2005 - 10:30 PM

See, again, there has to bea better way ...

Definitely. DMOZ can do a lot to become more transparent and user-friendly.
The thing is, we just don't have enough information to make a sound judgement on what would be a perfect solution.

If you look at the root of the problem - Why does DMOZ have such a long waiting period? - Resource-zone mentions that some categories have 10s of 1000's of listings that just don't have enough (or any) editors to review it. This, in my opinion, is the problem that needs to be solved first.

After all, what use is a status submission tool if a user keeps receiving the message 'pending' even after 12 months? He/she would still feel as frustrated. (This brings a completely different subject into the purview - perhaps the real problem are the people obsessing over a DMOZ listing. :)

#15 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 01:49 AM

No automated system can catch all of this

So DMOZ choose to catch none? :)

As an aside: when was the last time DMOZ made a change to the submission procedure? Find cat, click submit URL, add URL, write title, write description, add email address hit submit. Submission added to list of category submissions.

The Internet has moved and grown a lot in recent times, but DMOZ seems stuck in 1996, with a submission system that isn't up to the task. Sure, we could try to convince the thousands of website owners who believe DMOZ is vital, but that won't happen anytime soon.

I also believe that one should look after what one can control first, and then worry about the rest. It is usually quite shocking how much control one has when one thinks hard. DMOZ can create a "better" submission setup, better category management and better tools for submitters to automate a lot of the process. To do that, starting with all the types of automated spam that can be stopped, and working up can only lead to better results. Not perfect, but undoubtedly better.

The original submission setup surely isn't the best submission system imaginable. With 10 years of feedback and experience, DMOZ would have some insights on how to doing things better.

If you make an improvement managing and accepting submissions, that would make other problems, if not dissapear, then certainly less troublesome. So throw in better category management tools with better "bad submission" tools and, voila, better DMOZ, less waiting time in queues etc etc.

I guess I find the question "What can DMOZ change to make submission queues shorter and make editor's jobs easier" the best question to ask.

#16 jimnoble

jimnoble

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 03:21 AM

With 10 years of feedback and experience, DMOZ would have some insights on how to doing things better.

That will be in mid 2008 :) .

I guess I find the question "What can DMOZ change to make submission queues shorter and make editor's jobs easier" the best question to ask.

From the point of view of website owners hoping for their websites to be listed, it's a good question. However, it presupposes that ODP's mission is to reduce the number of listing suggestions awaiting processing (not in queues by the way but pools). That's not it at all; it's building a directory. I could go on ad nauseum about the difference but it's all been said often enough before so I won't.

Oh, and a good few of the volunteers are talented programmers; editorside tools and facilities are improving all the time.

#17 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 11:00 AM

From the point of view of website owners hoping for their websites to be listed, it's a good question. However...

Really? So the lage pools aren't a problem for editors? Funny, I was always informed they were. Have I been misinformed?

(aside: I agree, pool is a much better word. Queue implies some specific order (I am in the queue for Pearl Jam Tickets), where as "pool" doesn't. As the DMOZ submissions lists can be, and are, sorted in numerous ways, and there is no obligation on an editor to list sites in any order, pool is a much better description. Now to get everyone to change their langauage :))

That's not it at all; it's building a directory.

Isn't managing the pools part of "building a directory"? Surely there is something that can be done to improve this with, OK not 10 years, but 7 years worth of experience.

Hmmm. I really am confused. What is the issue with large DMOZ pools and delays? If they aren't part of the problem, what are the problems? Can you perhaps tell me, what yo believe are the biggest issues confronting DMOZ?

While new tools have been added, and some are excellent, the core focus of DMOZ, as you point out, is "building a directory". Submissions and pool management are the central to this core focus; it is number one above all else.

Everything else, even good things like forums and other tools, are secondary to getting quality submissions made, and then approved lickety spit. And not for webmasters, but to fulfill the goals DMOZ has.

On this front, IMHO, there has been very little movement in terms of the UI, the available tools or the pre-screening of submissions before they get to editors.

I could go on ad nauseum about the difference but it's all been said often enough before so I won't.

Hehe. I, too, could go on about how to improve DMOZ, but it has all already been said (and, of course, you already read that thread, and, I might add, provided some very useful comments).

I guess we will just have to let this topic die, as discussing DMOZ, even in the grown up, productive, professional manner this forum prides itself on, so often seems to cause heartache and actually cause more problems than it solves.

<edit>Changed queue to pool where appropriate</edit>

#18 bwelford

bwelford

    Peacekeeper Administrator

  • Site Administrators
  • 9021 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 11:35 AM

I don't normally get too involved in topics like this, but projectphp struck one or two chords in what he said.

I see DMOZ as a big society with its own natural way of working. It's a bit like Orkut. I see both are there "doing their thing", but it rarely impacts on my life. In both cases, there appears to be no management and the operative goals that really drive both organizations are somewhat unclear. Both will evolve naturally and perhaps I will get involved in a small corner of each at some point in time ... or not. The fact that DMOZ has decided to Discontinue Site Status information would seem to give a negative signal about the long term survival of the organization in its present format. It's sad but it was all probably an impossible dream. :)

#19 whitemark

whitemark

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1071 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 12:08 PM

Very well said Barry. One of the main reason for the frustration people have with DMOZ is simply because it doesn't meet their conventional view of a directory.

#20 kctipton007

kctipton007

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 23 May 2005 - 11:27 PM

The fact that DMOZ has decided to Discontinue Site Status information would seem to give a negative signal about the long term survival of the organization in its present format.


I very much disagree that it's a negative signal about ODP.

Note that resource-zone is a volunteer effort of people who are ODP editors, but it's not run by ODP or set up by ODP. One editor has donated the bandwidth, another bought the domain, and others have paid $ for the license for the forum software (me being one of the buyers).

The RZ volunteers thought that their efforts would provide a straightforward way to state ODP's version of what is done and why while simultaneously letting people check on simple facts about their submissions. Instead it became a flash point when people didn't get their way or didn't understand or care about ODP's way or wanted to argue about decisions made regarding their site(s). I applaud the RZ administrators for killing off that part of the forum. Its usefulness was dwarfed by the endless mounds of requests and the occasional highly acrimonious thread that violated the RZ TOS and should have been nuked after Post 1.

#21 BillSlawski

BillSlawski

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 15644 posts

Posted 24 May 2005 - 12:11 AM

The RZ volunteers thought that their efforts would provide a straightforward way to state ODP's version of what is done and why while simultaneously letting people check on simple facts about their submissions.


I consider it to have been an effort worth applauding. I wish that it had worked better. But, it does seem like something that the directory itself should have been doing, and not a group of volunteers acting outside of the organization itself.

There have been a couple of nice suggestions made elsewhere that might have improved the utility of that forum section. One was pre-moderation of those posts and providing simple answers such as: pending review, moved to a different category for review or rejected, and locking the thread with a note that no status checks for that site should be made any earlier than three months later. Don't know if it would have been worth trying, but killing the possiblity of argument might have made providing status checks more palatable. But, it does seem like that forum did take away from possible positive uses of the forum. And the folks who run that forum should be the ones making decisions about how they spend their time and energy.

Danny Sullivan's blog post on the subject was interesting:

ODP Forum Closes Status Check Service; Time For The ODP To Close?

Honestly, if I had any say in the matter, once the amount of unreviewed sites hit about a million or so, I probably would have turned off site submissions for a while. If this item from the Ten Tips list in the DMOZ Documentation Project is being treated like it isn't a good idea, or has just become impossible:

1. If you have no unreviewed sites to edit, search for them yourself and then add them directly to your category.


then maybe it's time to turn those submissions off, let editors add whatever they think makes the directory better, and give some of those editors with programming skills the chance to show them off and build some better filtering and reporting tools. Automation can't replace good common sense. But it can often make the job easier.

#22 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 24 May 2005 - 01:32 AM

I had an idea that probably others have had, but thought I would suggest: why not make the ODP an opensource programming project? I am sure programmers could supply all manner of new and innovative features. As an open source project, it would be an awesome thing to be a part of, and generate many more people willing to help in ways they are currently not able to.

I bet, amongst all those talented programmers, at least a few could think of ways to improve the currently rather basic site submission issue.

#23 projectphp

projectphp

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3935 posts

Posted 24 May 2005 - 09:57 PM

As a heads up, whitemark suggested some ways to check if your site submission was accepted backa page. Here is another way, although probably a bit slower as the site is updated from the ODP RDF dump (I would guess) infrequently.

www.whois.sc/dmoz/{YOURDOMAIN} shows all the listings for a domain, e.g. http://www.whois.sc/...asiteforums.com or http://www.whois.sc/...ighrankings.com as an example of multiple listings.

Pretty handy little tool, really!!!

#24 best.flash

best.flash

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 26 May 2005 - 07:53 PM

One other way to check if a DMOZ editor has visited your site is to either setup a script on your home page (the page you submitted) that will email you when 'dmoz' appears in the referring url, php example:


<?

$email = "you@yourserver.com";



if(isset($_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER'])){ 

 if( eregi("dmoz", $_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER'])) { 

         mail($email, "DMOZ Alert", "DMOZ has just visited your homepage"); 

 }

}

?>

Tho the Netscape directory sometimes triggers this as it uses the text 'dmoz' in its referring url with some query's.

or you can simply keep an eye on your server logs :)

Of course this assumes most DMOZ editors take the path of least resistance when reviewing sites and click on the direct link...

#25 travis

travis

    Sonic Boom Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1532 posts

Posted 08 June 2005 - 06:57 PM

I thought the submission status forum was good, so I could check what was going on.

For the first time, it appeared as though an interface was available for legitimate enquiries into submission status.

I did what I was told in November 2004 and recorded the link and the Directory URL and the date and came back 6 months later. When I re-enquired, my post was deleted by a Moderator. Apparently, after following the instructions to the letter by a moderator, and waiting 6 months, nothing has happened.

I dont know whether anyone else has experienced it, but I always go away from DMOZ shaking my head that the editors would spend such a large amount of time explaining why they cant do anything.

They could have actually submitted my site in 10% of the time to explain why they could not submit it, why I cant review it anymore, why my request did not match the submission guidelines in the forum, who there customer is (the searcher, not the webmaster).

The problem with people who work for free is you cant ask them to do anything.

#26 macdesign

macdesign

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 08 June 2005 - 09:23 PM

The problem with RZ was the continous misunderstanding that kept leading to fights. To clarify one of your points, many of the editors that posted there would have been able to answer your question there, and it could take less than 30 seonds to provide an answer. However, only a small minority of the editors would have been able to review your site, and it would take a lot longer than 30 seconds. Not 10% of the time.

Also there was a policy to not jump to review sites that were asked about in RZ, so that no one would ever get the idea that posting there sped up a listing.

Your site is safely in there waiting for review.

#27 travis

travis

    Sonic Boom Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1532 posts

Posted 08 June 2005 - 10:11 PM

Thanks for that.

Despite our grievances, I am sure DMOZ Editors do a good job.

The interface between web designers and DMOZ editors does not really help their public image much, thats all.

They need a PR makeover.

#28 macdesign

macdesign

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 39 posts

Posted 08 June 2005 - 10:34 PM

That's for sure :silly:

#29 sydney

sydney

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 10 June 2005 - 08:47 PM

I am sure DMOZ Editors do a good job.

They do too! Or they wouldn't edit.

The interface between web designers and DMOZ editors does not really help their public image much, thats all.

One reason the status checks were cut out. Too many people throwing abuse around who don't understand the concept of a volunteer project as opposed to a commercial listing service. Editors, when provoked, are human and will naturally respond despite knowing it is futile most times.

They need a PR makeover.

That is one thing most editors are not interested in. It ain't a business and ain't out there to attract webmaster "customers". In terms of PR what editors are interested in is promoting the results of their labors to the users of the data. In that respect DMOZ receives no complaints so the PR is pretty good!

#30 BillSlawski

BillSlawski

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 15644 posts

Posted 10 June 2005 - 09:38 PM

They need a PR makeover.


That is one thing most editors are not interested in. It ain't a business and ain't out there to attract webmaster "customers". In terms of PR what editors are interested in is promoting the results of their labors to the users of the data. In that respect DMOZ receives no complaints so the PR is pretty good!



I spent about three hours the other night digging through the regional results for Delaware. I went through a lot of categories, and looked at a lot of links. Either there just aren't a lot of web sites in Delaware, or there just isn't a lot of inspiration to capture and collect those. It might be the second. I'm not sure if I remember seeing a single category for the State that had an editor. I was trying to find some good links for a Delaware oriented blog.

What can be done to attract editors to those categories? I don't see anything anywhere to inspire anyone to join in, and add to those categories. I don't see a sense of excitedness in too many places, where people might be inspired.

I'd rather this thread didn't devolve into an us versus them, editors-don't-owe-webmasters-nothing, kind of discussion. Honestly, it's been done so much that it doesn't really help anyone.

I don't know if any will take me up on this, but if there are any editors out there who are willing to step up, please, tell us what inspired you to become an editor of the DMOZ. Maybe you will inspire some other folks to apply. And, maybe the DMOZ needs some of that kind of PR.

#31 dogbows

dogbows

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 11 June 2005 - 06:43 AM

I spent about three hours the other night digging through the regional results for Delaware. I went through a lot of categories, and looked at a lot of links. Either there just aren't a lot of web sites in Delaware, or there just isn't a lot of inspiration to capture and collect those. It might be the second. I'm not sure if I remember seeing a single category for the State that had an editor. I was trying to find some good links for a Delaware oriented blog.

What can be done to attract editors to those categories? I don't see anything anywhere to inspire anyone to join in, and add to those categories. I don't see a sense of excitedness in too many places, where people might be inspired.


This very statement is what caused me to apply to become an editor. In Regional the excitement usually comes from someone who does have a strong interest in a particular area.

When I searched in my hometown, I knew of many sites from my local area which were not listed. I really had no desire to become an editor in the beginning. But I did have the desire to see my hometown built up in the directory. So I spent many hours over several days studying the guidelines, and finally decided to apply. I really had my doubts about being accepted. I was convinced that it was a long shot to say the least. But to my utter shock and amazement I was accepted very quickly.

I have seen so many people post about how hard becoming an editor is, and that if dmoz really wanted editors they would lower the standards. Well I am proof it does not take a rocket scientist to become an editor. All it really takes is an interest in the area applying, and the ability to follow instructions. How hard is that? Go for it!

#32 Eddie

Eddie

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 404 posts

Posted 11 June 2005 - 07:06 AM

Good post dogbows.

I started in exactly the same way as editor for my home town, Gloucester.

#33 jimnoble

jimnoble

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 11 June 2005 - 09:29 AM

I wanted to list three community club websites but there wasn't a category for my village. I contacted the county editor who created it, listed my sites and found a few more.

I applied for it shortly afterwards and grew it to around 30 listings in a week by asking around, reading truck logos and knocking on the door of every business I could find there. (It's now got over 50).

I was hooked by the work and the pleasure of operating in a very supportive and confidence inspiring team. Nearly 4 years on, I still am :D .[list]It's the best hobby I've ever had ;) .

#34 jimnoble

jimnoble

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 11 June 2005 - 09:45 AM

All it really takes is an interest in the area applying, and the ability to follow instructions.

DB has that right, but let me expand a little. When evaluating new editor applications, I primarily look for several things[list]The final two charactersistics don't have to be perfect IMHO, because we can teach those. We can't teach the first three though :D .

#35 whitemark

whitemark

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1071 posts

Posted 12 June 2005 - 02:47 AM

Could you elaborate on 'Attention to detail'?

#36 jimnoble

jimnoble

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 12 June 2005 - 07:13 AM

I just tried to codify attention to detail but the list of examples grew and grew.

Let's just say it's the avoidance of errors that a double check by the submitter could have found :D .

#37 whitemark

whitemark

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1071 posts

Posted 12 June 2005 - 09:52 AM

Yes, I think it does sum it up well. :D

#38 kctipton007

kctipton007

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 12 June 2005 - 10:54 AM

I was thinking the same thing. If you can't proofread your own application, you'd look like a poor choice as editor.

#39 bearmugs

bearmugs

    Mach 1 Member

  • Members
  • 261 posts

Posted 12 June 2005 - 02:57 PM

# Communications skills in the language of the category (both reading and writing)
# Attention to detail

Jim, I agree on these requirements to become an editor. However, based on my reading of the forums, I would say these requirements were added well after a lot of editors were enshrined into the DMOZ fraternity and social club. From what I have read in the DMOZ forums, a number of them can't spell, can't proofread, and can't communicate. I see pages and pages of nothing being said. Editors seem to have a lot of time to spend writing chapters in the forums.
As far as the Site Status discontinuation goes, as long as people can't figure out where they're at with site submissions, they'll keep on submitting over and over. The problem with the Site Status forum was obvious. The solution was quite simple.
For example: :"I submitted my site last week. What's the status"
Reply: DELETE
Obviously, submission guidelines were not read. In dealing with the spammers and idiots, the greater harm is usually to those who observe the rules and adhere to the guidelines.
I have now noticed that the secret OZ society has resorted to censoring opinions in the OZ Forums.
When did ODP become this secret land of OZ ruled by cowardly lions and brainless scarecrows.

Regards
Bearmugs

#40 jimnoble

jimnoble

    Honorary Member

  • Members
  • 45 posts

Posted 12 June 2005 - 04:49 PM

I have now noticed that the secret OZ society has resorted to censoring opinions in the OZ Forums.

I've just read your deleted RZ post of earlier today (I'm on UK time). Whichever meta editor decided it was inappropriate was merely following your advice.

Reply: DELETE

Frankly, I'm surprised you weren't banned.

I don't know if you've counted the dwindling number of ODP editors still prepared to volunteer to help others in RZ, but you'll find that it's a miniscule proportion of the around 10,000 active ones.

Today, in addition to bandying words in various internal and external fora, I've listed some 35 websites, amended about the same number, joined two new editors and provided extensive guidance to two others. In the process, I've had fun and achieved some satisfaction.

Apart from the rants in RZ and here, what did you contribute to the net community today?

[Attention to detail <smack hand> Edited to correct spelling error]



RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users