Editors, Categories, Checks and Balance's

More questions came up during my searching for answers

1.This is a rough esitimate and I have found lot sof them, 289,522 people posting can not all be wroung. There are some real issues concerning, editors coruption baned listings for editorial mistakes made. Some one must be accountable and it cant be the submitters fault all the time. I know before you even go there and say most of the time it is, I have been reading and this does not seem to hold true

2. I have read complaints of Editors over loaded and or taking to much and putting in too little.

3. Please remember I have been watching the category and the upper levels this tree appears to have become root bound and or needs a bigger pot. Why has the growth stoped on this tree.

4. Remembering what you have said the editor does not have to list everything, so what is going to stop him from using the trash can on most of the submisions, and then starting from there.

5. Again I read editors complaining in offsite forums seems to be a system of checks and balances missing here, and use of unwheeleding power when it comes to submissions.

6. I do beleive there is some corruption, and so do some of your Editors you should have the same tools I have, I know you cant get them and it would be nice then you would see just what I am really talking about. maybe some one should look into this, maybe it is ready being looked in to. Can this really be true and if so why

7. Some of your own editors speak up in other places and forget to spoof there **************, thats how I found there comments and concerns of corruption. Why cant editors come forward in forums like here and why do they have to go other places to say some thing. So yes I am looking at everything the whole picture.


8. I forgot what I was tring to ask here

9. You can wear blinders if you want, this still does not solve the problems and questions people ask, and telling them to go to FAQ, will not make the problems go away.

10. My question is and I am still asking is there an editor for the category I was looking at. I am not asking if he or she is working it just is there one asigned to this category.

11. the category has a question asking people to volunteer for for this category. Does this category need an editor is that the reson for the question at the bottome of the page.

12. If there is no Editor for a category do submissions just go unanswered as leaves in an open feild to be blown away in the fall and rot down to dirt in the winter.

13. what happens when all else fails.

14. who picks up the pieces

You're still not really asking much in the way of questions. You're stating what you perceive to be reality with a tiny question or two buried deep in the rhetoric. And those questions have all been answered many time over just within this site -- had you done a little research here, you would have found most if not all of your questions answered.

Don't be fooled into thinking that you know all there is to know simply because you have tools you think no one else has. And don't mistake your ignorance of checks and balances for proof that they don't exist.

My question is and I am still asking is there an editor for the category I was looking at.

Click to expand...

All meta and editall editors can edit in every category. In addition, any listed editors in the category you're interested in or its parent and grandparent categories would also have the ability to edit there. Can we tell you whether anyone is actively editing there? We could possibly but we won't because it's meaningless -- an editor may be active in an area at this very moment but be doing something else in 30 seconds. Can we tell you whether anyone is going to want to edit there at any specific point in the nebulous future? No. If you suggest your site to a category and none of the 100+ editors who can review suggestions there choose to do so, then your suggestion waits until someone does.

Editors over loaded and taking or overloaded and taking on to much and putting in too little.

Click to expand...

Editors are not required to put in a minimum amount of effort so there is really no such thing as too little effort.

duplicate please delete this post

I do not know every thing or claim to know that is why I have asked about 14 questions. The more I find and see the more questions I have to ask.

As far as ignorance the only ignorant question is the one that goes unasked.

Editors are not required to put in a minimum amount of effort so there is really no such thing as too little effort.

Click to expand...

ok in another post in another thread not mine an editor took off for family issues and some other thing not shure as to what all transpired there, he was dismissed for life never to be reinstated again as an editor. So there must have been some kind of minimum.

If you suggest your site to a category and none of the 100+ editors who can review suggestions there choose to do so, then your suggestion waits until someone does.

Click to expand...

I thought there were twenty thousand + editors or is this the number of editors assigned to a root category.

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 -- not questions

4, 10, 12, 13, 14 -- questions

5 != 14

Most of your questions are answered in the FAQ here. You should read that first.

A couple of answers that will help you adjust your attitude to reality:
#4: "What keeps an editor from deleting most of the suggestions?"

The answer is: nothing at all keeps that from happening. That's what happens, and that is what OUGHT to happen. Because most of the suggestions are as useless as, um, as most Google search results. That's because they come from the same place.

"What happens if something slips through the cracks? (12-14)"

And the answer is: it slips through the cracks.

See, NOTHING gets picked up unless some volunteer thinks it's worth picking up. And NOTHING gets eternally discarded just because one volunteer DOESN'T think it's worth picking up.

So what falls through MY net, falls down to the next editor who's fishing. The more editors, the more gets caught. But always, however many editors there are, what doesn't get caught, swims free.

>I thought there were twenty thousand + editors or is this the number of editors assigned to a root category


The latter: there are a hundred or so editors who can edit any category.

Don't think of editors "assigned" to a category, like prisoners in a dungeon cell. Think of it as editors having "entry rights" (like a passport or key) to places. And as many keys as are practicable are given out.

Actualy most of them are questions just poorly phrased, not phrased as a questions missing the questions marks. I try to get what is on my mind on paper before I forget. In doing this words get droped and it does not come out just right.

I have seen the post about "I did not submit my site there why was it put there then later deleted" this was a post I read as well.

hutcheson said:

>I thought there were twenty thousand + editors or is this the number of editors assigned to a root category


The latter: there are a hundred or so editors who can edit any category.

Don't think of editors "assigned" to a category, like prisoners in a dungeon cell. Think of it as editors having "entry rights" (like a passport or key) to places. And as many keys as are practicable are given out.

Click to expand...

that makes sense

Could I make a small request? Please don't keep editing your posts after people have replied to you. It's one thing to edit a post when no one has yet replied but it's bad forum protocol to edit a post significantly after it's been replied to. If you have additional comments to make, add a new post instead. That way the thread of the discussion is maintained.

I had to go back and fix the poorly phrased questions. And for some reson I get timed out and logged out so to keep from loosing the post I save it quick and continue to add.

You may want to draft your posts in Notepad or something first and then copy and paste them into the forum when you're satisfied with their content. That way you'll have the leisure to edit them to your heart's content. Essentially, please try to treat your posts as static messages rather than works in progress once you've posted them.

I remember what question eight was now, I have several domains I do not list them on the seach engines, I buy these domains for there traffic parking them on the main domain as a minor.
Once the site traffic is gone, I some times sell the domain unless I get hits, then it still remains parked

I am worried after reading numerous post concerning mirriored sites, black hatting, and page cloaking that this could cause a problem with Dmoz....

These domains are not listed anywere other then in my excell spread sheet.

You would not know to visit them unless you were a visitor of the site before I bought it. I have also read problems concerning this and it did not seem to get addressed very well either.

>"I did not submit my site there why was it put there then later deleted"

This is said fairly often. It betrays the hidden assumption that if "I" don't initieate something, it remains forever impossible for all other, inferior beings to accomplish.

But the fact is, what "I" do has nothing whatsoever to do with what some editor (or some other editor) CAN do, and very little to do with what they DO do.

So, yes, someone added six or eight million sites to the directory, even though you (WHOEVER you are) didn't suggest them; and someone re-reviewed and removed one or three million sites, even though you (WHOEVER you are) didn't know about any of this.

The most puzzling thing about this, is that there's anything at all remotely puzzling to anyone about it.

The most puzzling thing about this, is that there's anything at all remotely puzzling to anyone about it.

Click to expand...

Is there a word missing here, or am I just not understanding you

hutcheson said:

Most of your questions are answered in the FAQ here. You should read that first.

A couple of answers that will help you adjust your attitude to reality:
#4: "What keeps an editor from deleting most of the suggestions?"

The answer is: nothing at all keeps that from happening. That's what happens, and that is what OUGHT to happen. Because most of the suggestions are as useless as, um, as most Google search results. That's because they come from the same place.

Click to expand...

This kind of worries me because you tell people submitting a site once is more then enough,I have read this as well...

So if peoplle are not supose to submit more then once then when the submissions are deleted to get the category caught up. You sould not here from the person ever again because there site probably was not good any way even if it was never reviewed at all.

So a person could go along time asking about a site, being told to wait and be patient, and that some one will probably reviewing there site. Mean while Dick Dastardly has already tied the web site to the rail road tracks and it is gone.

Do I undstand this write?

timamie261 said:

Do I undstand this write?

Click to expand...

Yes, you do.

So every one is ok with this, How do you feel about this your self?

Knowing that people are being told to be patient, and there site submission has probably been deleted.

Do you feel right giving some one the standard answer with this in your mind?

how does this sit with you as well hutcheson?

You're worried about Dick Dastardly deep-sixing your site?

Go to the archived "submittal status" forum.

Read as many thousand posts as you like.

Then you can answer the question yourself: how often does this problem actually occur? So is it worth the webmaster obsessing over it?

Now: the situation DOES happen. I know, and other editors know, because we've all found websites that were listable, but turned out to have been suggested and rejected some time in the past. (In other words, we can know the problem happens only in cases where the ODP mechanisms, ALL BY THEMSELVES, have automatically recovered from it: taken the website off the rails after Dick Dastardly left.

But, yes, the presumption remains: some sites have gotten missed so far. Which is why the ODP isn't finished yet.

Some sites aren't listed yet. We know that.

Regardless of the approach taken, some sites will NEVER be listed. YOU NEED to know THAT.

Once those two points are understood, then we can start asking the only question that matters: "What's the best way to find good websites that aren't listed yet?"

And when we get to that point, it'll become obvious that re-reviewing rejected site suggestions is nearly always a total waste of time. And it'll be obvious why nobody is falling all over themselves to do it, and why no rational person would EXPECT us to waste a whole lot of time doing it.

Knowing that people are being told to be patient, and there site submission has probably been deleted.

Click to expand...

You keep reading so much more into simple statements than is actually there. The fact that it can happen doesn't mean it happens very often. For 99.999+% of the listable sites that have been suggested to us but aren't listed yet, the answer to the question of "Why isn't my site listed yet?" is "Because no one has gotten around to reviewing it yet." That's it. Nothing dastardly. Nothing abusive.

motsa]You keep reading so much more into simple statements than is actually there. The fact that it [b]can[/b] happen doesn said:

listable[/I'] sites that have been suggested to us but aren't listed yet, the answer to the question of "Why isn't my site listed yet?" is "Because no one has gotten around to reviewing it yet." That's it. Nothing dastardly. Nothing abusive.

Click to expand...

This is an editor I hope never to meet and I qoute him

It's another day and more submissions are lining my queues. I go to a cafe with free internet access and cute college age kids behind the counter, and log in to one of my dmoz accounts using firefox to spoof the OS and browser. Then I delete a handful of listings starting from the top without even looking at them. The next batch I include but I make sure to drain the listings of any useful keywords. The next bunch I keep on hold for the next time. I have a few listings that have been on hold for, I kid you not, eighteen months

Click to expand...

There are several veriations different people, all say they have blindly deleted sumissions as well none as so arogant as the guy above, none the less, they admited to starting out with a good cause then turning to the dark side blindly deleting sites.

To now see som shread of truth to there posts is some what saddening that some one could even think of doing some thing like this to some one else.

Yes I am very different. I could not do this to someone and then continue on.

When I get on shore I have a problem sleeping and find my self up for days sometimes a week straight with about 4 hours of sleep as an editor I would have to consider every option before dumping a site in the waste bin. Then I would have to send an email to the reason why "if nothing more then a simple form that was generated as a simple checkmark scoreboard to generate the email sent". While I can ask editors to do this I would expect them to give it an honest go of it.