What a great question! I swear, you're just reading my mind when it comes to what I want to write about.
Well, it goes a little something like this:
1) I turn on my beautiful cotton-candy pink Gateway laptop.
2) I log onto the Internet via dial-up.
Oopps. You don't want to know the gritty details.
When I log into Dmoz, I log into the dashboard. I have it as a favorite on my computer so I can go straight to it. Same with the internal forums. I look at the numbers for the categories in which I edit and decide what I want to do. I also look for update request. I used to like processing those, but not anymore. I've seen update requests site in the queue for as long as nine-months.
I then decide whether I want to look through a few random categories. I have my favorites that I visit every so often. Sometimes I might go through unreviewed listing sites that are listed elsewhere in the directory. Those types of sites are easier to list because they've already been reviewed by a, hopefully, competent editor, though not always. Sometimes I might go through and pick a random site or two to review and list, or delete. Then, I might go through the unreviewed and delete all the Red sites unless I feel they need a re-review. I usually clunk out if I try to review more than one site because it just takes too darn long. Then I might go to the internal forum and read one or two threads that catch my attention and then back to my dashboard. Lastly, but not leastly, I might look at my profile and think of ways in which to improve it, or look at it just because it's so beautiful. Hahah. Obviously, this is pretty boring, but it's a typical schedule for me as of late.
This post isn't proofread because I'm so darn tired.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Taking a break from Dmoz/ODP
Okay, so I've decided to take a break from Dmoz. I've been an editor for close to four years and I'm almost burned out at the moment; I've been editing less and less lately.
What have I been doing with my time if I'm not editing at Dmoz, you ask? Well, many things. I'm usually working on a personal project, playing one of my favorite games, or lurking on one of my favorite forums. Or, heck, even chatting with one of my fellow editors over IM. Doing these things takes up a lot of my time, especially the game playing. I'd like to get back to some console gaming, but my Xbox360 is kinda clunked right now - thanks to me. Bleh.
Don't get me wrong, I still log-in to Dmoz everyday except on rare occasions. I visit the internal forum and read a couple of threads, I usually skip 99.9% of them out of disinterest, then I look at my editor dash...wait, I'll explain all this boring stuff in my next post, hahah.
Next post: What I do when I log into the Dmoz. - because I know you're dying to know, hahah.
This post isn't proofread because I'm just too darn tired...
What have I been doing with my time if I'm not editing at Dmoz, you ask? Well, many things. I'm usually working on a personal project, playing one of my favorite games, or lurking on one of my favorite forums. Or, heck, even chatting with one of my fellow editors over IM. Doing these things takes up a lot of my time, especially the game playing. I'd like to get back to some console gaming, but my Xbox360 is kinda clunked right now - thanks to me. Bleh.
Don't get me wrong, I still log-in to Dmoz everyday except on rare occasions. I visit the internal forum and read a couple of threads, I usually skip 99.9% of them out of disinterest, then I look at my editor dash...wait, I'll explain all this boring stuff in my next post, hahah.
Next post: What I do when I log into the Dmoz. - because I know you're dying to know, hahah.
This post isn't proofread because I'm just too darn tired...
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
SEO Specialists talk about Dmoz.
I did a once-in-a-blue moon search for "Dmoz" and found this interesting blog post. A few SEO specialists held a conference to discuss the SEO industry. I found the answers...interesting, to say the least.
Q: What do you think about DMOZ?
Debra: I have an interview with DMOZ this week and they seem committed to fixing the directory. [Really? Interesting, I might say. I wonder how it went. BTW, AOL staff are working on releasing Dmoz 2.0 soon, *fingers crossed.*]
Eric: A link from DMOZ is not something you have to have to rank. It'd be nice to see them return to their former glory, though.
Danny: Google recently removed their suggestion that sites should try to get links from directories.
Rae: That doesn't mean that they don't still value links from directories. It's probably meant to help sites from getting scammed by anyone who throws up a site and calls it a directory.
Eric: You can see the last date edited and find out which editor did it. Search for that editor's username and you can find out how to contact them privately. They'll appreciate you took that extra step. [Some interesting remarks. Nearly false, but interesting nonetheless. For starters, no one other than an editor can find out which editor made an edit to a category. The only information available to the public is the date and time stamp at the bottom of the page, not editor name. Secondly, I don't know about the last sentence, but some editors don't appreciate being asked about submitted sites. I usually don't give much thought about a submitter contacting me, so I can't say that I "appreciate" the effort, though I'm not opposed to giving site status checks.]
(source: http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/archives/2009/10/ask_the_linkbui.html)
Current Stats:
6490 [total edits] / 2084 unique adds / 1718 deletes / 1193 unreviewed
Q: What do you think about DMOZ?
Debra: I have an interview with DMOZ this week and they seem committed to fixing the directory. [Really? Interesting, I might say. I wonder how it went. BTW, AOL staff are working on releasing Dmoz 2.0 soon, *fingers crossed.*]
Eric: A link from DMOZ is not something you have to have to rank. It'd be nice to see them return to their former glory, though.
Danny: Google recently removed their suggestion that sites should try to get links from directories.
Rae: That doesn't mean that they don't still value links from directories. It's probably meant to help sites from getting scammed by anyone who throws up a site and calls it a directory.
Eric: You can see the last date edited and find out which editor did it. Search for that editor's username and you can find out how to contact them privately. They'll appreciate you took that extra step. [Some interesting remarks. Nearly false, but interesting nonetheless. For starters, no one other than an editor can find out which editor made an edit to a category. The only information available to the public is the date and time stamp at the bottom of the page, not editor name. Secondly, I don't know about the last sentence, but some editors don't appreciate being asked about submitted sites. I usually don't give much thought about a submitter contacting me, so I can't say that I "appreciate" the effort, though I'm not opposed to giving site status checks.]
(source: http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/archives/2009/10/ask_the_linkbui.html)
Current Stats:
6490 [total edits] / 2084 unique adds / 1718 deletes / 1193 unreviewed
Friday, September 11, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Part 2: Dmoz and its editors
Editors who post unsubstantiated facts is one of the things that annoy me.
Take for instance a common "fact" I see posted by editors, senior and lowly alike. It's the "fact" that 50% of listed sites are not suggest. Now, where did this factoid come from? Someone's mind? Out of thin air? I've been an editor for over three years and I have never seen any evidence that this is true, and I've searched for it on the Internal forum. This seems to be made up or conjecture at best. I'm wondering how someone can even compile this information. How can you, as an editor, possibly know whether or not other editors are searching for sites on their own or have relegated their editor activities to the submitted sites? I mean, just because you, as an editor, love finding sites on your own doesn't mean most or even all editors do the same. It seems a bit deceitful to put this unsubstantiated information as fact based only on what you, and possibly a few editors you've talked to, do.
There are many editors, mostly new, or those who don't have a lot of edits to their credit, who don't even know that you can go out and add sites you find via search engines. Plus, being that most editors are not senior editors and do not have a lot of privileges and are stuck with smaller categories, leads me to believe that the opposite is true. I can't count the number of times a new editor mentions the fact that they check their category once a month looking for new submissions.
Editor Stats:
6327 / 2022 unique adds / 1669 deletes / 1176 unreviewed
Take for instance a common "fact" I see posted by editors, senior and lowly alike. It's the "fact" that 50% of listed sites are not suggest. Now, where did this factoid come from? Someone's mind? Out of thin air? I've been an editor for over three years and I have never seen any evidence that this is true, and I've searched for it on the Internal forum. This seems to be made up or conjecture at best. I'm wondering how someone can even compile this information. How can you, as an editor, possibly know whether or not other editors are searching for sites on their own or have relegated their editor activities to the submitted sites? I mean, just because you, as an editor, love finding sites on your own doesn't mean most or even all editors do the same. It seems a bit deceitful to put this unsubstantiated information as fact based only on what you, and possibly a few editors you've talked to, do.
There are many editors, mostly new, or those who don't have a lot of edits to their credit, who don't even know that you can go out and add sites you find via search engines. Plus, being that most editors are not senior editors and do not have a lot of privileges and are stuck with smaller categories, leads me to believe that the opposite is true. I can't count the number of times a new editor mentions the fact that they check their category once a month looking for new submissions.
Editor Stats:
6327 / 2022 unique adds / 1669 deletes / 1176 unreviewed
Friday, June 12, 2009
Part 1: Dmoz and its editors
Hello, again! I didn't even realize it has been so long since my last post. I've been very busy lately with several things, including graduate school.
In this post I'm going to write about one thing I just absolutely can't stand. Okay, not just one; this will be a multi-post series.
What irks me most about some Dmoz editors are those newbie's who've been on the job for only a few months and think they know everything there is to know about the ODP. Their "knowledge" that they feel the need to pass on to the rest of us lowly editors, you know, those of us who have been there MUCH longer than they, comes from what they've heard/learned from other senior editors and spread it around as gospel. In fact, they say it almost verbatim from the senior editor who told them that it's almost easy to figure out who gave them that advice. Getting advice and knowledge from senior editors is great, but also realize that the guidelines are just guidelines and not policy. There's a difference. The guidelines give leeway to common sense and editor discretion. Policies are hard and fast rules that everyone must follow. Dmoz doesn't have policies.
As you get more experience as an editor then you'll become more knowledgeable about the guidelines and you'll be able to use your discretion wisely instead of being afraid that you're "breaking the guidelines." In one of the categories in which I'm a listed editor I used to get several requests from people asking for their site to be removed from the directory. As a new editor I was told that sites shouldn't be removed as long as they're working and meets the guidelines, thus making it into an absolute rule. During that time I rarely obliged the request. As I came into my own as an experienced editor, and become more knowledgeable about the guidelines, I realized that they are just guidelines and that I do have some discretion. I was then able to make a decision on my own based on the information in front of me about whether or not to oblige the "remove my site" requests. Some of those sites I did remove from the directory, but that was not without first going to the website and sending an e-mail and advising them that, generally, sites aren't removed if they still meet the guidelines.
My reason for sending this e-mail wasn't to inform them that their site wasn't going to be removed or just to happily communicate with website owners, but it was to make sure the person sending the request was the person actually connected with that site. Sometimes I would get an e-mail back and sometimes I wouldn't, so that meant that sometimes I would oblige the delete request and sometimes I wouldn't. If I did oblige a request then I would leave a note with the URL giving the reason I was deleting it and that I was using my editor discretion. Simple.
Well, it's not really that simple when you're a new editor because you take other editors' opinions as truth and the guidelines as hard and fast rules that must always be followed. The actual truth is that editors have different opinions and interpret things differently. You ask an opinion of 5 editors and you'll get 6 different opinions. So, you have to take it for what it's worth, and that's someone's opinion. Don't get me wrong. I was once a very confused newbie. I only became confused because of the many different opinions on everything imaginable. I would see a senior editor write one thing as a fact in one place, and then I'd go to the internal forum and see six different editors with opposite opinions. Who's right? Eventually, I got to a point in my editorship that I didn't need anyone's opinions in order to interpret the guidelines. I used my own knowledge from lots of editing and reading of the guidelines to make a good decision about a site.
Those newbies with only a few months experience will eventually come to realize what I realized: that there are no hard and fast rules in editing, and you are free to use your editor discretion when it makes sense. This isn't getting into the issue of major changes, which need to have editor "consensus."
Editor Stats:
6324 [total edits] / 2019 unique adds / 1669 deletes / 1176 unreviewed
In this post I'm going to write about one thing I just absolutely can't stand. Okay, not just one; this will be a multi-post series.
What irks me most about some Dmoz editors are those newbie's who've been on the job for only a few months and think they know everything there is to know about the ODP. Their "knowledge" that they feel the need to pass on to the rest of us lowly editors, you know, those of us who have been there MUCH longer than they, comes from what they've heard/learned from other senior editors and spread it around as gospel. In fact, they say it almost verbatim from the senior editor who told them that it's almost easy to figure out who gave them that advice. Getting advice and knowledge from senior editors is great, but also realize that the guidelines are just guidelines and not policy. There's a difference. The guidelines give leeway to common sense and editor discretion. Policies are hard and fast rules that everyone must follow. Dmoz doesn't have policies.
As you get more experience as an editor then you'll become more knowledgeable about the guidelines and you'll be able to use your discretion wisely instead of being afraid that you're "breaking the guidelines." In one of the categories in which I'm a listed editor I used to get several requests from people asking for their site to be removed from the directory. As a new editor I was told that sites shouldn't be removed as long as they're working and meets the guidelines, thus making it into an absolute rule. During that time I rarely obliged the request. As I came into my own as an experienced editor, and become more knowledgeable about the guidelines, I realized that they are just guidelines and that I do have some discretion. I was then able to make a decision on my own based on the information in front of me about whether or not to oblige the "remove my site" requests. Some of those sites I did remove from the directory, but that was not without first going to the website and sending an e-mail and advising them that, generally, sites aren't removed if they still meet the guidelines.
My reason for sending this e-mail wasn't to inform them that their site wasn't going to be removed or just to happily communicate with website owners, but it was to make sure the person sending the request was the person actually connected with that site. Sometimes I would get an e-mail back and sometimes I wouldn't, so that meant that sometimes I would oblige the delete request and sometimes I wouldn't. If I did oblige a request then I would leave a note with the URL giving the reason I was deleting it and that I was using my editor discretion. Simple.
Well, it's not really that simple when you're a new editor because you take other editors' opinions as truth and the guidelines as hard and fast rules that must always be followed. The actual truth is that editors have different opinions and interpret things differently. You ask an opinion of 5 editors and you'll get 6 different opinions. So, you have to take it for what it's worth, and that's someone's opinion. Don't get me wrong. I was once a very confused newbie. I only became confused because of the many different opinions on everything imaginable. I would see a senior editor write one thing as a fact in one place, and then I'd go to the internal forum and see six different editors with opposite opinions. Who's right? Eventually, I got to a point in my editorship that I didn't need anyone's opinions in order to interpret the guidelines. I used my own knowledge from lots of editing and reading of the guidelines to make a good decision about a site.
Those newbies with only a few months experience will eventually come to realize what I realized: that there are no hard and fast rules in editing, and you are free to use your editor discretion when it makes sense. This isn't getting into the issue of major changes, which need to have editor "consensus."
Editor Stats:
6324 [total edits] / 2019 unique adds / 1669 deletes / 1176 unreviewed
Friday, February 27, 2009
AOL/Dmoz is now listening to webmasters. Yay?
I decided to do my tri-annual visit to the official Dmoz blog today (http://blog.dmoz.org/) and came into a bit of a surprise posting: AOL is actually fielding questions from the general public and webmaster community. Yay! I'm very excited about this. There's nothing more encouraging than to know that your voice is being heard, even if your suggestions aren't acted on. I applaud AOL for doing this and for trying to open the door of transparency. http://blog.dmoz.org/2009/02/27/have-questions-about-dmoz-let-us-know/
As an editor, I have always thought Dmoz should open the doors of communication with those who submit their sites to the directory. In a way, they do make my life easier as an editor because that means I don't have to spend hours wading through spammy search engine results to find good sites to list because those good sites are already being suggested by their webmasters and owners. I think it would be a great idea for Dmoz to at least provide status checks for those who request it. Although, I'm not sure how this would work. Maybe after submitting a site the submitter is given a reference number that he can enter somewhere on the site and it will give him the status: waiting/deleted/added. Sure, I can see the concern, and even anger, of those who find out that their site is deleted. Maybe they'll direct their anger at the resource-zone.com, hahahah.
Yes, you'll hear individual editors say Dmoz doesn't provide status checks and the resource-zone.com tried it and it was found to be worthless information and a waste of time, and more blah blah. Well, only AOL can make that decision regarding the ODP. Personally, I wouldn't mind something where after I've reviewed a site I will have the choice to send feedback to the e-mail address submitted with the site, something along the lines of added/deleted/moved to another category for review and, if I choose, I have the choice to leave personalized comments.
Whatever the outcome of this initiation by AOL to get general public and webmaster feedback and try to be more transparent is a step in the right direction and I welcome it. Wherever it goes from here is yet to be seen. Even if AOL cannot act on most of the requests I applaud the effort to actually listen to the concerns of webmasters. Hooray for AOL!
**************************************
Editor stats as of this post:
6189 / 1967 unique adds / 1631 deletes / 1159 unreviewed
As an editor, I have always thought Dmoz should open the doors of communication with those who submit their sites to the directory. In a way, they do make my life easier as an editor because that means I don't have to spend hours wading through spammy search engine results to find good sites to list because those good sites are already being suggested by their webmasters and owners. I think it would be a great idea for Dmoz to at least provide status checks for those who request it. Although, I'm not sure how this would work. Maybe after submitting a site the submitter is given a reference number that he can enter somewhere on the site and it will give him the status: waiting/deleted/added. Sure, I can see the concern, and even anger, of those who find out that their site is deleted. Maybe they'll direct their anger at the resource-zone.com, hahahah.
Yes, you'll hear individual editors say Dmoz doesn't provide status checks and the resource-zone.com tried it and it was found to be worthless information and a waste of time, and more blah blah. Well, only AOL can make that decision regarding the ODP. Personally, I wouldn't mind something where after I've reviewed a site I will have the choice to send feedback to the e-mail address submitted with the site, something along the lines of added/deleted/moved to another category for review and, if I choose, I have the choice to leave personalized comments.
Whatever the outcome of this initiation by AOL to get general public and webmaster feedback and try to be more transparent is a step in the right direction and I welcome it. Wherever it goes from here is yet to be seen. Even if AOL cannot act on most of the requests I applaud the effort to actually listen to the concerns of webmasters. Hooray for AOL!
**************************************
Editor stats as of this post:
6189 / 1967 unique adds / 1631 deletes / 1159 unreviewed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
