Can editors afford being lazy?

One thing I don’t understand, or rather cannot agree with.

I will repeat somebody else’s words by saying that this service is run by volunteers, which should mean that those are the people who are enthusiastic about what they do. Majority of the editors are and demonstrate enthusiasm and responsibility. Others seem to be just receiving some sort of an ego boost from the status of being an editor and neglect the work itself, or just have lost the interest at some point.

Considering high requirements for becoming an editor, I would assume that ODP has a large number of applicants to choose from. Why not impose an activity requirement of some sort? There are editors who have not been active in months!! …and if someone happens to be applying to the category supervised by such editor they may be just wasting their time.

After all, while it’s the human editors who operate the service, it’s also human web publishers who provide the content and ODP would not exist without either one, even though presently it appears that the latter are more dependent on the former than vice versa.

ODP has become a highly significant information provider for Internet search, but this kind of position comes along with similarly high level of responsibility. Current “submit-and-we-will-maybe-review-and-post-it-or-maybe-forget-about-it-and-there-is-nothing-you-can-do-about-it” philosophy does not quite meet the expectations and needs to be addressed.

What I am suggesting is that if ODP encourages web publishers to submit their content for review, ODP should also ensure that the information gets reviewed, not necessarily published, but is given a mere consideration. Having waited 7 months and receiving “awaiting review” status on a category that has an editor is just not acceptable, and I have seen it happen more than once.

Hopefully I did not offend anyone with this comment – this wasn’t my intention. I just see a lot of aggravation that web publishers experience trying to get listed in the directory and this is only my two cents in helping to solve the problem.

Nope, not offended at all. One thing that seems to cause a lot of misunderstanding:

There are editors who have not been active in months!! …and if someone happens to be applying to the category supervised by such editor they may be just wasting their time.

Click to expand...

Applications to become an editor are not handled by the editor of that category or category tree or whatever - the only people who can see and process applications are the Meta editors who are also able to edit anywhere in the directory, and any Meta can see any application so it's not dependant on any one particular person finding it. (Of course, in some cases such as applications in languages that few Metas understand there can be a longer delay.)

I think most of us are a bit confused about why so many people seem to think that the ODP would get more sites reviewed with fewer editors. Why do you think that would improve things, from your perspective?

Why not impose an activity requirement of some sort?

Click to expand...

You're suggesting that a volunteer editor who can only do just a little work should be fired? An editor who only does a little work is somehow better than none at all?

...and if someone happens to be applying to the category supervised by such editor they may be just wasting their time.

Click to expand...

You seem to be assuming that line editors can somehow prevent further editors from joining in their areas of responsibility. They can't. Only meta editors evaluate applications. They are very keen to strengthen the team and anybody who can put together a credible application[1] is usually accepted with pleasure.

Having waited 7 months and receiving “awaiting review” status on a category that has an editor is just not acceptable..

Click to expand...

My friend, you write with a deep misunderstanding of what ODP is about. Despite all of the FAQs, guidelines and postings here and elsewhere, you still seem to think that ODP is just a free listing service for webmasters. It is, but that aspect is just a byproduct and we don't think it's an important one.

[1] See Advice.

<added> nea types faster and much more fluently than I </added>

I apologize, I should have been more exact on some of my wording. There are two issues I am discussing and it obviously lead to some confusion.

Nea: I am not discussing the difficulties of becoming an editor, but difficulties associated with submitting information to the ODP. I believe these difficulties have a lot to do with some editors not being sufficiently active. When I was saying that someone was "applying" to a category, I actually meant submitting information to the directory, not applying to be an editor for it.

Jimnoble: Yes, I indeed think that a volunteer who can't consistently contribute to the project should be dismissed. It is my strong belief that things need to be either done or left alone - not done half-assed (pardon my language, I just couldn't find a similarly descriptive synonym).

I think I understand the nature of ODP fairly well - I just naively refuse to accept the fact that webmasters are a "byproduct". Without this byproduct ODP would simply not exist. And I repeat myself by saying, that if ODP encourages submission of content and asks webmasters to take their time to submit their content there is a moral obligation to give proper consideration to submitted material.

Considering high requirements for becoming an editor, I would assume that ODP has a large number of applicants to choose from.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that makes no sense.

I'm sure you'll excuse me if I go and do something more useful - such as editing

skip_75 said:

I think I understand the nature of ODP fairly well - I just naively refuse to accept the fact that webmasters are a "byproduct". Without this byproduct ODP would simply not exist. And I repeat myself by saying, that if ODP encourages submission of content and asks webmasters to take their time to submit their content there is a moral obligation to give proper consideration to submitted material.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. In the few months that I have been editing, I have listed over 60 sites and not one of them was a submission. I do not get submissions in the areas that I edit. Although we do accept suggestions of sites, the directory would most definitely exist without them. And there are many, many editors that would prefer that we do not accept submissions at all, because the volume of spam that has to be dealt with in many cases hinders the developement of the directory.

Anyone have any objections if I take the rest of the day off? I have a garden that needs finishing for my own 'non-virtual' family to enjoy. Real life (work, wife, kids, college/university) just seems to be getting tin the way of editing these days.

What I am trying to say in my own little way is that there are many reasons why an editor chooses to or is unable to edit and neither you nor I have any right to judge them let alone scorn them for not doing their 'job'. There are many editors who have little time to edit but still take the time to log in once every month or two and perform an edit. Every single edit is one edit less that needs to be done and one step forward to improving the quality of directory. Infact the thought of the editor who has little time to spare still taking the time to edit in the ODP makes me have an extra admiration for them.

When I first joined ODP I used to login at every possible chance to see if anyone had submited a site to my tiny village category so that I could review it (with a beaming smile) hoping I could list it but alas... these days, now I can edit in a much larger area, I cannot actually remember (truthfully) the last time I dipped into the pile of sites awaiting to be reviewed. As dogbows explains the 'pile' is merely one source of finding sites for possible inclusion and believe me when I say that submissions are far from the only task that needs to be done within a directory with so many URL's and categories to maintain. Most of the work I have done over the past few months has not involved actually listing sites so to the general public it would appear that I have not been doing anything. Am I included as one of the editors who should be booted?

I'm sure you'll excuse me if I go and do something more useful - such as editing

Click to expand...

... and I just stumbled across and listed Skelton-in-Cleveland in History. It's a terrific non-commercial labour of love - a real asset to the directory and the internet community as a whole. It's made my day.

When I go through a couple of weeks and I add no sites am I being lazy. Not exactly, when I remove or move 500 sites that were double submitted or submitted to the wrong category.

The next week when I process no submisions cause I'm tired of dealing with the spam am I lazy; not when I go and find some high quality sites that were never submitted.

When I see another editor who has not edited for three months suddenly arrive and add two sites - do I consider him lazy. NO, that's two less sites that I need to worry about.

Ok, lets fire all the lazy editors that only review only one site a month. Assuming there are 3000 of them, that's 36,000 sites that will not be reviewed this year.

Offending anyone was not my intention, as I stated in my original post. I see your strong feelings about the subject. This only confirms my earlier suggestion that there ARE a lot of editors, who are passionate and enthusiastic about what they do. But at the same time, I doubt that any of you will argue that there are still editors who simply have lost the interest long since. This is the type of "volunteers" that needs to be "filtered out". I am not saying that everyone has to review 100 submissions daily - let it be one or none if you like, but if it has been over half a year ago, when you last felt like reviewing a submission, then perhaps you should let someone else do it.

Once again, I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings with this discussion and I apologize if I did. This is only my, perhaps somewhat subjective, opinion. I understood your points, and I hope you understood my position. I would suggest leaving it at that, because one thing everyone has agreed upon is that we all have better things to do.

skip_75 said:

, because one thing everyone has agreed upon is that we all have better things to do.

Click to expand...

not me

Thank you for restating that you are not trying to offend anyone. I personally believe your motives are pure.

I guess that thing that we are trying to impress upon you is the wrongness of:

This is the type of "volunteers" that needs to be "filtered out".

Click to expand...

If an editor does not do any edits in 90 days, theri login expires, and they are, in effect, weeded out automatically.

If an editor does one or more edits every 90 days, then in our book they are a valued member of the editing community. There is nothing to weed out. Four edits a year represents the bottom edge of the bell curve ( in terms of edits ) but fails to recognize other, non-public contributions that an editor might make, such as participation in the internal discussion forums.

The other thing that just looking at numbers does not consider, and that is where the person is editing. If they are maintaining a small, esoteric category (probably scientific) there may be a very limited number of websites out there. If the editor is checking in regularly, reviewing the listings and the websites to make sure they are current, and scouring the web and scientific journals for additional content (and maybe not finding and) that is activity that does not show up in the statistics. It is also activity that is largely invisible, even to us.

I understand what you are saying, but the ODP is different than a lot of other volunteer tasks/organization. It is not like we are carrying a large load and volunteers who don't carry their fair share make it more difficult for the rest of us, or take up space that a more energetic volunteer might fill. We actually have a seemingly boundless space for volunteers -- whether they choose to do one edit a quarter or 500 edits a month, they are all contributing.

If you are building homes for Habitat for Humanity, there are only so many people who can be up on the roof hammering. If you are training guide dogs, the graduation rate is a key indicator in the probability of continuing as a volunteer. If you are serving food at the community food kitchen, and can't keep up with the flow, then someone faster or more agile might take your place dishing out the mashed potatos. Here, four edits a year ar ehte minimum, and personally I'll take 1,000 more volunteers willing to give me four quality edits a year.

Thank you for thinking about this. I know that this was not a casual suggestion, and it was one offered in the hope of helping out.

Actually, I have a tiny question. Even though I don't subscribe to skip 75 lazy editor theory, how does it affect a category assigned to a specific editor if that editor does not maintain it in a year? Let me clarify.
I understand that many editors have access to many areas and can add or clean up a specific category at any time. But if a category is primarily maintained by a specific editor, will other editors tend not to visit that area or cat as frequently? If that designated editor ignores that cat for a year for what ever reason, doe's the category deteriorate until another editor or Meta happens to notice? Or are the editors constantly looking down the line? Just curious

Please, don’t yell at me if that was a stupid question. I'll just go quietly if you want.

Editors can see how recently the category was edited, and by whom. A category neglected for, say, more than a month won't be avoided just because it has a listed editor.

[whisper mode on]
Actually, this is a very good question and is are area where there is a lot of misconception.

Perhaps a real life example is in order.

One of the areas where I edit involved military aviation. I have fairly broad permissions there. There are multiple subcats that have assigned editors.

If something needs to be done in those subcats I usually shoot them a note letting them know what needs to be done. If they get to it in a reasonable period of time, fine. If not, I go do it myself with absolutely no regrets.

If it is something that needs to be done as soon as possible, I just go do it.

I've had other editors pop in to cats where I am the listed editor and make edits. Some have shot me a courtesty note; others have not. Either way is fine.

I don't think any knowledgeable editor would totally ignore a category simply because there is a named editor. In at least one of the subcats I deal with, the named editor is an editall, yet if something needs to get done right now, I will do it, if it is something that can wait, I'll give that editall a chance to do it.

Perhaps the only real exception to this is in the case of "a project" If I knew, for example that Society/Cat_A/Cat_B/Cat_C is being actively reorganized by a given editor, then I might be more circumspect about editing there.

When our automated link checker runs and identified bad sites, I go to work on them in whatever categories I can, with absolutely no regard for who else can edit there. Quality is that important.

[whisper mode off]

Great answers from both hutcheson and spetregunner.

That [whisper mode on/off] was cool. Can't quite find that button on my keyboard. Where can I buy one

Seriously, I'm just glad the question was coherent.

Second question then: I noticed that the shopping cat has one of the longest wait times. With all the interest in the ODP, I'm surprised that you don't have a load of editor applicants. Would it be a fair statement that the ODP does get a lot of applicants, but just not enough qualified ones to help diminish the suggestion “PILE”. Or is that issue irrelevant?

Spectregunner: thank you for finally clearing up this issue for me:

If an editor does not do any edits in 90 days, theri login expires, and they are, in effect, weeded out automatically.

This is all I was trying to suggest, unaware that this is already being implemented.

Funny enough, right after Spectregunner's post, Luggagebase asked the question that's been bothering me and what actually moved me to start this discussion, but I obviously failed to articulate it well enough.

Now, that I have all my answers I can rest. Thanks to everyone for participation.

spectregunner said:

[whisper mode on]
When our automated link checker runs and identified bad sites,
[whisper mode off]

Click to expand...

Curious, I have recently tried to help out by submitting to the "Update URL" and also report spam and it seemed like they had been there a while. I make that assumption since there were so many of them limited to just a few related cats. Granted it is in the field that I have expertise but I don't think that would matter. Point being it must take a while for that automated link checker to come around. Not that it really matters, I guess.