Editor seems to be inactive

persistrader · Nov 27, 2005

<editor information removed>

I'm not simply claiming that because I waited for 3 days and my submission wasn't listed. It's not like that. I have serious indications that this editor is INACTIVE.

persistrader · Nov 27, 2005

Last update: 20:21 PT, Friday, August 12, 2005

spectregunner · Nov 27, 2005

We have an item in our FAQ that addresses how long it takes for a site to be reviewed.

I'm not sure how you have expectations that someone would have looked at your site within three days. It could easily be three years.

Further, in addition to the named editor -- who may or may not be inactive (only that editor knows for sure) there are more than 200 other editors who can edit in any given category.

Regardless, editing is much, much, more than reviewing submissions (we prefer the term suggestions, because it more accurately represents what they are), and highly active editors may or may not ever touch a suggestion, as they are simply not very high on many editor's priority list, so there is no correlation between looking at suggestions or editor activity. Even that little date onteh bottom of the category is misleading, as there are many valuable editing tasks one can perform that do not result in a date change.

So, I imagine that the bottom line here is, thanks for the note, but don't expect anyone to roar into action as a result -- as there is really no action to roar into.

motsa · Nov 27, 2005

And? You'd like us to take a whip to him to make him review your site? Editors are not required to maintain a minimum level of activity beyond making one edit every four months. Review of site suggestions can take anywhere from minutes to years so a few months is well within the standard time range. All you can do is wait...patiently or not is your choice but wait, I'm afraid, is it.

hutcheson · Nov 27, 2005

This isn't something that we monitor. It's like, you know, whoever it was, it was an unpaid volunteer.

So whatever he does, it is more than would have gotten done if he hadn't volunteered to do it. And whatever he doesn't do, still can be done by another volunteer.

Three days is much too long to wait, though. If I were you I'd stop waiting.

bobrat · Nov 27, 2005

Most site owners would be jumping with joy if their sites were listed within a week. Your expectations are unrealistic.

Although many sites do end up getting listed within a few days of being suggested, it's not something anyone should expect.

persistrader · Nov 28, 2005

I am sorry my ENglish is not so good and this caused a misinerpretation of what I said. I was trying to say that I'm NOT making this post because I waited a ridiculously small amount of time and my site wasn't listed and I'm jumping with impatiece. NO! I waited for over a year (and this is a very small sub-category that does not get a lot of submissions) and before that the directory had no editor. The new editor seems to never have done anything. I know people with similar sites and they waited with no results for long periods of time as well.

Very soon there will be NO EDIT WITHIN 4 MONTHS! In fact on Dec 12.
"Last update: 20:21 PT, Friday, August 12, 2005"

Please understand there's a healthy basis to what I'm saying.

motsa said:
And? You'd like us to take a whip to him to make him review your site? Editors are not required to maintain a minimum level of activity beyond making one edit every four months. Review of site suggestions can take anywhere from minutes to years so a few months is well within the standard time range. All you can do is wait...patiently or not is your choice but wait, I'm afraid, is it.

motsa · Nov 28, 2005

Someone pointed out to me that my previous post sounded sarcastic but, while I wrote somewhat facetiously when I mentioned whips, I was being serious otherwise -- what do you want us to do with the information you provided? We aren't going to force the listed editor to review the waiting suggestions nor is anyone who's viewing this thread going to suddenly rush into that category to review the waiting suggestions simply because you think four months is too long for the category to have no public edits.

Very soon there will be NO EDIT WITHIN 4 MONTHS! In fact on Dec 12.

Aw, heck, I can show you categories that haven't been updated in years. Four months is nothing surprising.

hutcheson · Nov 28, 2005

Assuming edits are evenly distributed, the AVERAGE category has gone without an edit for about 6 months. Of course, edits are NOT evenly distributed, so the actual average must be higher.

But this also is something we don't track, because there is absolutely nothing constructive we can do with that information either.

texasville · Nov 28, 2005

I'm sorry but I got a real chuckle visioning Motsa replacing the wand with a whip. Even if it was unintended, thanks!

bobrat · Nov 28, 2005

Are you kidding, that's not a wand that's a Morgenstern. And it hurts a lot when I get hit with it.

Morgenstern

motsa · Nov 28, 2005

I thought that was our little "secret", bobrat.

monayuki · Nov 28, 2005

I am a New Member Here and have been wondering have they read this How to suggest a site to the Open Directoryseems a lot are in a rush to get listed.

The Very Young Dont Always Do What They Are Told

Patience is Virtue

dogbows · Nov 28, 2005

Texasville, you only see the public vision that motsa wants you to see. She is actually the evil witch instead. If you don't believe me asked her just how close she came to being voted the "Most Evil Meta" in our awards contest that just closed. I suspect that the only reason she came in second is because too many were afraid of what she would do with that whip of hers if they *did* vote for her. I know I was!

motsa · Nov 28, 2005

Note to self: Proof-read campaign literature more closely -- "...whipped if you do vote for me" should read "...whipped if you don't vote for me".

Further note to self: Fire campaign cat, I mean, coordinator.

dogbows · Nov 28, 2005

Accckkkk! Ouch!! I promise!!! I promise!!!! You have my vote!!!!! Motsa is Most Evil One!!!!!! :lightning

oneeye · Nov 29, 2005

I don't think so. Too much hugging and kissing has sent her soft.

persistrader · Nov 29, 2005

What kind of an editor is that? That hasn't done anything for 4 months? You say that's normal? Are requirements to editors this low? Or there's no requirements AT ALL? You know what.. Don't think that DMOZ is the ultimate it. With this kind of service (even though it's volunteer and free), another free and volunteer directory can emerge and beat the pants of DMOZ. You all sound too arrogant here and imcompassionate.

nea · Nov 29, 2005

An editor account automatically becomes inactive if the editor hasn't made an edit in four months, yes. I don't know what the average number of edits per month and editor is. Does that number matter? We don't think it does. On the other hand, there are requirements for becoming, and being, an editor. Editors are held accountable for their edits, but the accountability is within the editing community. There are repercussions for being abusive - but not editing for four months is not abuse.

Of course another free, volunteer directory can come up and beat the pants off DMOZ. I don't think you'll find anybody here saying that's an impossible scenario. And maybe they would offer service for webmasters, which as you know is a niche we don't try to fill.

persistrader · Nov 30, 2005

OK so after 4 months, editor account becomes inactive and then what? Nothing?

Editor seems to be inactive

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Meta & kMeta

Member