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?