DMOZ/ODP needs more editors, but do they really want them?

justobserving · Jun 17, 2004

Up-front disclosure: Yes, I submitted a site (non-commercial) and have been waiting for it to be reviewed. However, this post is not in any way meant to influence that process. Again, the site I submitted is non-commercial.

This is not intended to be inflamatory. It is just an observation...

First, based on the high volume of postings in the "Site Submission Status" forum, and the length of time waiting for a submitted site to be reviewed, it seems obvious that ODP could use many more volunteer editors.

Responses to status requests include comments such as:

Two months is an insignificant wait. Hate to tell you this, but many sites wait more than two years for a review, so you'd best have a comfortable chair to wait in.

Wait six months before asking again

could be anywhere from 10 minutes to a couple of years

And ugly responses, such as:

Why do you submit if you don't like it? There are many other ways to promote your site.

Second, based on the volume (and content) of postings in this forum, it appears somehat difficult to become a volunteer editor.

In particular, the requirement of submitting 3 related sites not already in the ODP index can be very tough. I arrived here in the first place because I was looking for related websites... not because I know of a bunch of sites that need to be added.

Also, even though the category I am interested in has (evidently) a large backlog of sites waiting to be reviewed, it already has an editor so I cannot apply to be an editor of the category which holds my interest.

So, for those reading this who have an interest in such things... As the DMOZ/ODP wishes to be known as "The Definitive Catalog of the Web" (as noted on the About page), I would suggest:

1. Streamline the submission / review / publish process.
2. Ask your editors posting in the Status forum to be a little more positive in their responses.
3. Make it maybe just a little easier for people to volunteer as editors.

Just my 2-cents worth... Don

bobrat · Jun 17, 2004

Up-front disclosure: Yes, I submitted a site (non-commercial) and have been waiting for it to be reviewed. However, this post is not in any way meant to influence that process. Again, the site I submitted is non-commercial.

I see this a lot, there seems to be some mis-understanding that non-commercial sites can get listed in ODP easier than commercial ones, or that ODP prefers non-comerrical sites.

First, based on the high volume of postings in the "Site Submission Status" forum, and the length of time waiting for a submitted site to be reviewed, it seems obvious that ODP could use many more volunteer editors.

No question ODP could do with more volunteer editors, but it needs one who can edit according to the guidelines - not so easy to find them it seems.

Responses to status requests include comments such as:

Two months is an insignificant wait. Hate to tell you this, but many sites wait more than two years for a review, so you'd best have a comfortable chair to wait in.

Wait six months before asking again

could be anywhere from 10 minutes to a couple of years

Just an expression of the reality of the situation.

And ugly responses, such as:

Why do you submit if you don't like it? There are many other ways to promote your site.

But that usually follows a statment by a submitter that goes something like "My site has been waiting to get reviewed for siz months, this is intolerable, I want my site listed right away. ODP has lost it's relevancy, and really sucks as a directory.

Second, based on the volume (and content) of postings in this forum, it appears somehat difficult to become a volunteer editor.

Yes it is, but since a large number of new editors keep getting approved, not impossible.

In particular, the requirement of submitting 3 related sites not already in the ODP index can be very tough. I arrived here in the first place because I was looking for related websites... not because I know of a bunch of sites that need to be added.

If you can't find three sites for a category, then better apply for another category. A good editor spends time searching for new sites, and does not depend on submissions, a great deal of which are misplaced and belong in another category, or are spam.

Also, even though the category I am interested in has (evidently) a large backlog of sites waiting to be reviewed, it already has an editor so I cannot apply to be an editor of the category which holds my interest.

Categories can have more than one editor. It's not uncommon for a new editor to be accepted if they existing editor is not relly doing much in that category.

1. Streamline the submission / review / publish process.

Personally I would not like to see the rules relaxed.

2. Ask your editors posting in the Status forum to be a little more positive in their responses.

We have recently done that with some non-public discussion. However, it does get difficult to say the same thing hundreds of time a day in a positive manner.

E.g If a request is not posted according to the guidelines, what should we do, spend time writing long hand holding help to get it posted correctly, reply with the standard cold response, or just delete the post.

kapuni · Jun 17, 2004

I can't think of a reason why status enquiries can't be done automatically. I am sure this has been discussed, but what is the reason why you havent taken this path?

Is it related to the "old" technology behind the editing interface (not my words..!)?

wrathchild · Jun 17, 2004

based on the high volume of postings in the "Site Submission Status" forum, and the length of time waiting for a submitted site to be reviewed, it seems obvious that ODP could use many more volunteer editors.

No one has ever said that ODP has "enough" editors. There are so many categories that just aren't very "popular" and aren't being cared for. Being the definitive catalog of the web is an ambitious task. If we thought there were enough editors we would turn off the ability to volunteer.

However, you, like many others, seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the main task of an editor is to process submissions. This is not true. Suggestions from the general public are just one source of sites we use to build categories. (In many places, it's not really a very good source, either.)

based on the volume (and content) of postings in this forum, it appears somehat difficult to become a volunteer editor.

All it requires is a good command of one's (written) language, the ability to find quality sites that are on-topic for a category, and to write concise descriptions of such websites. To stay an editor also generally requires an ability to work with others and compromise. Unfortunately, this last only becomes evident after someone has been an editor for a while.

Were we to lower our standards, sure submissions might be processed faster, but descriptions would suffer, taxonomy would be wrong, and the directory as a whole would be less valuable. I have participated in cleaning up after a poor editor. Believe me, it creates much, much more work than if the person had never been an editor.

Besides, how hard could it be? I filled out the application and was accepted. I certainly didn't know anyone already "in the club." It must have been good enough.

We want editors who will incrementally improve the directory with every edit. You want an editor who will process your submission right now. But, would you rather wait to be added to what is still, after all these years, a high quality product, or be immediately added to something that is quickly turning into a steaming pile?

In particular, the requirement of submitting 3 related sites not already in the ODP index can be very tough. I arrived here in the first place because I was looking for related websites... not because I know of a bunch of sites that need to be added.

There are a little over 4 million sites in the ODP. There are many, many times that number of sites out there in the world that we haven't found yet. How about your home town? Are all the businesses and clubs there with websites COMPLETELY covered by the directory?

Pssst! Here's the secret to getting in as an editor. Forget about the category that you really want to edit. Find some obscure, obviously underdeveloped category that you know a little about or might be a secret passion of yours. It should be easy to find three sites for that. Apply there. As you learn the ropes and what it takes to be an editor, and as your editing improves, you can apply for more categories, perhaps even the one that you really wanted in the first place.

Also, even though the category I am interested in has (evidently) a large backlog of sites waiting to be reviewed, it already has an editor so I cannot apply to be an editor of the category which holds my interest.

Patently untrue. No editor "owns" a category. If a category needs help, it makes no difference how many editor names are attached to it.

It is true, however, that we do not like to give overly broad permissions to new editors. Partly this is to keep from overwhelming the poor sods, but also because your first category is more like the real test. If it turns out you're not cut out to be an editor, the scope of the damage you can do is limited.

1. Streamline the submission / review / publish process.

1. Editor goes to website
2. Editor looks around website
3. Editor writes description of website, touching on what it is about and what features the visitor is likely to find there
4. Editor publishes site

You can't get any more streamlined than that. Oh, you were speaking about submissions.

1. Editor sees site in unreviewed pile
2. Editor goes to website
3. Editor looks around website
4. Editor adjusts or rewrites description of website, touching on what it is about and what features the visitor is likely to find there
5. Editor publishes site

Since the whole idea is to have a human review every single listing, you are not going to get it any more efficient.

Although, unfortunately, they're usually more like

1. Editor sees site in unreviewed pile
2. Editor finds site is patently off-topic for the current category and moves it to a more appropriate category

or

2. Editor removes mirrors, affiliate sites, and other unlistable junk
3. Repeat step 2 more times than one should have to

If you can get your fellow submitters to stop submitting so much garbage, I guarantee you that submissions will be process much, much faster.

2. Ask your editors posting in the Status forum to be a little more positive in their responses.

Not unreasonable, but I think that vast majority of editors are quite civil. Will you ensure that submitters here will extend us the same courtesy?

3. Make it maybe just a little easier for people to volunteer as editors.

Won't happen. Not without completely losing the quality that has made ODP so great.

william13 · Jun 17, 2004

http://resource-zone.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode#quote

I can't think of a reason why status enquiries can't be done automatically. I am sure this has been discussed, but what is the reason why you havent taken this path?

Is it related to the "old" technology behind the editing interface (not my words..!)?http://resource-zone.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode#quote

http://resource-zone.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode#quote

Such a device would take a whole bunch of computing power. Think of the millions of submissions and the requests for status and what all of that would entail. Maybe someday staff may find time to make something like that and technology will have grown so that servers are more powerful and less costly. (we aren't exactly a money-machine after all). Remember, submissions are not a high priority and spending money on that aspect just isn't warranted. Besides, not even the big search engines do that and they have far more computer resources and are already automated. It wouldn't be that hard for them to install a program to do that but to what end. It would just drain resources. At least that is my take on it. That is actually a question we editors can't answer for certain as it is a staff function.

justobserving · Jun 18, 2004

Note: quotes have been combined and abbreviated from multiple postings.

... mis-understanding that non-commercial sites can get listed in ODP easier ...

Hmmm... I could have been clearer - just trying to indicate that I was (am) not "whining" about not being able to get a business site listed.

... A good editor spends time searching for new sites, and does not depend on submissions ...
... mistaken assumption that the main task of an editor is to process submissions. This is not true...

Ah, yes. Very much under the mistaken assumption, apparently. A reading of both the site submission and the Editors Resource Zone pages definitely implies (as I read it, anyway) that editors are mainly involved in reviewing submitted sites. In particular, the description of "Greenbusters" under Types of Editors.

... submissions, a great deal of which are misplaced and belong in another category, or are spam...
... get your fellow submitters to stop submitting so much garbage...

Not to put words in your mouth(s), but this seems to indicate that some (many? most?) editors have become frustrated with dealing with bad submissions, and are focused more on finding sites on their own rather than helping clear the backlog of submitted sites. Am I totally off-base on that?

(Original post) ... I cannot apply to be an editor of the category which holds my interest ...
... Categories can have more than one editor ...
... Patently untrue. No editor "owns" a category ...

Well, yes, I have seen multiple editors for a category. However, the editor application form does not allow you to specify the cateory you are interested in, and if a category already has an editor the 'become an editor' links are not present.

... If you can't find three sites for a category, then better apply for another category ...
... Forget about the category that you really want to edit. Find some obscure, obviously underdeveloped category ...

Hmmmm... that had occurred to me, but didn't feel quite right.

As I originally said, I arrived here looking for related websites, not because I have a bunch of sites that I want to try and get listed. After reading a number of posts in the Status forum, and seeing the dreadfully long wait times for reviews, I figured I could spend a few hours a week reviewing submitted sites. I'd much prefer to do that with site content I'm interested in though.

(Original post) ... Make it maybe just a little easier for people to volunteer as editors ...
... Won't happen. Not without completely losing the quality that has made ODP so great ...

Well, just my opinion, but a time frame of possibly years to get a personal, non-commercial special-interest site listed in an index has little chance of enhancing the 'greatness' of ODP...

I can think of no solution to this problem, other than getting more editors working on the submissions backlogs, which would require being a bit more supportive of potential volunteer editors (perhaps add an encouraging suggestion to volunteer along with the standard "read the submission guidelines" responses to people querying their submission status).

Again, just my 2-cents worth (well, maybe only 1.5 cents this time

)

Don

bobrat · Jun 18, 2004

I don't have time to respond to all those points [I do think your questions are good]

Well, yes, I have seen multiple editors for a category. However, the editor application form does not allow you to specify the cateory you are interested in, and if a category already has an editor the 'become an editor' links are not present

.

I have to admit I hadn't though of that, so it's possible when I've seen a second editor turn up in a categroy, it was an existing editor.

There are always ongoing discussions on how get more good new editors - since it's true that we need them. But it is just as important to ensure that the work they do is up to standard, it take an inordinate amount of time to recover from the work of an incompetant [or possibly malicous] editor. It's a difficult balancing act.

Atlanta Realtor · Jun 18, 2004

bobrat said:
I see this a lot, there seems to be some mis-understanding that non-commercial sites can get listed in ODP easier than commercial ones, or that ODP prefers non-comerrical sites.

No question ODP could do with more volunteer editors, but it needs one who can edit according to the guidelines - not so easy to find them it seems.

Just an expression of the reality of the situation.

But that usually follows a statment by a submitter that goes something like "My site has been waiting to get reviewed for siz months, this is intolerable, I want my site listed right away. ODP has lost it's relevancy, and really sucks as a directory.

Yes it is, but since a large number of new editors keep getting approved, not impossible.

If you can't find three sites for a category, then better apply for another category. A good editor spends time searching for new sites, and does not depend on submissions, a great deal of which are misplaced and belong in another category, or are spam.

Categories can have more than one editor. It's not uncommon for a new editor to be accepted if they existing editor is not relly doing much in that category.

Personally I would not like to see the rules relaxed.

We have recently done that with some non-public discussion. However, it does get difficult to say the same thing hundreds of time a day in a positive manner.

E.g If a request is not posted according to the guidelines, what should we do, spend time writing long hand holding help to get it posted correctly, reply with the standard cold response, or just delete the post.

Quote: E.g If a request is not posted according to the guidelines, what should we do, spend time writing long hand holding help to get it posted correctly, reply with the standard cold response, or just delete the post.

Well not to flame anyone but I do know of another editor that does do that. If there is a problem with the site they will send the site owner an email and ask them to make changes according to guidelines.

I feel if you agree to become an editor you should be willing to help. If a site has a problem that can be addressed then yes send that person an email and ask to to make the chages to meet guidelines. I think that is the problem the editors are over burden with submits and dont take the time to try and help correct the problems they may see. Its just like real estate..sometimes we get so busy with clients we forget that we do have to hand hold some people to get them to the closing table. We do this because it is our job. Anytime you accept a position to do some type of work it then becomes a job and you are bound to perform that job to the best of your abilities.

If this means you must email someone to help them then so be it but IMHO it is wrong to just blow it off and move on to the next submit because you have so many to get to and put that website at the bottom of the pile or decline it because you dont have time to work with the website/webmaster or owner. There is an old saying " You cant Fix it if you dont know whats broke" Not everyone understands or even knows what the guidelines are for the directory. Plus it also depends on who is reviewing the site. I know of sites that were decline one day and approved the following.

I also own a mortgage banking company and its compares to underwriters. Since their word is golden no matter what the guidelines are.. I have seen underwriters decline files today that meet guidelines and approve them a week later. Maybe that day they were in a bad mood or maybe they had to much of a work load and one thing just didnt look right so they moved on to the next file or whatever. Point is when you accept this kind of position you must make every effort to try and help those that submit get accepted. IMHO

pvgool · Jun 18, 2004

Well, yes, I have seen multiple editors for a category. However, the editor application form does not allow you to specify the cateory you are interested in, and if a category already has an editor the 'become an editor' links are not present.

The fact that a certain category has an editor and doesn't accept new editors are not related to each other. In many categories we, for some reason, don't want new editors. Mostly this is beacuse the catagory with all it's sub categories is much to large for a newby to handle.
And I know for fact that there are many categories were an editor name is listed and that accept new editor requests. Excample http://dmoz.org/Society/Genealogy/Heraldry/

kapuni · Jun 18, 2004

Im not sure how many status enquiries you get per day, but certainly the number on this forum is very low (for a computer to handle).

If it was up to me, I'd be tempted to install a system, publicised through these forums, which applicants and submittors could use to check simply whether their request is in the system or not.

Whether the enquiry is human or computer controlled is irrelevant, they still use roughly the same resources.

I can't help feeling there is another reason why this hasnt been done.

I was just trying to think of a way that Meta's/Editors could free their time to clear some of the backlog, instead of having to answer repetitive forum posts. It must get very tedious.

Regards,

Martin

bobrat · Jun 18, 2004

The subject actually comes up many, many, many times in this forum. A simple answer [it's actually more complicated]

First the database can't currently support it, thats why we ask several hundred times a day, for status requests to include the category, without which we often cannot find the status. So ODP would have to move to a new database system.

Secondly, there aren't enough paid resources to put on the job.

Third, it would require a whole validation, subscription and password system to ensure that only the site owner could find his status, and not look at a competitors status.

Fourth, this would require a substantial increase in hardware requirements [once people knew there was an automatic system] the demand would be thousands of times greater than the requests in this forum.

Fifth, this would help the spam submitter more than it would help us.

But the bottom line, is that ODP is not a service for submitters, so if we had all this money and resources and programmers, they would be put to work on editor tools rather than a submission status system.

dogbows · Jun 18, 2004

justobserving said:
Hmmmm... that had occurred to me, but didn't feel quite right.

As I originally said, I arrived here looking for related websites, not because I have a bunch of sites that I want to try and get listed. After reading a number of posts in the Status forum, and seeing the dreadfully long wait times for reviews, I figured I could spend a few hours a week reviewing submitted sites. I'd much prefer to do that with site content I'm interested in though.

Don

So are you saying that you would not find it interesting to edit a variety of sites in your home town or city? That is what I find most rewarding as an editor. In the beginning I thought I would only be interested in editing in the category that relates to what I do. But guess what? I have no desire to edit there anymore. Most of the site owners that I list do not even know that the Open Directory Project even exists. So there is seldom a site submission to the category that I edit. However, I receive great pleasure in finding sites for my locality and listing them. I guess it just depends on whether you really want to edit for the good of the directory and it's end users, or for the good of submitters. I choose the former.

motsa · Jun 18, 2004

justobserving wrote: Well, yes, I have seen multiple editors for a category. However, the editor application form does not allow you to specify the cateory you are interested in, and if a category already has an editor the 'become an editor' links are not present.

That's actually quite incorrect. Every category that is accepting new editors has a big ole green and grey "Become an editor | Help build the largest human-edited directory of the web" graphic on the bottom left of the page (on the line where the mozilla image is, right below where the editor name or "Volunteer to edit this category" link is).

Atlanta Realtor wrote: I feel if you agree to become an editor you should be willing to help. If a site has a problem that can be addressed then yes send that person an email and ask to to make the chages to meet guidelines. ... Anytime you accept a position to do some type of work it then becomes a job and you are bound to perform that job to the best of your abilities. If this means you must email someone to help them then so be it but IMHO it is wrong to just blow it off and move on to the next submit...Point is when you accept this kind of position you must make every effort to try and help those that submit get accepted. IMHO

The mistake you're making is in thinking that our "job" is to hand-hold submitters until their sites are accepted into the directory. It's not. Editors aren't required to converse with submitters nor should they be. That's not what they signed on for. They don't have to email submitters to help them, they don't have to make every effort to work with a submitter, they don't have to have any contact whatsoever with a submitter. In fact, we generally encourage editors to NOT contact submitters. So you're operating on a completely wrong premise there.

kapuni wrote: I was just trying to think of a way that Meta's/Editors could free their time to clear some of the backlog, instead of having to answer repetitive forum posts. It must get very tedious.

Hate to be repetitive here myself but the backlog doesn't consume our waking thoughts. Frankly, if you managed to help me free up my time, I probably wouldn't be wasting it on the pool of suggested sites.

Atlanta Realtor · Jun 18, 2004

motsa said:
The mistake you're making is in thinking that our "job" is to hand-hold submitters until their sites are accepted into the directory. It's not. Editors aren't required to converse with submitters nor should they be. That's not what they signed on for. They don't have to email submitters to help them, they don't have to make every effort to work with a submitter, they don't have to have any contact whatsoever with a submitter. In fact, we generally encourage editors to NOT contact submitters. So you're operating on a completely wrong premise there.

Well if that is the case then you cant have your cake and eat it to. You say you want this directory to contain valuble information for the consumer. If say a very good website has something that doesnt meet ODP guidelines does that mean the website should be rejected or thrown to the bottom of the pile? I would offer that if this is the case then the directory is only as good as the category and editor in that category and isnt equal in quality sitewide. So therefore the guidelines dont have any meaning only the editor and their approach to editing have any meaning. So that would leave me to believe that each category has different quality websites in it and not so much listed by ODP guidelines.

kctipton · Jun 18, 2004

Interesting convolution of the issues of accepting editors and getting sites listed and answering questions in Resource-Zone.

Spam-choked categories aren't popular and don't get edited in the way many people wish -- by reviewing each suggested listing one by one. Surprisingly, plenty of people apply to edit those categories (say, over a year's time, not daily), but they can't be trusted with such a starter category for various, hopefully obvious reasons. Yes, it's a catch-22 situation but directory integrity is more important than anything else. Listing the latest, greatest site is what we want, but if it's that good it'll probably be found some way other than by being submitted for review.

Every directory has guidelines. Our guidelines mention that no site is guaranteed a listing and that no listing is permanent. We're allowed to delete unlistable sites or leave them sitting in the unreviewed queue forever. That's how it is.

The people who answer questions in resource-zone are volunteers who happen to be editors. Nobody's required to help out here, and very few do, actually. You and others should be glad that questions get answered. Does Yahoo have a place like this? Does Google? Does Zeal? Really, we are going out of our way here at RZ, far more than any other reasonably important directory or search engine on the web.

justobserving · Jun 18, 2004

... there are many categories where an editor name is listed and that accept new editor requests ...

Sorry, my bad... I had clicked into perhaps 20 category pages which have one or more editors, and had yet to see one that still accepted new editor requests. My assumption then was that one must apply in a category which does not yet have an editor, and then (once accepted) apply internally to be added to the other category.

I stand corrected... Don

justobserving · Jun 18, 2004

... Most of the site owners that I list do not even know that the Open Directory Project even exists. So there is seldom a site submission to the category that I edit. However, I receive great pleasure in finding sites for my locality and listing them. I guess it just depends on whether you really want to edit for the good of the directory and it's end users, or for the good of submitters. I choose the former ...

OK, I think we can all agree now that, as a general rule (there are always, of course, exceptions), editors do not spend much time (if any) reviewing submitted sites. They are apparently not expected to, either.

This certainly clears up several issues, including answering my original post about the "three new sites" requirement on the editor application.

Perhaps the best course of action for ODP is to remove the 'suggest URL' option entirely? I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I have most definitely gotten the impression that submitted URLs are given a very low priority, and many are possibly never even looked at.

However, since my original post was not meant to start a 'how do I get listed' thread here, I don't need to go on about that. I do think it deserves further comment though... so, is there an email address or more appropriate forum for contacting the DMOZ/ODP site administrators?

I may still attempt to volunteer as an editor... It is worth noting that, among the replies to this thread I see 5 users listed as 'Editor,' one listed as 'Meta' and one listed as 'Meta, Administrator' - yet, not one reply contained anything I could construe as an encouragement to me to volunteer.

So the question in my original thread title remains unanswered...

Don (opinion now valued at roughly 0.75 cents

)

justobserving · Jun 18, 2004

... descriptions would suffer, taxonomy would be wrong, and the directory ...

Forgot to mention earlier...
Gotta luv someone who uses a term such as "taxonomy" in a casual forum posting...
How very erudite! Kudos!

(<- please note the smiley face...)

Don

motsa · Jun 18, 2004

OK, I think we can all agree now that, as a general rule (there are always, of course, exceptions), editors do not spend much time (if any) reviewing submitted sites. They are apparently not expected to, either....Perhaps the best course of action for ODP is to remove the 'suggest URL' option entirely? I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I have most definitely gotten the impression that submitted URLs are given a very low priority, and many are possibly never even looked at.

It depends on the category but it isn't a rare occurrence for editors to dip into the suggested pool. Most editors will review suggested sites in most categories at some point in time but it's true that the suggested pool isn't the only or even the best place to look for sites to add to most categories. That doesn't negate the fact that it is *a* place to look for potentially listable sites.

wrathchild · Jun 18, 2004

justobserving said:
OK, I think we can all agree now that, as a general rule (there are always, of course, exceptions), editors do not spend much time (if any) reviewing submitted sites. They are apparently not expected to, either.

Not true and not true. Very much of this depends on the category. Recreation/Food/Drink/Beer , for instance, only has a couple of unreviewed right now, and they're being researched. Usually they are handled there within a day or three.

Individual editors aren't required to handle unreviewed. Working with the unreviewed is one of the many things that editors (as a group) are expected to do.

justobserving said:
Perhaps the best course of action for ODP is to remove the 'suggest URL' option entirely?

This has been suggested many times, internally and externally, usually only half joking. For myself, I'd jettison the whole Shopping category altogether. But, that's not my decision to make. Again, in other parts of the directory, site suggestions are quite a valuable resource. It's just in the areas that everyone wants to be where it's value is considered much lower, and also happens to be most prone to abuse. "No one goes there any more, it's too crowded."

justobserving said:
is there an email address or more appropriate forum for contacting the DMOZ/ODP site administrators?

staff@dmoz.org.

justobserving said:
I may still attempt to volunteer as an editor... It is worth noting that, among the replies to this thread I see 5 users listed as 'Editor,' one listed as 'Meta' and one listed as 'Meta, Administrator' - yet, not one reply contained anything I could construe as an encouragement to me to volunteer.

So my little tips on how to find a category where you are more likely to be accepted were too subtle for you?

The ODP is always looking for good editors. If you think you can be a good editor, I encourage you to apply.

Sorry it's not engraved.

justobserving said:
So the question in my original thread title remains unanswered...

Which was?

DMOZ/ODP needs more editors, but do they really want them?

justobserving

Member

bobrat

Member

kapuni

Member

wrathchild

william13

Member

justobserving

Member

bobrat

Member

Atlanta Realtor

Member

pvgool

kEditall/kCatmv

kapuni

Member

bobrat

Member

dogbows

Member

motsa

Atlanta Realtor

Member

kctipton

Member

justobserving

Member

justobserving

Member

justobserving

Member

motsa

wrathchild