Directory Attitude - An Open Letter to DMOZ!

But it makes no sense to do that in DMOZ. First the interanal workings are much more complex. If you want to call then queues, then there are more than half a million of them. Each category has it's own queue.

Think of a bank with 500,000 lines of custmers and 100 tellers.

How do we deal with that. Dealing with customers in the order they come in the door just will not work. We would spend our time running around in circles.

That's wahy editors work out the best method that works for thm based on how many lines of customers they can service, and various other factros.

Sometimes it makes sens to go the line of customers that is waring the best looking clothing - it might indicate their potential investments are better than the rest.

bobrat has done a good job of describing why queue-monitor is not a job that CAN be done either by humans or by machines on the ODP scale.

It is important to remember that it is not a job we WANT to do. It would be horribly unfair to both our surfers (who want us to find what is most important to them, not what is most heavily promoted) and to webmasters who focus on collecting good content, not promoting themselves), and it would favor no honest persons, but only spamming SERP perps.

Anyone can think of any number of ways editors can be bludgeoned into death (or at least into inactivity) once they are "nailed to the wall" by a fixed prioritization scheme based on suggestion dates. While this is unquestionably the worst imaginable scheme from any possible point of view that matters (i.e. everyone but the serp perp), I believe the fundamental problem will occur in any other fixed scheme: once known, the spammers can and will manipulate the scheme to prevent editors from doing any useful work whatsoever.

The only way for the ODP to survive is to keep editors absolutely free to look spammers in the eye and say, "I don't care what you want, I'm going to do something that I think is worth doing" -- and then slam the door in the spammers' face, closing off all future communication.

Any approach that doesn't CONTRIBUTE to that goal of editorial freedom will be counterproductive, and probably catastrophically so.

There's currently 169 listings there. I don't see how this really seems "too broad" and send me a denial for this section - especially since I work in this field on a daily basis.

Click to expand...

...170 at the moment, so some work does get done .

Our experience shows that it's best if editors start in categories much smaller than that one. They need to learn the basics of how to edit before we are willing to give further permissions. It's a damage control thing . It has been said that joining ODP is much easier than gaining promotions. For some people, that's true. When we first join them, we merely think they can do a good job. Once they've got their feet wet, we can measure how well they're actually doing it .

It might seem counter intuitive, but we don't find that the people with great topic expertise necessarily make great editors. It's nice if they have it of course, but that's looked upon a bonus. Analytical and communications skills, integrity and attention to detail are amongst the attributes that I look for .

<edited for grammar >

Completely understandable.

Not that anyone is wondering or even asked - but I have worked for Scholastic, Simon & Schuster, Houghton, Prentice Hall, and Pearson Publishing in various editorial capacities. Production and publishing was my original career.

Anyhow. I did notice this just a few minutes ago:

http://www.google.com/Top/Business/...nance/Design/Illustration_and_Rendering/?il=1

It seems like Google Directory is definitely putting mroe stock into DMOZ than most other directory listings... It's safe to probably say that they do weigh towards the results listed here.

Google's directory is based upon our RDF data dumps - but is usually rather less up to date. That's why it has the ODP attribution at the bottom of every page .

Charles, experience is what happened to you. Don't put too much stock in it.

Skills are what you have. They matter. If you'd spent another half-lifetime in the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian, designing classification systems for arbitrary objects, that would be great. As it is, we make do with what we have. And our editing standards aren't really up to professional level. It's in our taxonomic standards where we are more detailed than Dewey, and where editors are regularly expected to make judgments that come ready-made to the typical librarian.

But many humans are trainable. And in an subject they know better than the average person does, they can often learn to make judgments comparable to a professional librarian. (We have caught classification errors in the professionally-edited directories!)

Motive is why you're doing what you're doing. That is critical. The ideal demonstration of motive is that you're already doing ODP-like work, or similarly public-spirited work: that is, if the ODP did not exist you'd feel compelled to invent some part of it.

So, show how ODP-like work coincides with your own personal mission (preferably as demonstrated by your own activity) -- and demonstrate a minimum of linguistic and taxonomic fluency, and we'll take a chance on you being able to learn the rest.

And ... be prepared to help teach your skills to amateurs, (by gently demonstrating professional standards), because even without your specific experience, chances are you know SOMETHING that few other active editors do.

Thanks Hutchenson. That's wisely stated.

On that note, I think the directory should also list categories in which editors are 'desperately' needed - that is highlighted categories which are small enough for a newcomer to manage. It seems like a hit or miss application method. It feels as if no matter what section I would volunteer for, there will always be an automatic DMOZ response which reads 'too broad for someone starting out.'

charlesleo said:

I think the directory should also list categories in which editors are 'desperately' needed

Click to expand...

That is easy. If someone thinks (s)he is needed in a category that category needs an editor.

charlesleo said:

- that is highlighted categories which are small enough for a newcomer to manage.

Click to expand...

Although the norm is for new editors to start in small categories I have seen new editors in larger categories. I think it also has to do with the type of category a new editor is applying to.

charlesleo said:

It seems like a hit or miss application method. It feels as if no matter what section I would volunteer for, there will always be an automatic DMOZ response which reads 'too broad for someone starting out.'

Click to expand...

I can asure you there are no automatic responses. There are standard emails but they are always send by a human person.

It feels as if no matter what section I would volunteer for, there will always be an automatic DMOZ response which reads 'too broad for someone starting out.'

Click to expand...

This is why the suggestion is to pick a small, lowest-level regional location category is often made. People are (naturally) often interested in what they feel they can handle topic-wise without realising the difficulty of editing.

When I applied I choose a category where I could see no complications (e.g. in deciding whether a site would belong or not), there were 7 listings and I found 30+ sites easily. It was not a topic I specifically knew about - I really wanted another in the same area but could see there would be more head-scratching involved in getting it right which I did not want at first. I reasoned that if I found the editing process was 'easy' I would progress quickly, if not then having an 'easy' topic, would mean I could concentrate on the learning aspect.

To be honest, one of the things I learnt was how much I did not actually know about my hobby - having to think in terms of a directory structure and categories does give you a different perspective which was an unexpected bonus.

regards

PS ...there are many folk-dancing categories that are certainly ideal for someone starting out e.g. Greek, Bavarian etc.

Ok. Seeing that I don't think the category I was interested in is ever going to move (and I'm completely serious - check it out for yourselves), I see little choice other than to start editing a new category and eventually move over to the one I originally wanted.

So I've found a topic I am interested besides 'architectural illustration.' It is 'Spirulina' and it would fall under 'alternative medicine', but a new sub-category would need to be created called 'aglae.'

I don't see anywhere to suggest a new category for this.

Try picking a subject that already has a category, rather than picking a subject for which there isn't already a category. Once you become an editor, you can work with other editors to get the new category created if it doesn't already exist.

A category for informational sites about spirulina (are there such things that aren't also selling it?) would not go under Health/Alternative (in fact it would probably go under Health/Nutrition--possibly Health/Nutrition/Alternative) and would really require some discussion. So, not a good category for a new editor.

Well actually, I'm more interested in the medical properties of this blue-green algae (spirulina), it's production, and it's history versus trying to sell something. I did come across spirulina on DMOZ, but it's in a business section.

So if that's not available, the only other interests I have are graphics, 3d, architecture, and illustration. Maybe gardening, winemaking, and pet goldfish - but those categories are also probably too broad for a starter - again there should be a warning before you waste your time filling out a form.

I noticed that some categories list the editors, however 'architectural illustration' didn't. All it said was 'volunteer.' Perhaps the 'volunteer' should be removed in such instances or say 'turn back all ye' hope and despair.'

but those categories are also probably too broad for a starter

Click to expand...

But most, if not all, have small subcategories that are probably suitable.

Well. This will be the last I mention this. I was told my prefered 'subcategory' was too broad. Everyone I have said this too has replied "how is that too broad???" and I have to completely agree. I think arguing this is a moot point as noone here seems to be truly backing me up or willing to acknowledge or address some shortcomings of the system.

So as a result, I would have thought if a qualified volunteer offered their time to update a category which gets one or two updates every few months, that the editorial staff would have appreciated this opportunity with open arms. I hate to point fingers or make accusations, but something does not seem right with this category and whoever is in control of editing it. There's alot of 'red tape' here and no one wants to admit to it.

Now I would be 'stuck' addressing a category I would be less knowledgable in in order to eventually work my way back to something I wanted to do in the first place.

Architectural renderings is very straightforward. You either illustrate buildings and rooms or you don't. It's not rocket science. How is that broad is beyond me. I surely hope the person that gave me the disapproval wasn't in charge of this particular section.

For my own architectural rendering examples, please take a look at my site <url removed>

Everyone I have said this too has replied "how is that too broad???" and I have to completely agree. I think arguing this is a moot point as noone here seems to be truly backing me up or willing to acknowledge or address some shortcomings of the system.

Click to expand...

No one here is backing you up because the category is too large for a new editor. Not too broad. Too large. Period. Surely there's a smaller category under one of those ones you listed as being of interest to you that you would enjoy starting out in.

I hate to point fingers or make accusations, but something does not seem right with this category and whoever is in control of editing it.

Click to expand...

Umm, nobody is in control of editing it. Some day, some editor with appropriate permissions will wander into there and do some editing. We have absolutely no idea when or who that will be, what sort of work they'll do when they get there or how much of it they'll do.

I thought we'd got that point across much earlier in the thread .

If you have any evidence of wrong doing, please visit the category, click on its report abuse link and fill out the form.

It wasn't clear - I thought somebody was working in this specific category.

So if I applied, then it would have been to the larger 'parent' or umbrella section? Well, then that would explain why I received an email stating why my application was 'too broad' of a category. I thought by submitting to become an editor, work was broken down into more finite subcategories. This wasn't clearly delineated at the main DMOZ website.

I thought somebody was working in this specific category.

Click to expand...

Several different people have done work in there during the last year. That's how the system works.

If you want to gain experience of it at first hand, I suggest that you request a small locality category (or one of its subcategories) of around 15-50 listings - your home town perhaps. This would provide a suitable play pen for learning the basics of editing and how our community works. If you enjoy it and are successful, you'd be able to request wider permissions.

We join around 90 editors a week so it's not as impossible as you are beginning to think .

So if I applied, then it would have been to the larger 'parent' or umbrella section? Well, then that would explain why I received an email stating why my application was 'too broad' of a category. I thought by submitting to become an editor, work was broken down into more finite subcategories. This wasn't clearly delineated at the main DMOZ website.

Click to expand...

I think we've crossed some wires here. When you applied, you applied for the category you indicated earlier in this thread, not a parent category. The email reply you got was because the exact category that you applied for and want to edit is too large (i.e. has too many sites in it) for a new editor.

These seem a good size for a first category:
http://dmoz.org/Recreation/Food/Drink/Wine/Winemaking/ (29)
http://dmoz.org/Recreation/Pets/Fish_and_Aquaria/Freshwater/Species/Goldfish/ (31)

These are others areas possibly of interest to you, but you'd need to find a more specific, smaller subcategory:
http://dmoz.org/Home/Gardening/
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Architecture/

If you try for any of the above, be sure to check out related categories and @linked categories and make sure the sites you suggest are appropriate for the category you are applying for.

You indicate Boston as your location, perhaps a subcategory there might interest you? For example:
http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_Amer.../B/Boston/Arts_and_Entertainment/Architecture
http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_Amer...nomy/Construction_and_Maintenance/Architects/
Or maybe one of the smaller surrounding localities listed under
http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_Amer...sachusetts/Regions/Greater_Boston/Localities/
such as
http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Massachusetts/Localities/B/Bedford/
http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Massachusetts/Localities/M/Marblehead/
Often smallish localities are a great place to start because it is relatively easy to find site that belong by searching on locality + zip code.

The spirulina category idea sounds interesting. Creating brand-new categories is one of the more fun things to do. Editors usually build up a new idea in a test area and then invite other editors to a discussion about where to put the category in the directory.