Well, Dmoz editors have finally had the whole run-down regarding what has caused the major delay in getting the prestigious directory up and running again. Unfortunately, the hardware failure on Oct. 20th really was catastrophic to the point that it could not have been fixed in a week or two as most people seem to think. AOL staff has worked tirelessly and endlessly everyday to get everything working again. .
With the actions AOL staff have taken regarding Dmoz over the past month or so, I can rest assured that another catastrophic failure is very, very unlikely to happen again. It once again proves AOL's commitment to keeping Dmoz over the web and supporting the organization and its editors, because, if anything, AOL could have easily pulled the plug on the directory after the hardware failure, but, instead, they have stuck by it and financially and technically supported it during this tough time. Kudos to AOL!
[edit] I'll scale back some things that were previously said in this post, and although I don't think I've said anything that may have breeched ODP guidelines, I will say that I want to save myself from suspicion. The reason I'm doing this is because there is an ODP leak out there and I don't want people thinking it's me. But, I just want to make clear that there are a lot of rumors being spread about Dmoz right now, but most of them are false, and I'm not going to tell you which ones are false and which ones aren't. You'll just have to wait to see if Dmoz decides to release any information. Whether or not they will remains to be seen.
[edit] [edit] Okay, I guess I realize that I probably did breech ODP guidelines in what I originally posted, which is completely, utterly, and 100 percent-ly wrong. Big mistake on my part to have posted it. I take full responsibility for whatever consequences follows for my inadvertent mistake in being excited with the news that editors might be able to edit again soon, and then hastily posting afterwards. This is a big lesson to keep your fingers from excitedly typing when you get such good news. But, I do take comfort in the fact that even though I was naive when I posted, that there is some editor out there who is maliciously leaking the most critical Dmoz information.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Oh, no! Dmoz has been down for 5 weeks and I'm getting impatient.
Okay, so the latest news is that the AOL techs are still working on some things, but they haven't bothered to communicate what they're doing with Dmoz Admin, or other editors. Editors are feverishly waiting for Dmoz to be put back together again so they can continue editing. I, on the other hand, am becoming impatient. I'm starting a new job on Nov. 27th so that means I'll have even less time to edit. Before this new job I had all the time in the world to edit, but chose to only spend a little of it actually editing, and more of it reading threads at Resource-zone (R-Z) and the Internal forum. Read to the end to find more news about the current Dmoz outage.
I'm quickly losing patience in Dmoz, and obviously other editors are becoming temperamental in their wait too. If Dmoz does not revive soon, then I'm afraid to say that my patience will have worn out, and right now my patience is very, very thin. As soon as another good hobby for me comes along then I'll leave Dmoz in my dust. Even though I enjoy editing there, there is only so much patience I'll have before I begin to look for another way to spend my time. I'm really beginning to lose interest in Dmoz.
Latest Dmoz Outage News
Okay, the latest news is that although no one has gotten any updates in a while from AOL techies, the editors who were asked to test the directory for bugs are finding some of the major bugs they found progressively being fixed, so AOL techs are still working on it, slowly, but surly.
[edit] Some information from this post has been erased also (see above post with the double edit), since the information could be considered too much. Although, I did think about if information about how they are working to fix the issue with the servers would be too much info, and if it could be used in a malicious way, or information about when they thought Dmoz would be up and running would cause any harm to Dmoz, I came to the decision that it wouldn't and decided to post it. It was the wrong decision, in hindsight, of course. And, again I take full responsibility for making some bad decisions within my posts and will take the consequences with my big girl shoes on. Plus, it didn't help when presenting information in my own unique writing style. Writing things like "Word has it..." does seem suspicious, lol, so I wouldn't be surprised if people got the impression that I'm also leaking information, which I would never do, but I can absolutely see if anyone got that impression from this post or any other. But, just for the record, I've never leaked anything regarding Dmoz, only made a few bad decisions regarding what I posted in my blog.
I'm quickly losing patience in Dmoz, and obviously other editors are becoming temperamental in their wait too. If Dmoz does not revive soon, then I'm afraid to say that my patience will have worn out, and right now my patience is very, very thin. As soon as another good hobby for me comes along then I'll leave Dmoz in my dust. Even though I enjoy editing there, there is only so much patience I'll have before I begin to look for another way to spend my time. I'm really beginning to lose interest in Dmoz.
Latest Dmoz Outage News
Okay, the latest news is that although no one has gotten any updates in a while from AOL techies, the editors who were asked to test the directory for bugs are finding some of the major bugs they found progressively being fixed, so AOL techs are still working on it, slowly, but surly.
[edit] Some information from this post has been erased also (see above post with the double edit), since the information could be considered too much. Although, I did think about if information about how they are working to fix the issue with the servers would be too much info, and if it could be used in a malicious way, or information about when they thought Dmoz would be up and running would cause any harm to Dmoz, I came to the decision that it wouldn't and decided to post it. It was the wrong decision, in hindsight, of course. And, again I take full responsibility for making some bad decisions within my posts and will take the consequences with my big girl shoes on. Plus, it didn't help when presenting information in my own unique writing style. Writing things like "Word has it..." does seem suspicious, lol, so I wouldn't be surprised if people got the impression that I'm also leaking information, which I would never do, but I can absolutely see if anyone got that impression from this post or any other. But, just for the record, I've never leaked anything regarding Dmoz, only made a few bad decisions regarding what I posted in my blog.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
3 Weeks and Dmoz is still down. Latest News.
Okay, so Dmoz is still down from it's server break on Oct. 20, 2006. In my last post I mentioned that Dmoz staff were in the process of restoring the directory's data. Well, with data restores you have to be careful because the data can become corrupted, and it seems like that's exactly what happened in Dmoz's case. They are now testing the data to make sure that everything is working properly, so that means that, yes, the editing server is now functioning, but, editors aren't allowed to edit because of a few issues they're still having with the data restore. Only a few editors, staff and admin, have been allowed to test the data and as soon as everything is working perfectly then everyone will be able to edit again. When that will be? No one has any idea. So, even though the editor server is up and running, Dmoz staff has made it unavailable until everything is working.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
What I will do once I'm able to edit again
Now, when Dmoz is up and running again I will finish editing in the two new categories I was accepted to before the sever outtage. One thing I've learned as an editor is to not be fooled by the number of listed sites shown in the category because that category could easily have hundreds of more sites waiting for review. The good thing about being a current editor is that I can see how many sites are in a category's unreviewed before I apply for the category. That has stopped me on several occasions from applying to certain categories. Now, am I going to go through all of those few hundred waiting sites? Of course not. I don't even think I have the time nor the desire to go through them all. What I am going to do is my usual tasks of when I'm accepted to a category:
1) Check all the links from bottom-up to see if they still work.
That's the very first task I do. At this point in time it doesn't matter to me whether or not the site has changed content. I will unreview a site if it's a dead link or a parked or under construction page. Anything else doesn't matter at this point in time; not the terrible description or inaccurate title. Nothing. All of that comes later.
2) Re-check the content of the listed sites.
Now, this is where I put in most of the leg for the existing sites. I have to recheck them and un-review any parked pages, pages with low content, and change the title and re-write the description if need be. In other words, all the sites in the category are going to be re-reviewed. The more sites that are listed in the category means the more time I'm going to spend re-reviewing them until all are re-reviewed. That could take several days or even several months. But, if there are litterally hundreds of sites listed in the category then I'm only going to check to see if the description and title are an accurate depiction of what's on the site, otherwise, I try to re-write the description in my own very descriptive way.
3)Decide on whether I want to review sites from FIFO (first in, first out), LIFO (last in, first out), or in some other random order.
This is the process I will use to determine on whether I will review sites on a first come, first reivew basis, or in some other random order. Deciding on which order in which to review sites will depend on the category, because each category is different. In some categories I've learned that the longer a site has been waiting in review, the more likely it is to be a dead link or unlistable for some reason, while in other categories I might decided that it's best to review sites on a FIFO basis. How I determin which reviewing method works for the category is that I will review sites in each order; FIFO, LIFO, or just randomly pick a site that has a guidelines compliant title and description. After I've reviewed enough sites following different methods I'll then make an educated guess as to which way will lead to the best results of finding a listable site. Or, contrary to that, if I just want to remove dead links from unreviewed, which way of reviewing sites will turn up the most dead links. And, sometimes it's not always that easy to decide on which reviewing method to use, so I just pick whichever order I feel like reviewing in on that day.
That's pretty much how it goes when I get a new category. Of course, as I grow in knowledge as an editor I might refine those common tasks to a much more simpler method. I have to pull the plug somewhere when a category has over 100 sites to review and that number is 101. I can review all the sites if a category has 100 or fewer unreviewed, but more than that and I'll pass. So, what I will do for categories that have over 100 unreveiewed is to review some, but not all. But, I will review enough so that it makes a big dent in my total edits and so that the category's listed sites has increased by a significant amount. Or, in other words, do enough edits so that I can easily get another category, and get closer to becoming a not-so-new editor.
Now, just in case you're wondering why I spend a lot of time cleaning up the category is because, along with my previous edits, the shape of my current categories are also taken into consideration when asking for more categories in which to edit. So, if a reviewing Admin, Meta, or Category Moderator (CatMod) decides to review my application for another category and decides that my current categories are not in decent shape then they will reject the application with a message to the effect that I should work more on getting my current categories in shape. It's especially a bad idea if your category, say in Jewelry/Pearls, is in bad shape and you apply for a sister category in Jewelry/Diamonds. If you can't get the Pearls category in shape, then it doesn't make the editor reviewing your application Diamonds think you can do a good job in it. It's an automatic rejection, or at least greenbusting priviliges, if you don't have all your current categories in decent shape; that means free of dead links and with titles and descriptions that conform to Dmoz guidelines. That's why I always make a point before submitting an application for more permissions to run a link checker over my existing categories, especially since the last time I would have checked the category any number of sites could have gone dead.
As for my total edits I think I might be around 2,500 total. I think I had added approximately 500 edits before the outtage. And, with my two new categories, I'll be adding many more sites to the directory, so I look forward to seeing my total adds and total edits increase by an enormous amount. Plus, I already have other categories that I want to apply to picked out and I'm looking for sites for them. I hate being able to edit in only a few small - to medium sized categories.
1) Check all the links from bottom-up to see if they still work.
That's the very first task I do. At this point in time it doesn't matter to me whether or not the site has changed content. I will unreview a site if it's a dead link or a parked or under construction page. Anything else doesn't matter at this point in time; not the terrible description or inaccurate title. Nothing. All of that comes later.
2) Re-check the content of the listed sites.
Now, this is where I put in most of the leg for the existing sites. I have to recheck them and un-review any parked pages, pages with low content, and change the title and re-write the description if need be. In other words, all the sites in the category are going to be re-reviewed. The more sites that are listed in the category means the more time I'm going to spend re-reviewing them until all are re-reviewed. That could take several days or even several months. But, if there are litterally hundreds of sites listed in the category then I'm only going to check to see if the description and title are an accurate depiction of what's on the site, otherwise, I try to re-write the description in my own very descriptive way.
3)Decide on whether I want to review sites from FIFO (first in, first out), LIFO (last in, first out), or in some other random order.
This is the process I will use to determine on whether I will review sites on a first come, first reivew basis, or in some other random order. Deciding on which order in which to review sites will depend on the category, because each category is different. In some categories I've learned that the longer a site has been waiting in review, the more likely it is to be a dead link or unlistable for some reason, while in other categories I might decided that it's best to review sites on a FIFO basis. How I determin which reviewing method works for the category is that I will review sites in each order; FIFO, LIFO, or just randomly pick a site that has a guidelines compliant title and description. After I've reviewed enough sites following different methods I'll then make an educated guess as to which way will lead to the best results of finding a listable site. Or, contrary to that, if I just want to remove dead links from unreviewed, which way of reviewing sites will turn up the most dead links. And, sometimes it's not always that easy to decide on which reviewing method to use, so I just pick whichever order I feel like reviewing in on that day.
That's pretty much how it goes when I get a new category. Of course, as I grow in knowledge as an editor I might refine those common tasks to a much more simpler method. I have to pull the plug somewhere when a category has over 100 sites to review and that number is 101. I can review all the sites if a category has 100 or fewer unreviewed, but more than that and I'll pass. So, what I will do for categories that have over 100 unreveiewed is to review some, but not all. But, I will review enough so that it makes a big dent in my total edits and so that the category's listed sites has increased by a significant amount. Or, in other words, do enough edits so that I can easily get another category, and get closer to becoming a not-so-new editor.
Now, just in case you're wondering why I spend a lot of time cleaning up the category is because, along with my previous edits, the shape of my current categories are also taken into consideration when asking for more categories in which to edit. So, if a reviewing Admin, Meta, or Category Moderator (CatMod) decides to review my application for another category and decides that my current categories are not in decent shape then they will reject the application with a message to the effect that I should work more on getting my current categories in shape. It's especially a bad idea if your category, say in Jewelry/Pearls, is in bad shape and you apply for a sister category in Jewelry/Diamonds. If you can't get the Pearls category in shape, then it doesn't make the editor reviewing your application Diamonds think you can do a good job in it. It's an automatic rejection, or at least greenbusting priviliges, if you don't have all your current categories in decent shape; that means free of dead links and with titles and descriptions that conform to Dmoz guidelines. That's why I always make a point before submitting an application for more permissions to run a link checker over my existing categories, especially since the last time I would have checked the category any number of sites could have gone dead.
As for my total edits I think I might be around 2,500 total. I think I had added approximately 500 edits before the outtage. And, with my two new categories, I'll be adding many more sites to the directory, so I look forward to seeing my total adds and total edits increase by an enormous amount. Plus, I already have other categories that I want to apply to picked out and I'm looking for sites for them. I hate being able to edit in only a few small - to medium sized categories.
Monday, November 06, 2006
What are editors doing now that Dmoz is temporarily down?
Well, I don't know much about what other editors are doing, but I can tell you what this lowly editor is doing. Right now, I'm doing what I was doing since before I became an editor, with the only exception being that I've been logging into the Dmoz internal forum everyday since the outtage. In fact, I've logged into the internal forums everyday since I became an editor.
While some editors are itching to get to editing, and, don't get me wrong, I'm also itching to add a few sites and modify a few descriptions and get rid of some of the dead links and correct some URLs, but I'm not itching enough to do it while Dmoz is having its data restored. Unlike some editors, I haven't had the desire to go out and find sites to add to the directory once it's up and running again. In fact, I'm thinking why should I? I have plenty of sites to choose from that have been submitted. And, don't get me wrong, when I find sites that should be listed in the categories in which I have priviliges I'll add them. I've added quite a few sites that way.
<OFF-TOPIC>
Now that I've mentioned that when I find sites that aren't from the submission "pool" (do they swim laps?) where do I find them? Well, I have one tried and true place of finding listable sites that aren't submitted to the directory. And, you probably won't believe your eyes when you read this: I find sites to list in the Dmoz directory by scouring web development forums where people are asking for reviews of their sites. That's right! Well, there is actually only one forum that I've been visiting and posting to regularly since eons before I became a Dmoz editor, and it's strictly a web development forum for help on building websites. <off-off-topic> What a relief now that I've become a Dmoz editor, because posts about Dmoz crop up once in every blue moon, and I certainly hate all the Dmoz drama that goes on on other "web master forums." At least on the forum I visit often I don't have to deal with people ranting about Dmoz on a regular basis. In fact, some of the other regulars there are Dmoz editors themselves, but Dmoz rarely comes up. </off-off-topic> Okay, so now back to the off-topic point I'm making. Since I do like reviewing sites, I'm often on the look-out in this web development forum for sites that are listable. This, of course, has its disadvantages: the site might not be complete, or it might radically change after I've added it. So, what I sometimes do when I see someone asking for a review of a site I would like to add to Dmoz is to send them a PM and ask them if the site is complete. Sometimes they'll respond with yes, and other times they'll say they still have some work to do on it. Then, I'll PM them back and tell them that I'd like to add it to the Dmoz directory when it's finish and if they would like me to add it then to let me know. From that response I've usually gotten something along the lines of "what's Dmoz?" or "I've taken a look at your directory [emphasis mine] and I'd like to be added." And, I've also gotten some responses along the lines of "would you like a recipricol link on my websites?" or "do I have to pay, because I don't have any money?" And, just to clear up any confusion they have I send them yet another PM to tell them that Dmoz is a 100% free directory that doesn't require them to pay and doesn't require a recipricol link on their sites, and that I'll add their site to the directory. Although, I'm still waiting on one guy to finish up his site so I can add it, and I have to say that it's a pretty nice site.
</OFF-TOPIC>
Then, there are some sites I review that I want to add, but don't yet have the ability to add so I add them to my editor bookmarks instead. I'm just waiting for the opportunity to add them to the directory or use them on my editor application when I request more permissions. I'd have to say that the bad thing about only reviewing suggested sites is that you miss out on finding some really good sites created by people who don't know anything about the Dmoz directory so those sites are less likely to be submitted. But, when I'm looking for sites to add to the directory, I usually find them on the one web developer forum I frequent.
So, to recap, I'm not doing anything right now for Dmoz. Unlike some editors, I'm not looking for sites to add when the Dmoz servers are back up. In fact, I have plenty of sites to choose from once Dmoz is up and running. If I run across a site in another place while Dmoz is still down, then I'll make a mental note of it and add it, if I remember, when editors are able to edit again. And, just to clear up something, we often hear editors say that site suggestions aren't the best place to find listable sites and they'd rather not look at the unreviewed, but, instead, find listable sites on their own. Well, I'd have to say that most of the site suggestions I've reviewed have been listable and that site suggestions are a viable pool for this editor to swim in. ;-) It really depends on the category and which part of the directory those editors are editing in, but they don't speak for all editors when say that suggested sites aren't the best possible source of listable sites.
[Double post time! Read the next post to see what I'm going to do once the editor servers are back up and running!]
While some editors are itching to get to editing, and, don't get me wrong, I'm also itching to add a few sites and modify a few descriptions and get rid of some of the dead links and correct some URLs, but I'm not itching enough to do it while Dmoz is having its data restored. Unlike some editors, I haven't had the desire to go out and find sites to add to the directory once it's up and running again. In fact, I'm thinking why should I? I have plenty of sites to choose from that have been submitted. And, don't get me wrong, when I find sites that should be listed in the categories in which I have priviliges I'll add them. I've added quite a few sites that way.
<OFF-TOPIC>
Now that I've mentioned that when I find sites that aren't from the submission "pool" (do they swim laps?) where do I find them? Well, I have one tried and true place of finding listable sites that aren't submitted to the directory. And, you probably won't believe your eyes when you read this: I find sites to list in the Dmoz directory by scouring web development forums where people are asking for reviews of their sites. That's right! Well, there is actually only one forum that I've been visiting and posting to regularly since eons before I became a Dmoz editor, and it's strictly a web development forum for help on building websites. <off-off-topic> What a relief now that I've become a Dmoz editor, because posts about Dmoz crop up once in every blue moon, and I certainly hate all the Dmoz drama that goes on on other "web master forums." At least on the forum I visit often I don't have to deal with people ranting about Dmoz on a regular basis. In fact, some of the other regulars there are Dmoz editors themselves, but Dmoz rarely comes up. </off-off-topic> Okay, so now back to the off-topic point I'm making. Since I do like reviewing sites, I'm often on the look-out in this web development forum for sites that are listable. This, of course, has its disadvantages: the site might not be complete, or it might radically change after I've added it. So, what I sometimes do when I see someone asking for a review of a site I would like to add to Dmoz is to send them a PM and ask them if the site is complete. Sometimes they'll respond with yes, and other times they'll say they still have some work to do on it. Then, I'll PM them back and tell them that I'd like to add it to the Dmoz directory when it's finish and if they would like me to add it then to let me know. From that response I've usually gotten something along the lines of "what's Dmoz?" or "I've taken a look at your directory [emphasis mine] and I'd like to be added." And, I've also gotten some responses along the lines of "would you like a recipricol link on my websites?" or "do I have to pay, because I don't have any money?" And, just to clear up any confusion they have I send them yet another PM to tell them that Dmoz is a 100% free directory that doesn't require them to pay and doesn't require a recipricol link on their sites, and that I'll add their site to the directory. Although, I'm still waiting on one guy to finish up his site so I can add it, and I have to say that it's a pretty nice site.
</OFF-TOPIC>
Then, there are some sites I review that I want to add, but don't yet have the ability to add so I add them to my editor bookmarks instead. I'm just waiting for the opportunity to add them to the directory or use them on my editor application when I request more permissions. I'd have to say that the bad thing about only reviewing suggested sites is that you miss out on finding some really good sites created by people who don't know anything about the Dmoz directory so those sites are less likely to be submitted. But, when I'm looking for sites to add to the directory, I usually find them on the one web developer forum I frequent.
So, to recap, I'm not doing anything right now for Dmoz. Unlike some editors, I'm not looking for sites to add when the Dmoz servers are back up. In fact, I have plenty of sites to choose from once Dmoz is up and running. If I run across a site in another place while Dmoz is still down, then I'll make a mental note of it and add it, if I remember, when editors are able to edit again. And, just to clear up something, we often hear editors say that site suggestions aren't the best place to find listable sites and they'd rather not look at the unreviewed, but, instead, find listable sites on their own. Well, I'd have to say that most of the site suggestions I've reviewed have been listable and that site suggestions are a viable pool for this editor to swim in. ;-) It really depends on the category and which part of the directory those editors are editing in, but they don't speak for all editors when say that suggested sites aren't the best possible source of listable sites.
[Double post time! Read the next post to see what I'm going to do once the editor servers are back up and running!]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
