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

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

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

12 things I like about Dmoz/ODP....

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY!

Well, I wouldn't be on my third year as a Dmoz editor and reviewing people's boring websites if I didn't like something about it, right?

1) I can edit whenever I want.

2) I can choose which of my designated categories I want to edit for the day.

3) The official Dmoz blog is updated regularly and there are dedicated AOL employee(s) behind it.

4) A new Dmoz model will (hopefully) arrive in a few months.

5) I don't have to review every site I come across.

6) I can choose to review and list only submitted sites and love it.

7) I can also list sites I find elsewhere if I wanted.

8) I can respond to feedback if I so choose.

9) I can send e-mail to submitters letting them know their site rocks.

10) I can respond to submitter feedback if I wanted to and love it.

11) I can give someone a status check on his/her website if I wanted.

12) That ugly green lizard/dinosaur thingy.

Editor Stats:
6124 / 1943 unique adds / 1613 deletes / 1149 unreviewed

My 3rd year as a Dmoz editor....

I officially reached my third year as a Dmoz editor a few months ago. What can I say about this. I'm still a category editor - boo! I'm overwhelmed with my university work and, well, not working, hahah, so I don't have much time to edit. Okay, truth is, I do have a lot of free time, but I don't spend as much time editing as I used to mainly because I'm reaching burn out again. Plus, many of the sites that get suggested are boring to look at and read, or too time-consuming to review. Sometimes I'll click on a website and look through it for a few seconds and change my mind about reviewing it because I just don't feel like taking the time, or, because it looks like it's going to take too much time to review.


Sorry, but if you have one of those ugly sites (subjective, I know) then I will not be reviewing those anytime soon, lol. Those sites tend to turn me off and make me less likely to finish the review. I don't like reviewing boring sites, either. Sites that have a very good design and are entertaining to read will catch my attention and make me want to look further. Yes, yes, I know, editors should not base a listing on site design or aesthetics. Well, the keyword is "listing." I don't base site listings on those things, only content, but I do base whether or not I will take the time to review a site based on how it looks and reads. This, I am completely free to do because, according to Dmoz guidelines, I do not have to review a site that I don't feel comfortable with reviewing, and ugly sites I don't like reviewing.

Well, not only have I reached my third year of editing, but tomorrow is also my birthday, yey(!)...another year of getting older, but I can always lie about my age - and get away with it. So, for my birthday month I will resolve to add 50 websites in my favorite category. Heheh, that's more than I usually do per month and this is a spammy category, so it's also time-consuming. Well, anyway, I'll see how that goes, and I'm already off to a good start.



Some mistakes I've made in the past:



I'm sure I've made many editing mistakes in the past. Lets see...I've accidentally deleted sites; I've accidentally added sites that shouldn't have been added; I've added sites that I now know weren't listable to begin with; I've given horrible descriptions to sites because I didn't feel like taking the time to write a good one that would have made the site stand out; I've misspelled words; I've forgotten to use spell-check; and I've misspelled people's names, and, even worse, described them as the wrong sex....as you can see, those are a lot of things I've done wrong, but overall, I've not made too many crucial mistakes. These are all small compared to what can really be harmful.



What I've learned since becoming an editor:



I've learned a lot since becoming an editor. I've learned how to properly describe and title sites; I've learned how to spot affiliates, mirrors, and fraternal mirrors; I've learned how to give a quick and easy description to a site without much effort; I've learned a way of finding better categories for misplaced sites; and I've learned reasonably good site placement skills. Of course, these aren't the only things I've learned over three years of editing, and all of these things combined has made me a more efficient editor.



EDITOR STATS:


5940 [total edits]/ 1856 unique adds / 1560 deletes / 1126 unreviewed

12 Things I've wondered about the ODP, or, DMOZ.

I've *sighed* much lately over these very taxing questions I'm wondering about Dmoz. Here's what I've begun to wonder over the years about Dmoz when I think about it....

1. Why does Dmoz sometimes leak like a washing machine?


2. Why are editors sometimes bitter?


3. Why is there a whole lotta anger in some ex-editors?


4. Why do some people, er, editors like arguing so much?


5. Why are editors sometimes like broken records?


6. Where do they get all this darn free time from?


7. Why do they like "reviewing" other people's boring sites?


8. Do editors try to "stick it" to some web sites by adding that dreaded [only available in IE] tag to the description?


9. Are editors truly nice or are they just faking it?


10. Do editors think it's funny to click on a website just to add a referral and then don't list it?


11. What in the hell is that little logo? A lizard? Dinosaur?


12. What is up with that ugly puke green color?

Um, Dmoz....How Do I Submit My Site?

I've begun to notice a trend in the type of e-mail I get from submitters. The first type of e-mail is from people who are basically asking for a status check. The second type of e-mail has come to surprise me. I get e-mail from people who are unable to submit to the category and want to know where the Submit URL link is. What I have noticed is that this is for categories where Dmoz has turned off the Submit URL function. This usually happens when very few sites, if any, will ever be listed in the category. In this case, the submitter should submit to one of the sub-categories in the area.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how inattentive people are when they don't do any research or read any of the material available to them to help them better understand where to submit their sites. It surprises me, but I know that I shouldn't be. Submitters rarely read the category description or FAQs to see if the category they want to submit to is actually the best category. If you run into a situation where the Submit URL link is missing then that is your queue to find the appropriate subcategory in which to submit.

Another thing that boggles my mind is when people submit to the obviously wrong category. If your site's name begins with A, then why are you submitting to the letter Z? Sometimes I think people have nefarious reasons for submitting to the wrong category. Maybe they already have a site listed in the correct category and they are trying to get a mirror listed by submitting to a completely different category, thinking the reviewing editor will just move and list the site without actually taking a look at the correct category. I caught at one point someone doing just that - submitting a mirror to the incorrect sub-category and that same site was already listed under another URL in the correct category. Since then I have always been suspicious of people who submit to the number 0 instead of the letter K; I wonder what scheme they are trying to pull.

Just remember before you send an e-mail to the editor asking where the Submit URL is that you've actually read the category's FAQs and description where you will most likely find out that you have to submit to a subcategory.