Hamsterediteur,
11/05/2008 |
Hamsterediteur
Le billet du jour sera sérieux pour une fois. Hamsterediteur ne se prononcera pas sur un sujet qui fait encore couler beaucoup d'encre entre la science et la religion sur le thème de la
mort encéphalique.
Il dira simplement que si le sujet des dons d'organe et plus généralement de la
[...]
Makrhod,
10/05/2008 |
Makrhod
After more than a month with no updates to the official (staff)
ODP Blog, it was pleasing to see
a new post this week, and one with such a proud title too. It looked as if the unquestionable value of DMOZ to web surfers was being celebrated. Unfortunately, despite what were probably excellent intentions, the post is inaccurate, distressingly misleading, and seems to be directed at webmasters and search engine optimisers rather than the actual users of the directory.
For a start, the enthusiastic attribution praises someone who had apparently
copied an older article from
another site. One of the
basic tenets of the ODP is to list sites with original and unique content, so this was an embarrassing oversight in an official publication.
Secondly, the recommendations in that article are quite simply wrong.
My friend and former editing colleague
shadow575 has written a
comprehensive explanation of all the errors, so there is no need for me to do the same, but the following has to be stressed:
- anyone following the advice given in the original article risks delaying or reducing their chances of being listed in DMOZ.
(True, the staff post does quote a
previous one from the Editor-in-Chief, but that message is very hard to find amidst all the underlining, updates and strike-throughs that litter the latest contribution.)
From my point of view, by far the the biggest problem is the fact that the misleading advice appeared to be endorsed and promoted by ODP
staff. This is no doubt causing considerable angst among many of the volunteer editors. As shadow575 says,
"editors have long been battling the magic bullet theory. This article basically continues all of the mis-information that editors have tried to correct for a long time."
In other words, ODP staff have undermined the long-term and patient efforts of volunteer editors in explaining the role and purpose of the directory. Even if this was unintentional (as was surely the case), it indicates a sad absence of understanding between ODP management and the volunteer community. Such a lack of communication and respect for the efforts of
volunteers is an issue about which I feel very strongly, as my previous posts have demonstrated.
I sincerely hope that efforts are underway to redress the harm done by that ill-advised staff post. The quickest and easiest solution would be a follow-up post acknowledging the errors, rather than relying on the confusing and apparently hasty corrections. A far more reliable solution to the whole problem, and one which would help more than just those reading the official blog, is covered in my comments there:
"it is rather unfortunate that both the lauded article and the official ODP guidelines ("Last update: 2004") are at odds with the above-mentioned post by the Editor-in-Chief.
This inevitably results in confusion, which then requires further explanation, and often unnecessarily heated discussion.
It would obviously benefit everyone if all the "official" resources gave the same message, so I wonder if there are plans to implement any of the much-needed corrections and updates to public ODP documentation that have been suggested, discussed, and agreed upon by volunteer editors over the last couple of years?"
[Added: For readers fluent in French, there are posts on this topic in
Aef Dmoz Blog and
Weblog d'un geek.]
cmic,
09/05/2008 |
AEF-DMOZ
Sur le blog Dmoz officiel, bbqgrant a posté un billet Dmoz Is Like Gold qui fait réagir les éditeurs, notamment kazhar qui écrit Dmoz is NOT like gold , shadow575 : Official blog, Dmoz Is Like Gold et même makrhod du fond de l’Australie!
J’ose affirmer : Oui, Dmoz vaut de l’or, Dmoz is like gold, pour les raisons suivantes :
- les éditeurs bénévoles de Dmoz - ODP produisent depuis 10 ans des ressources utiles pour l’internaute
- Le projet est toujours gratuit : vous pouvez suggérer votre site et il sera peut-être listé gratuitement par un éditeur bénévole. C’est devenu rare sur le web de plus en plus marchand!
- Tout internaute peut offrir son aide pour participer au projet en ainsi contribuer à enrichir l’annuaire
- Dmoz reste le premier des annuaires construit par des humains. Ses données sont reprises par des centaines d’autres sites, en totalité ou en partie
- Les éditeurs forment une riche communauté mondiale de personnes de tout âge, sexe, culture et langue
- Les éditeurs bénévoles partagent gratuitement leurs connaissances en sélectionnant des sites de qualité pour enrichir les milliers de catégories, sur de très nombreux sujets. Ils
Bien entendu, beaucoup reste à faire, de multiples sujets pourraient être mieux développés, plus de bons sites pourraient être ajoutés, les outils à disposition sont obsolètes et n’ont pas été remis à jour depuis 1998. Si nous étions plus nombreux, nous pourrions réviser plus vite les sites suggérés par les webmasters.
Dmoz a été et demeure, en dépit des insuffisances maintes fois relatées, un excellent moyen de partage de connaissances et permet à d’innombrables bons sites de se faire connaître. La production des éditeurs bénévoles du monde entier améliore la pertinence des résultats des différents moteurs de recherche qui utilisent nos données, la plupart du temps de manière transparente pour les internautes. Dmoz vaut donc bien de l’or, non ? 
Voir aussi
Hamsterediteur,
09/05/2008 |
Hamsterediteur
Hamsterminus : Hamsterediteur, Hamsterediteur, Où es-tu ? Aujourd'hui, en sport, nous avons fait du Taekwondo. J'ai adoré. Tu sais ce que ça veut dire Taekwondo ?
Hamsterediteur : C'est du sport.
Hamsterminus : Mais
[...]
Kazhar,
08/05/2008 |
Kazhar
Bah ouais quoi ! Vous connaissez le groupe Gold (Emile et Images était mon groupe préféré au lycée. J'écoute moins aujourd'hui. Mais j'aime toujours autant ;) ). Et dmoz n'est pas un groupe musical.
Plus sérieusement. Notre cher staffer (technicien payé par AOL et en charge du projet ODP)
bbqgrant a posté aujourd'hui un billet sur le blog officiel dmozien intitulé "
DMOZ Is Like Gold".
Opinions et démontage en bonne et due forme.
bbgrant cite un article sur un site que je ne nommerais et vers lequel je ne ferai pas de lien.
Ce site dit :
Getting a site into DMOZ is like Gold.
Google loves links from DMOZ and your site will reap the benefits.
The big catch however is actually getting your site into the directory in the first place.
Find the perfect category for your site and check to see if it has an editor. If you see a link "Volunteer to edit this category" try and find another relevant location.
Pages without active editors take much longer to get listed into.
Once you find the perfect directory submit your site every 4-6 months until listed.
If you are lucky you will get in eventually.
Alors, premièrement, si vous regardez sur le billet, vous verrez que notre cher staffer a rajouté toute la partie sur le lien dmozien qui vaut de l'or. Sans cette remarque, la phrase est beaucoup moins positive pour l'annuaire.
Notre cher staffer cherche donc à déformer ce que le webmaster a dit en remontant l'image de dmoz. Vu ce qu'il ajoute, on ne peut vraiment pas considérer qu'il s'agisse d'une citation. Le fond est totalement modifié.
Mais ... Que vois-je également ? Il dit "si il n'y a aucun éditeur dans la catégorie, choisissez une autre catégorie pour que votre site soit listé plus rapidement".
Horreur et damnation ! Ceci est la
dernière chose à faire. Si vous suggérez votre site dans une catégorie appropriée, celui-ci sera de toute façon déplacé par l'éditeur vers la catégorie appropriée.
Par ailleurs, le fait qu'une catégorie n'ait pas d'éditeur ne signifie pas que personne n'y passe. Tous les éditeurs peuvent éditer dans les catégories où ils sont marqués comme éditeur. Mais également toutes ses sous-catégories.
Par ailleurs, près de 300 éditeurs ont les droits nécessaires pour éditer dans toutes les sections de l'annuaire.
Ne pas soumettre votre site dans la bonne catégorie peut multiplier par deux le temps d'attente de votre site. Faites donc bien attention à l'endroit où vous suggérez votre site.
Enfin notre cher staffeur a vraissemblablement posté son article beaucoup trop rapidement. En effet, celui-ci n'est qu'une copie d'un autre article publié 10 jours plus tôt
ici.
Si les seuls éditeurs rémunérés pour travailler sur l'ODP ne respectent pas nos directives d'éditions et mettent en avant des sites n'ayant pas du contenu original, où allons nous ?
De nombreuses choses m'ont déçu à l'ODP depuis un an. Celle-ci serait-il la goutte d'eau ? Je me donne le week-end pour y réflechir et presser où non le gros bouton rouge.
P.S. : promis, le prochain article sera technique.
Tags :
dmoz blog bbqgrant odp
Makrhod,
08/05/2008 |
Makrhod
As I mentioned in
an earlier post, I have recently joined a free
adult literacy programme as a volunteer tutor. This week I attended the first of 4 days of training, and once again I was struck by the
different methods large organisations use in trying attract and retain volunteers.
I have considerable experience with such organisations, having been active in Volunteer Bush Fire Brigades for over 10 years, and in the
ODP (DMOZ) for the the last 4 years or so (see
previous post). The same challenges seem to affect them all:
- wanting to recruit more volunteers, while screening out those who are unsuitable or even dangerous
- providing sufficient training to make these volunteers effective and reliable, without making them feel it is all "too hard"
- maintaining the necessary standards without discouraging those who are enthusiastic but under-skilled
- finding appropriate positions which make the most of individual talents
- trying to avoid the internal politics and cliques which can quickly alienate members
- and (my personal soapbox) maintaining interest and motivation.
I was intrigued to find that the literacy organisation is very similar in overall structure to the ODP, with only a couple of paid staff members and the rest all volunteers,
including the "regional co-ordinators", who are responsible for recruitment, quality control and ongoing support within a specific area.
Numerically, it is smaller than DMOZ, to be sure, with only about 1000 volunteers across the state, but these are all active on a weekly basis (holidays and emergencies permitting, of course), which is a sad contrast to the steadily declining levels of ODP participation that I have observed over the last 2 years.
I think one reason for the ongoing success of Read Write Now! is that as well as the initial interview and training course, the level of ongoing support is very high indeed, with the volunteer co-ordinators regularly contacting the tutors in their region, providing resources, offering assistance, resolving difficulties, and generally providing encouragement and the benefit of their experience. This system has worked so well over the last 30 years that the organisation is the largest and most active adult literacy group in the country, and has been used as a model by those in other states.
I'm sure that like all organisations it has had its share of problems, internal conflicts, and disaffected members. But overall they seem to be doing things right, and their respect and support for volunteers seems to be a crucial factor in their ongoing success.
shadow575,
08/05/2008 |
Shadow575
The title DMOZ Is Like Gold caught my eye today. I thought to myself, thats great another “official” posting is on the blog. That’s gonna be good news, posts have been rather few and spread out lately. Then I read the post and my heart sank. The blog post was to thank another blog for ’showing DMOZ some love’ by including it favorably in a post. Unfortunately the love being shown was, misplaced and out and out wrong.
Firstly to be clear, the article that the DMOZ Blog is applauding is a direct copy of an article written by another blog a couple of weeks earlier. So we are not even officially thanking original content for the love, rather only a copy. Thats kind of ironic, but certainly not funny in the least.
Secondly, editors have long been battling the magic bullet theory. This article basically continues all of the mis-information that editors have tried to correct for a long time. DMOZ is not more important than other quality links, in the grand scheme of things. Plenty of well placed, high ranking sites have no DMOZ listing. On the other hand many listed sites in DMOZ fair poorly in search results.
Here are some other problems with the article:
- Getting a site into DMOZ is like Gold. Google loves links from DMOZ and your site will reap the benefits. - I have never seen any evidence to support that theory, in fact most that I would consider experts say that there is no more weight given to A DMOZ listing than any other quality link. Therefore, its good to have as many quality links as possible, but plenty of sites are very successful in search results without a DMOZ listing.
- Find the perfect category for your site and check to see if it has an editor. If you see a link “Volunteer to edit this category” try and find another relevant location. Pages without active editors take much longer to get listed into. - Wrong. Most categories in DMOZ are without a named editor, having a named editor does not mean a faster review time. There are a couple hundred editors with permissions to edit in any given category. They are just as likely to be editing in a category without a named editor, as a category editor is to edit in one with their name on it. Suggesting a site to a category other than the most relevant category, will do the opposite. Many times an editor will find the mis-submitted site and just forward it along un-reviewed to the proper category. Thus putting it back at the bottom of the pool. In a lot of cases, the editor that finds it won’t even have permissions (or interest) in editing the category it should have been suggested. Just suggest it to the best category in the first place, thats the best course of action.
- Once you find the perfect directory submit your site every 4-6 months until listed. If you are lucky you will get in eventually. - Brilliant <insert sarcasm>! This is the worst bit of ‘advice’ yet. Not only has it suggested that you slow down your own review time by overwriting previous suggestions (if the reviewing editor chooses, they can review sites by submission date and the new suggestions would overwrite the original one sinking the suggestion to the bottom of the pile), but it has also basically just advise you to become a directory spammer. Enough of these re-suggestions and your site will never get accepted, for it will be tagged as spam and banned from inclusion.
I realize why the DMOZ blog chose to post a message about the article. Its always nice to be shed in some good light occasionally. However this article does not show the project in a good light, instead its makes outrageous statements based on incorrect advice and further adds to the mis-information that editors have tired to combat for many years. Some corrections have been made, but frankly I wish the post was removed. That is unfortunately beyond my control, so I will continue to try and provide honest and factual information to dis-spell the horribly bad advice that the original article was giving. 
bbqgrant,
08/05/2008 |
Official Blog
Isn't that awesome!
We would like to thank to the good folks over at ISEDB.com for the love they sent our way in their post on 'How To Optimize For Google.' A piece that takes a holistic look at optimizing for search engines and today's this portion spoke to all the types of webmaster tools-including directories that are available.
Not that I'm biased, but I think we can all agree that the most exciting take away is that search engines
love place a different value on free, human edited directories. The point is easily debatable. Perhaps a link in DMOZ is as valuable as any other link on the web or maybe it is worth more. Purely sharing the comment and curious what you all think.
Link to article
here. Ctrl+F - type in DMOZ and you're there.
Quotes below ( underline added by me - strikethrough to show "what not to do" )
Getting a site into DMOZ is like Gold.
Google loves links from DMOZ and your site will reap the benefits.
The big catch however is actually getting your site into the directory in the first place. Find the perfect category for your site and check to see if it has an editor. If you see a link "Volunteer to edit this category" try and find another relevant location. Pages without active editors take much longer to get listed into. Once you find the perfect directory submit your site every 4-6 months until listed. If you are lucky you will get in eventually.
UPDATE...the one part where this article is off ( and not helpful in getting your site into DMOZ ) is in the multiple submissions...this actually won't help your chances at all.
Also, there is a great post from Bob Keating to check into on 'Why Hasn't My Site Been Accepted Into DMOZ" specifically including this passage here:
No one is monitoring the category. While a few categories in DMOZ may not have a listed editor that doesn't mean there's no one minding the store. All editors listed higher in a category's hierarchy can and do edit subcategories. In addition, many editors have permissions to edit anywhere in the directory.
Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
Hamsterediteur,
07/05/2008 |
Hamsterediteur
L'artiste qui a réalisé la décoration du bar de l'Hôtelier ami d'Hamsterediteur est heureux de vous inviter au vernissage de l'exposition de ses oeuvres dans une galerie parisienne de
renom.
Revue de presse :
- l'article de ce blog
Informations pratiques :
- Horaires d'ouvertures : de 9h à
[...]
Hamsterediteur,
05/05/2008 |
Hamsterediteur
Pour faire suite à l'excellente remarque de kazhar à cet article, voici la suite des aventures de nos
trois hamsters dans l'abbaye située au bout du chemin caillouteux.
Hamsterediteur : Maintenant, vous allez vous taire. Nous allons aller visiter cette belle abbaye.
[...]
