jameskal

Enarra, this information is encouraging. Glad to realise that we can learn to be good editors and don't have to be born editors ! Regards, James.

windharp, thanks for the info .... I tried to go to the "guidelines" but no access ... asking for authentication. Sure I can go in there ? Even at the regional level, in ..../country/state/city/travel services/car rental/ category won't that description be bad ? Is there any limit to the category levels ? How deep can we go making categories ? Regards, James.

>> Dishonesty is a problem, true, but it's not what disqualifies most disqualified. >> The sad part is that others will know if an applicant is dishonest or not, only after he is accepted. At least in most cases. Is it because of this, more weightage is given to other aspects ? Regarding categories: One doubt. When the category is correctly established for a site, then why do we need the detailed description ? For example, if a car-rental service in included in ....../Travel Services/Car Rentals/ , then why do we have to write "A car rental site, etc." ? Won't the category name itself make it self-explanatory ? In one of the categories I looked into, I could find three sites and all of them are doing the same business. But all of them are relevant and good sites (I mean, sites of genuine businesses). What shall I do ? Leave this category and choose another one ? Regards, James.

Hilde, Thanks for the very informative post. Certainly this kind of information will aid the applicants to submit their applications correctly. BTW, if an applicant chooses a lean locality-based sub-category with 10 or less sites, won't it be difficult to find 3 more "quality" sites in the sub-category ? Won't the applicant's choice be very limited, to whatever is available ? In that case, won't he be disqualified if one of these turns out to be a bad choice in your opinion ? IMHO, any person without vested interests and a reasonable command over English should be able to describe a site objectively with good grammar and spelling. It is the vested interests that mostly corrupt the descriptions. Even though there may be some differences from meta to meta, I think I will keep these in mind when I submit my application next time. A suggestion is often just the initiative, and until it is studied and thought about well, will always generate opinions of all kinds. Perhaps one suggestion alone may not bring in the desired improvement, but when combined with others, they could turn out to be a lot better than the original suggestion. Isn't it good that a lot of people are spending their time thinking about ways and means of improving situations ? Regarding sub-editors: Without sub-editors, the editors will have to do all the work themselves. Whereas, if there are sub-editors around, they will do most of the category cleaning re-search to submit an action-to-be-taken report to their editors. Then editors will have to only formally verify the report and take action. The editors can thus save the time they have to otherwise spend on re-search. It is true that the work of a sub-editor, as described above, will be boring to you and many others. That is why you are a meta ! But, there are many people who will be happy to confine themselves to just that activity, even though they may be good enough to be editors. There are all kinds of people in this world, so it should not be difficult to find some in this category also. Those who want to be editors and metas, are likely to gear themselves up in this process and eventually get lifted.

>> >> No dfy, it doesn't require all that massive programming. For several reasons. One, this forum is already working well, and so is the editors' forum. << True, but irrelevant. This forum is not an official part of the ODP, and is in no way connected to the ODP (ie. there is no data sharing). I believe this forum not only works in a radically different way to the internal forums, but it's written in a different language. I believe that the author of this forum has no knowledge of the coding of the ODP or it's internal forum, and the ODP staff techie has no knowledge or access to this forum's code. No data sharing means that there is no way to tie resource-zone logins with ODP logins. << No, dfy, if all the parties agree, data sharing is a routine thing.

Donaldb, I did not assume that there were no internal discussions on improvement. It is inevitable in any organization, where most people involved would like changes, for the better. I am sure that this forum itself must be the result of such internal deliberations. Donaldb, when I was young, my Mom used to tell me to pray thus: "Lord, give us the courage to change the things we can, serenity to accept those we cannot, and wisdom to know the difference" (of course we prayed in local language). Perhaps repeating this hundreds and hundreds of times has resulted in a mindset always looking for changes that can make things better. Hence these suggestions, which will be backed up by necessary efforts and time, should such an opportunity arise. Please don't feel otherwise. No, the ODP, from the outside, doesn't look like it is broken. Only when we enter inside we realise that there are loose joints here and there. I agree that there are only small glitches in the system. But my observation is that it is those small things that take up most of your and other metas'/editors' time. If these small glitches are dealt with soon, it will ensure much a smoother, streamlined, stressless, fast and high quality production cycle. Resources may be a limiting factor for large scale changes, but intuitive resourcefulness is often the limiting factor in determining the need for a change. This has to originate from within. I am confident that resourcefulness is available within.

>> >>So Lissa, what are you going to do about this ? << Ask you if you can program. << Well, Lissa, the answer is yes. What next ?

lissa, thanks for the reply. You have an excellent idea. >> jameskal - you have some good ideas, and I'm sure they will go into the looonnnngggg list of suggested improvements.<< Lissa, if your list is already too loooooooonggg, it reiterates what I have written in my reply to dfy. So, these new ideas are not going to be implemented in our lifetime, if at all. >> (Improving the ODP is a favorite editor topic. )<< From what I have read on this forum, I guess it is remaining a live topic. Just a topic. >> However, as has been said before, our one programmer already has a lot of other higher priority stuff and unfortunately cannot work some of the nifty ideas.<< Again, this is one of those "to be done first" jobs. I am sure she will never get time to look into these ideas. We might as well forget the implementation. >>ODP has to gear up to clear the backlog in a short time<< >>A common mis-perception is that dealing with unreviewed is the main thing to be done. It's not at all - editors spend a lot of time ensuring quality of existing listings, improving ontology and finding sites on their own. Yes, we'd like to get the unreviewed quantities down, but it isn't the only thing we are focused on.>> Agreed. But isn't quantity equally important as quality for a directory ? I believe it is. So all this will have to go together; not one at the expense of others. Speedy disposal does not mean at the expense of quality. >> There is lots of discussion about ODP needing help. Obviously, the most helpful and within current abilities is to become an editor. But for anyone who can't get accepted as an editor or doesn't want to be one, there are still other ways to help. For example, clicking listings to see if the site is still there, doesn't redirect, and hasn't turned into something else. For sites that give an error, there is then research time to see if a new location can be found or if the business/organization is really gone. Problems that are found can then be summarized for a senoir editor to fix. ~Anyone~ can do this, and it really is helpful. When I start working in a category that hasn't been tended in a while, this is the first thing I have to do. What's the point of adding a bunch of good listings if half the ones there are bad or misplaced? If someone had already verified what was there, I could spend more time on listing unrevieweds.<< Good, practical point. But, I must hasten to add, that, if ODP doesn't change the ways it treats non-ODP community, whether this help would be forthcoming. If the posts in this forum are any indication, a lot of editor applicants get a very unprofessional raw deal from ODP. (I know that once a person is accepted, he is in good company). If a person who offers himself willingly to dedicate some time to be an editor is treated like this, what will be the fate of someone who just offers to help ? In any case, there will be some people who will swallow all this humiliation in good spirit and for a good cause, and continue to be pro-ODP. They will certainly be interested in offering help. Modify Lissa's suggestion a little, and accept applications for the post of Sub-Editors only. The Sub-Editor's job will be exactly as Lissa wrote; cleaning up the mess in the categories. He may not be asked to review or recommend any sites (let us finish the cleaning up first). He will not modify anything online; all he does is passing the necessary information to his Editor. Because a Sub-Editor is not permitted to make any online real time modifications, you don't have to worry about him abusing his editorial powers (he has no powers !). That makes the selection of a Sub-Editor rather easy. Move him from category to category until he completes a minimum period. His Editor(s) will know how good he is at work; how dedicated he is; how good his grammar and spelling is; and all that kind of stuff. If he is good enough, by then he must have picked up some tricks of the trade to write good Titles and Descriptions. Ask him to submit three mandatory reviews. If, after working as a Sub-Editor, he has not developed the necessary skills to be an Editor, you thank him for his services and send him home. Or else, promote him to be an Editor. He will be a real asset to ODP. So Lissa, what are you going to do about this ?

>> As I say, for technical reasons editor feedback messages *have* to be constructed in a way that looks suspicious to spam filters. We can't help it if ISPs add spam filtering software, set it up badly, and then fail to tell their users about it. We'd love to fix the problem, but it's not at our end, so nothing can be done.<< dfy, if this "have" thing is mandatory for technical reasons, atleast the applicants should be sent proper guidelines how to work it out with their ISPs. All ISPs are not likely to be aware of ODP's special need to generate spam-like emails. So if proper guidelines are sent to the applicants, they can organise to save their ODP mails. But with log-in for editor-applicants, ODP need not take all that trouble. >> but it would require a massive amount of programming. Our staff techie is more than capable of doing the job << No dfy, it doesn't require all that massive programming. For several reasons. One, this forum is already working well, and so is the editors' forum. Two, most of the editor-applicants are already members of this forum. Three, if registration is mandatory for editor-applicants, as soon as they submit the application, they could be moved to a different section of this forum or the editors' forum or yet another forum, where they have access to only their own accounts/pages. A little tweaking of the forum's poll feature can convert it into a scoring sheet. Some programming is definitely required, but it is not as massive as you have made it to be. I am sure if your ODP staff is determined, she can finish the job in a couple of days. Actually, there is no urgency as such; it can take months if that is the way you all want it. >> but there are far more important things to be done first.<< This is one line that is repeated so many times in various posts by metas and editors. There seems to be a never ending stream of "to be done first" jobs, about which everybody is anxious about. With all that left to be done, where will we have the time to clear the backlog and look for good editors ? If these jobs are so important than the matters of rest-of-the-world, then why don't all of you get together and finish them off first? At the current pace, even if ODP stops inclusion for some time, it wouldn't really matter. But clearing those jobs first could make a lot of difference in the productivity after that clearance. dfy, I feel it is all a matter of will. I don't know whose will, but some one out there is not too keen to change anything. All because the name is "voluntary"? Otherwise, how can a group of successful people get together and do anything that is less successful? If it was our own bread-winning activity, would we continue to do things the same way ? I guess not.

dfy, may I ask why, with so much of infrastructure available, ODP is leaving such important things to the mercy of others (I mean, the ISPs)? Registration and log-in for editor-applicants will reduce this problem considerably. ODP wants titles/descriptions of 3 sites to be submitted while applying. Having gone through this forum quite a bit, I think most of the applicants get rejected first time, for one reason or the other. Then what happens to those sites ? I assume they will not be considered for inclusion. In that case, isn't this all a colossal waste of person-hours ? And that too, while ODP has a growing list of unreviewed submissions ? Instead, why not allot one site (at a time) from the queue to an applicant, get his review within a stipulated time-frame, get it scored by one meta, and post his scores in his online account ? If his score is not good enough (borderline), ask the applicant to re-review. Give him two more sites from the queue, one after the other, follow the same procedure, but get it scored by different metas. (The computer decides which meta will score which applicant's review without duplication). I assume this is all done electronically and therefore, after the 3rd site, the computer will decide if the applicant has scored enough to be accepted or not, and posts the applicant's account accordingly. This will greatly, (1) reduce the chances of human bias by any one or more meta(s)(or others); (2) reduce the chances of an applicant messing up any category; and (3) at the same time reduce the number of un-reviewed submissions atleast by three for every person accepted. Even if the applicant is rejected, if 1 or 2 reviews are acceptable, they can be included in ODP. This is something like an on-the-job selection and I feel there is a lot of difference between reviewing to apply and reviewing to retain. This will increase the chances of getting good editors who are serious about what they do. Incidentally, this will also save a lot of time of the metas and other editors who have to post over and over about the same matter in reply to different posts. After going through hundreds of posts in this forum, I got a feeling that metas and other editors are working under severe pressure. Hefty workload and short time is a surely a deadly combination. Some stress is understandable, since this is more or less like a second full time job. Kudos to all of you, but, I don't understand the need for creating such un-necessary pressure chambers around the metas and other editors. Some of the posts were very apologetic about the whole situation. In one post, it was said that the "ODP Staff" everyone is referring to is actually just one person. (There is a 2nd person who is more of a techie maintaining the systems). That means all the thorough discussions metas and others have with the ODP Staff is actually limited to discussions with one single individual. If metas are under so much pressure, you can imagine the state of that single individual. When people are working under such heavy pressure, I would not be surprised if many things (even important ones) are done or left undone, correctly or incorrectly, depending on the mood of the day. After all everything is voluntary and therefore pushing anyone too much is not likely to bring in the desired results. At the same time, since most of the voluntary editors are professionals in some field, lack of professionalism in their editing and related work cannot be accepted in toto. Needless to say, ODP has to gear up to clear the backlog in a short time. (I read it is somewhere around half a million !!) It is not a quality versus quantity situation. At the present rate of domain registrations and ODP backlog, if something is not done to clear the backlog in short time, after some time ODP will be listing only a small fraction of all the registered domains. With so much of work already done by so many people for ODP, permitting it to lose its relevance because of a lack of vision or the will to implement it, will indeed be very sad.

dfy, I do not use my hotmail account for anything serious. So it is not likely that the ODP mail has gone in there. I am not aware of any spam filters used by my ISPs, because I still get a lot of junk mail. Only possibility is that they are using wrong filters. I will check with them. I understand that usually when an application is rejected, the reasons are given. That would have been very helpful. In non-ODP world, I am an editor of three travel-related publications for three different localities, in three different countries. I know the localities and the people there well enough to do a good job. However, I had applied for only one locality, my home town. I had written all about it in my application. Now, I am worried and confused because I do not know if that was a qualification or disqualification to be an ODP editor. I also do a lot of site-reviewing in connection with my Internet work. With all that, I thought I was a custom-made fit for an ODP Editor. Evidently, the Meta who scrutinised my application did not think so ! It could have been something small or big, but without any idea of what went wrong, I am still in the dark. If, like the Editor log-in, Editor-applicants could also log in and check their status and scores online, perhaps this would have been a little more easier to handle. Even if, ultimately, I don't become an editor, all your feedback gives me plenty of ideas. Thanks to all of you.

Yes, I fully agree and thanks for the suggestions. Perhaps, this is also a good method to populate lean cats, which is good for all.

Rfgdxm, you are right. I posted that question because I thought an editor could pick up a site only from an ODP queue. Enarra has clarified that it need not always be so. Therefore, I suppose editors won't have to be idle for too long. Regards.

Well, that means an editor can make some really positive contribution to ODP. That is great. Thanks Enarra. Will re-apply and see. Regards.

Thanks Enarra, for the info. I understand. Ok, I will try again. Some clue as to why it was rejected earlier would have been helpful when re-applying. BTW, can I apply for more than one category at the same time ? The guidelines require that an editor will have to edit at least one site in four months, to continue to be an editor. If there are no submissions in the category within this four months or eight months, then what happens ? Thanks.

Dear Senior Editor: I had applied to be an editor for the category http://dmoz.org/Regional/Asia/India/Kerala/Localities/Kochi/Travel_and_Tourism/ (39) and the same was acknowledged by ODP on 10th Oct 2002. However, I have not heard from ODP since then. What could be the present status ? Regards.