Editors Available

Here I would like to share from my experience,

I have submitted a lot of dead links under Report Hijacks, Dead Links, Inappropriate ODP Content, and other issues here ONLY.

I noticed that within some hours any editor done/remove that link from list and also replied in forum.

But, if you will check the categories "General ODP Issues" and "Suggesting a Site" then you will find that most editors/moderators/administrators replied to people that submitted/suggested site can take years to add.

I could not understand this sense that editors are present for removing a site but not present to add a site.

May be I am wrong

Sites suggested by the public are just one of many sources used to find sites suitable for listing in the directory. For instance, this week alone I have added over 40 sites in the categories I have permissions to edit. However very few of these were suggested by members of the public.

Therefore your assertion that editors are available to remove sites but do not add sites, is factually incorrect. It just happens that the sites suggested by the public is just one of many sources used by editors to find sites.

We get millions of listing suggestions, many of them unlistable.

We only get relatively few error reports and update requests. Since these are about websites that have already been evaluated and judged to be listable, many of us see processing them as being a quality control matter and thus more important.

editpk said:

I could not understand this sense that editors are present for removing a site but not present to add a site.

Click to expand...

It is very easy.
We focus on quality not quantity.
So any listing that needs correction (either changing, moving or deleting it) has priority over just another website to be added. Certainly when large numbers of those suggested websites are not listable at all.

Besides, we are all volunteers, and therefore we can spend our editing time however we like (as long as it is within the guidelines, of course).
Reviewing site suggestions is only one of many things editors do. Quality control is another useful activity, but there are many others, which is what makes being an editor so interesting.

I could not understand this sense that editors are present for removing a site but not present to add a site.

Click to expand...

In addition to the reasons mentioned by other people, this is EXTREMELY important: the "quality feedback" items are VERY high reliability (by open-for-all standards) -- a large majority of them are immediately useful, they point straight to some simple, quick job that will almost certainly improve the directory.

Whereas ... site suggestions are far, far otherwise. The vast majority of them are pure spam; ALL of the rest require site review, and MOST of them require selecting the best category (since site suggesters usually get that wrong.)

So, if YOU had a moment to make a quick improvement to YOUR website, and you had a list of easy, quick, VERY RELIABLE suggestions, and another list of VERY UNRELIABLE, LABOR-INTENSIVE suggestions ... which would YOU do first?

All help is appreciated, but the help that is appreciated most, and incorporated first, is the help that is easily distinguished from the non-help.

All help is appreciated, but the help that is appreciated most, and incorporated first, is the help that is easily distinguished from the non-help.

Click to expand...

Lovely! I might feel the need to plagiarise that .

We focus on quality not quantity.

Click to expand...

Easier said than done, apparently. I wonder how many editors actually pay attention to quality. And by that I mean quality in terms of descriptions. It takes next to no time for users to find categories that have sloppily described sites. I remember when I was an editor for a cat. in the Maldives, I had literally to rewrite practically every one of the descriptions I came across. It was so badly done originally I felt I had to do something if for no other reason than my own self-respect as an editor. In many cases it seems it might just be better to list a site and have no description at all than make a mess that's worse than nothing at all.