Welcome to Resource Zone.

The ODP is irrelevant.

Moderator #22

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv
Curlie Meta
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
pbarker3 said:
Can any editor admit that the system has flaws?
Every editor knows the systemn has flaws. But what you (and other complaining webmasters) see as flaws are not the flaws we know of.
pbarker3 said:
Can you turn the light of truth on yourselves and look for ways to do better?
We are constantly looking for ways to do things better. But this won't change DMOZ to the thing complaining webmasters want it to become.
 
Moderator #23

hutcheson

Curlie Meta
Joined
Mar 23, 2002
I think ... I like being allowed to help as much or as little as I wish.

I think ... I like being allowed to pick where I'll help, based on my judgment of what needs doing most.

I think ... I like the freedom to use my judgment to focus my efforts on the sites that are likely to matter most, ignoring the whiners who think their site should be listed because it's been waiting a long time, and the whiners who thing their site should be listed because it hasn't been waiting a long time, and all the other whiners who come up with other equally absurd and irrelevant criteria with no merit other than "it'll force everyone else into a queue which I can break into."

I think ... the backlog exists, it is a justification for continued work, but it is not a compulsion: and that is as it should be.

I think ... I'd expect someone to know something about the reality of a librarian's responsibility, before trusting them to manage a librarian.

I think ... according to Google, we all have three hundred years of work indexing the sum of human knowledge, and there's almost a five thousand year backlog. If each one of us works on what he thinks is most important, we'll have a good sampling of the most important aspects, and people who think something is being overlooked can ... focus on that. And what nobody thinks important enough to do can ... go undone until the important work is finished.

If you have a better idea then ... if you actually followed it, you'd be following our plan ... so you can't have a better idea that's actually feasible.

But come up with your best idea, and start working, and don't worry about the fact that you're cooperating with the ODP master plan. Or ... defy the ODP, and come up with a really dumb plan to follow. Your choice, and it'll have whatever power you give to it.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
You know, I think this comes down to this:

The ODP has a very strong vision about what it is and what it isn't. It is up to others to determine the relevance and usefullness of that. You have made your opinion plain, and thanks for that.

If you have an idea on how to do it better, rather than trying to persuade the ODP to change, set it up yourself. Actually DO it better. If it truly is better, then people will flock to it and your name will go down in history. There have been a few that have tried, with varying degrees of success. Maybe you are the one that finally gets it right.

Your vision of what the ODP should be does not line up with that of the volunteers who run the directory. That doesn't make either one right or wrong, and so I suggest we all stop trying to persuade each other that our way is the "right one".
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
It's like Zeal, I became a Zeal editor before I became an ODP editor. Some think Zeal is great, but it was not for me, I did less than 10 reviews. I've done several thousands on ODP. But I don't go around trying to change the way Zeal operates. I don't think people should try to change the way ODP operates without becoming an editor, contributing to the directory and really understanding how it works, then and only then help to change it. And there are many editors who do work in improvements and enhancements.

I like the Japanese way - to become a sushi chef, first spend a year cooking rice.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
One thing about editors is that they all share the same vision more or less. At least close enough to work towards our individual visions together as a joint cooperative exercise. The difficulty with alternate visions is finding an equivalent number of individuals that share that vision and, most importantly, can work as part of a cooperative. So you have two key elements that must be present and so far, whilst there are probably more shady webmasters than active editors they haven't managed to solve the difficulty of that second element.

I do, however, use the directory.
I don't understand that. If it is irrelevant to you why use it?

How much time and energy could the editors save and put to better use than lurking in forums
This one comes up regularly. What right do you or anyone else have to tell me or my fellow editors how we should spend our unpaid spare time? I could do more editing if I gave up watching my godson play football on Saturday and Sunday mornings. It is my time, I will do with it what I want, and suggesting you know better than me how I should be spending it is the height of presumptuous arrogance.

I disagree that the backlog is not something you should worry about.
You don't have a right or any other basis for disagreeing as you are not part of the project, nor do you appear to comprehend its purpose. We don't worry about it because the reality is that every site that has not been listed - all bar 5 million and counting - is part of the backlog. And since that would take, by all accounts, 300 years minimum what is the point of worrying about it. So we operate by selectively identifying and listing sites that come to our attention by a variety of means including sometimes looking at pools of public suggestions. By doing so we build up a catalog of sites representing the best and most comprehensive resources on any given subject. We don't aim to capture every site because on many subjects the new sites don't actually add new information to that we have already linked to. In many areas we have actually exhausted the supply of new information - very few hotel booking services offer anything innovative these days; how many discount perfume online stores do you need.
 

giz

Member
Joined
May 26, 2002
>> By the way, the librarian is accountable for bad or arbitrary information: to the authors and the readers. <<

The librarian is not at all accountable to the author as to whether they even bought their book to include within the library. With millions of titles the library is free to include those that IT wants to, modified by requests from the people that BORROW books. They are free to NOT be influenced by those that SELL the books - and the ODP is free to chosse which sites IT lists, NOT modified by what WEBMASTERS want to be listed.
 
Moderator #28

kokopeli

kEditall/kCatmv
Curlie Meta
Joined
Jul 28, 2002
The librarian is not at all accountable to the author as to whether they even bought their book to include within the library. With millions of titles the library is free to include those that IT wants to, modified by requests from the people that BORROW books. They are free to NOT be influenced by those that SELL the books - and the ODP is free to chosse which sites IT lists, NOT modified by what WEBMASTERS want to be listed.
This is an excellent comparison :star:
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
It is an apt analogy, isn't it?

And a library files books usually in one location. It would have to be a very special book to have copies on two different shelves. [With the obvious exception of large print editions vs non-large print editions, of course, and foreign language editions]

And again, a library has mainly books. It does not have every local business' price list, or every street vendor's discount price flyer.
 
Top Bottom