Can editors afford being lazy?

The link checker used to be run only a few times a year due to the effort of dealing with the results and server resources. The process has been improved and now it runs ~ every month (I think it's ~1 week to check all the links and then a recheck after ~2 weeks for anything flagged bad, and then it notifies editors of problems.)

Although it has been improved over time, the link checker isn't perfect. Also, it can't find changed content. It is still valuable to hand-check all the links in a category, especially ones that were built more than 3 years ago. This is one area that the public can always help us out with.

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

Click to expand...

Actually, it's 4 months, not 90 days. And many people who time out apply for and are granted reinstatement soon after they time out. Some do that several times.

It's funny to see the misconceptions that people have. Despite us having stated outright that most of these "issues" that people have aren't issues to us, people still think they need to fix something that ain't broke. The number of people who think that some very basic facets of how the ODP works are "unacceptable" is astonishing. Things like not putting a huge priority on suggestions or not getting rid of low-activity editors are foundations of how we work so suggesting that they're unacceptable is going to be met with a stone wall of resistance.