DMOZ/ODP needs YOU!

I recently read yet another long-winded complaint from an ill-informed webmaster about the "lazy" editors in the Open Directory Project, so I decided it must be time to revive the issue of volunteering. If these persistent critics were willing to give to the Project even a tiny fraction of the time they spend complaining, we would see the directory grow by thousands more sites every week!

After all, it's really very easy to become an ODP editor.

We've had volunteers ranging in age from 12 to 80, from all over the world, of all educational levels, and even some with disabilities like blindness.
There are no time requirements other than at least one edit every 4 months (although many editors do a lot more than that), so even if you can spare only a couple of minutes every month, that is still a worthwhile contribution, and certainly way more productive than all those people who keep on and on and on about what somebody else should be doing on their behalf.

All it takes to apply is half an hour or so of your time to read the application instructions, find sites for the category where you want to edit, and complete the form carefully and honestly. Then wait for a volunteer meta-editor to review your application (usually in less than a week), and Ta Dah! you are a DMOZ editor.

How easy is that?

Unfortunately, the vast majority of new editor applications are completely unacceptable, and having personally reviewed over 12,000 of them, I still don't understand why. It's not as if the form is at all complicated (see my comment above about the range of people who have had no trouble with it), but in any case there are numerous guides and hints for those who do need assistance with applying - including the comprehensive FAQ that I provided here last year.

As with many aspects of DMOZ, there are a lot of misconceptions about the application and approval process, despite all the many explanations that have been provided by my colleagues and myself over the years. So once again, here are the most common reasons for rejection (based on the many thousands in my own personal experience):

1. Not bothering to read the instructions (which therefore contributes to the following).
2. Not completing the form honestly.
3. Not understanding the category.
4. Suggesting sites on the form which are already listed in the category.
5. Suggesting only their own site(s).

Note that this list does not even mention the titles and descriptions provided by the applicant, despite the fact that these are often cited by misinformed people as the "main" reasons for unsuccessful applications.

Certainly it is sensible for an applicant to show that they have at least read the editing guidelines, because if they are accepted they will be expected to follow them. But it takes weeks to months of editing before these guidelines become second nature, so it is obviously unrealistic to expect an applicant to demonstrate familiarity.

There are frequent calls for more people to be accepted as DMOZ editors, so why are all these careless or dishonest applications a problem?

Firstly, the integrity of the ODP depends entirely on the honesty of its editors, so applicants must show they are willing to abide by the Conflict of Interest policies. A dishonest application is a very poor start.

Secondly, a person is unlikely to be able to contribute much to the directory if they cannot manage to find even 2-3 worthwhile sites that belong in the category they want to edit, but which are not yet listed there, and which don't all belong to them.

Thirdly, careless applications are a waste of everyone's time. Many hundreds of applications are received each week, and every single one is reviewed by one or more volunteer meta-editors or catmods, taking up to 30 minutes each, and every applicant then receives feedback, so the time involved is considerable, even when it does not lead to another editor joining the Project.

Let me finish with a reminder to all those whose applications were unsuccessful: the feedback you received was intended to help you complete a more careful and/or honest application, and many current editors were accepted only after doing just that.

Please consider re-applying - it's a fascinating hobby, and DMOZ (and the internet community) needs YOU!

Pssst! Want a free listing in ODP/DMOZ?

Hurry Hurry Hurry!

Special Offer!!

Step right this way!!!

Actually, it's not really a "special" offer, and you don't have to hurry at all, because the Open Directory Project has always been completely free, since its inception more than 10 years ago.

Yeah, I was just tricking. My bad.

I attribute such silliness to idiot-fatigue, brought on by listening to endlessly repetitive and strident rants from webmasters who complain that ODP/DMOZ doesn't offer the personalised listing service for which other directories charge hundreds and thousands of dollars. Why on earth would those other directories even exist if the Open Directory offered the same listing services for nothing?

It doesn't make any sense at all.

But wait, there's more!

Many of these people are so incensed about DMOZ being free that they try to pay!!

Yes, incredible but true!!!

This has always struck me as quite breathtakingly dumb, for the irrefutable reason that over 4.5 million sites have already been listed in the Open Directory at absolutely no cost to their owners.

But this blindingly obvious fact doesn't stop idiots offering to pay someone to list their site(s), and various webmaster forums and freelance tendering sites have several entries every week from people who seem completely oblivious to the consequences.

It is all rather depressingly foolish, because there are warnings all over the internet (even a recent post in this blog) about what happens when someone tries to buy a DMOZ listing.

Some people obviously prefer not to listen.

Astonishingly, it seems that even the risk of a permanent ban is no deterrent, when you'd think any reasonable person would try their hardest to avoid that. Fortunately, the volunteer editors at DMOZ are absolutely brilliant at finding and organising worthwhile sites, as I highlighted in my Blog Action Day post, so the banned sites of foolish people who break the rules are very unlikely to be missed by anyone.

Ugliness is not even skin deep

I inadvertently conducted a sociological experiment the other night, with interesting (although uncomfortable) results.

Having been invited to a 40th birthday party with the theme "Dress as a favourite movie star or character", and knowing that the hosts would have planned a glittering function, I had to give some thought to my choice. In a fit of whimsy, I decided to avoid the obvious and instead dress as the most unglamorous film character I could think of: Agatha Trunchbull from Roald Dahl's "Matilda" (gloriously played in the movie by Pam Ferris).

So I assembled my costume: deeply unflattering long shorts and a T-shirt, accessorised with a very sturdy belt, weight- lifter gloves, hiking boots, long socks and a riding crop. I carefully gelled my hair straight back, tripled the size of my eyebrows with eyeliner, and added a huge mole on my cheek for good measure. While our builds are not identical, I felt I made a reasonable facsimile of the character from the movie. (And no, there is absolutely NO chance of publishing my own photograph here. Pam Ferris got paid to look like that!)

So off I went to the party, chuckling at the consternation my costume would cause.

Sure enough, it was a very glamourous affair, with all the glitz of Hollywood. There were even 2 actors hired to greet arrivals on the red carpet in the manner of US television entertainment reporters, and it was certainly gratifying to see them lost for words when I clomped up the steps. They were obviously just on the point of suggesting I was seriously lost, or perhaps calling the police, but luckily I had remembered to bring my invitation, which I brandished triumphantly, and they were obliged to let me through, too stunned to offer me a drink or take my photo as they had done with others. (The latter was a Good Thing though.)

The other guests were a glittering crowd, to be sure, almost all of them in spectacular hired outfits. There were several Batwomen and Batmen, a Marie Antoinette, Zorro, FrankenFurter, Brad'n'Angelina, various Bonds and Bond Girls, the Blues Brothers, Braveheart, a couple of Audrey Hepburns and Marilyn Monroes, and an assortment of other attractive stars. I can confidently say that not even the Austen Powers costume was as unappealing as mine, and he had a proper wig and false teeth!

Well, I'm sorry to say that I seriously misjudged the reaction I would cause. Far from being amused or at least surprised at my appearance, those who did not know me (the majority) were either embarrassed or, worse, full of pity, apparently failing to make any connection between "fancy-dress" and "make-believe". One woman (a complete stranger) even went so far as to wonder why I obviously hadn't gone to any trouble creating a costume!! This was despite my helpful badge saying "Agatha Trunchbull (Miss), Principal." - she probably thought it was my own name, and a badge left over from some ghastly educational conference. LOL

I'm delighted to say that at least my host and hostess got the joke, commending me on my bravery at going against the obvious trend, and admiring my lavish eyebrows and home-made riding crop (a snorkel tube bound with black tape and a shoelace at the end, for those who want to try this at home). But apart from them and a couple of other people I already knew, it was very difficult to start a conversation with anybody, because people would edge away, smiling thinly, or even turn their backs with a poorly-concealed grimace at my approach.

I was reminded of those TV documentaries where a reporter dresses as a homeless or obese person, revealing the prejudices that still exist in society towards those who don't "fit in". The guests at this party were well-educated, mature, socially adept people, many of them well-travelled, and all of them no doubt considering themselves fair-minded and lacking prejudice. And yet their social skills promptly deserted them in the presence of someone so out of place and physically repellent. More than that, they seemed to wish nothing more than that I would simply go away and leave them to "their" partying.

Of course with hindsight, I could have taken a more "acceptable" costume and changed into it after an hour or so, to confirm that I had only been play-acting. That would have been very interesting indeed, but I expect the dramatic conversion would have made the more sensitive among them feel rather ashamed of their earlier behaviour, so although the thought is very tempting, such point-scoring is morally no better than their condescension and revulsion.