Editors taking leave of absence

I noticed in another Forum one active DMOZ editor saying he has been inactive for a long time, and was looking to maybe take it up again.
Is it fair to say that ODP now represents life on a larger scale? Some editors getting a bit tired or even sick of the volunteer job without notifying the system?
Could this be part of the backlog problem in ODP?
That backlog I have noticed now also includes many invalid url's or out of date reference url's in many cats.
I would say that editors who do not show up at least every three to four weeks should (un)voluntarily resign or at least have an 'Out of Office' sign in their profiles with a reason.

Is there a chance that ODP will become the victim of its own success? Especially as new editors are not accepted in larger cats where (with or without a specialist editor) the backlog just grows and grows?

I already made this point a long time ago offering to take on a cat which appeared hugely out of date. I was denied the opportunity to help out.

Dutch

As it stands an editor who never logs in or edits after acceptance has their login deactivated after 1 month. Editors who have edited time out if they do not edit for 4 months.

However sometimes editors have to drastically cut back on their editing due to Real Life - even so if they continue to edit a one edit a month they are contributing.

As no Editor has exclusive access to any category there is no reason to exclude them, and most editors that reduce their workload let other members of the team know when they will be unavailable. Part of editing is being a team player.

It does not have to take long for someone to edit larger categories, but they have to prove they can *edit* to the guidelines. Thats the reason for the 'Start Small' Mantra. You may be Albert Einstiens re-incarnation, but being able to form abstract Mathematical proofs do not make you an Editor.

Our guide to your ability is based on the potential in your application, then your practical ability in your chosen category. Once we have a baseline we can allow you to expand further, but we need that baseline to assess whether you have the understanding of, and ability to edit, larger categories.

Thanks for your comment gimmster,
I understand all your points and they are all valid.
The problem is sheer workload that you and many of your colleagues cannot handle efficiently anymore.
I know that for along time you guys have (voluntarily) tried very hard to take a good look at ODP, but the effect appears very limited and cannot stand up to the requests thrown your way.
I just propose to look at it again from the top down and using all the feedback you have received like in these forums.
That's why I sympathize with the point alarm makes in his post .

Ciao,

Dutch

The problem is sheer workload that you and many of your colleagues cannot handle efficiently anymore.
I know that for along time you guys have (voluntarily) tried very hard to take a good look at ODP, but the effect appears very limited and cannot stand up to the requests thrown your way.

Click to expand...

But we're not really concerned with listing every web site in the world. We're basically committed to building a comprehensive directory of quality web sites. So if people submit their web site for inclusion in the directory, that's great, but it really isn't the main focus of the ODP to list every user submitted web site in the world <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Dear Donald,

But we're not really concerned with listing every web site in the world. We're basically committed to building a comprehensive directory of quality web sites.

Click to expand...

My point exactly, although "quality websites" is very much in the eye of the beholder. ODP looks to have grown beyond its own statement of purpose and focus.
BtW, if every hosted domain (divided by 5) would be submitted the backlog would be 50 times larger.
The world is changing rapidly and the Open Directory Project cannot handle that change. I don't blame you or anyone. It's the system.
In 18 months time 50.000.000 more domains hosted to a total of 171.000.000. ODP has 4.000.000 sites listed and of those many are changing with new technology and subsequent knowledge arriving.
One of the problems: 20% of editors is responsible for 80% of traffic.

So if people submit their web site for inclusion in the directory, that's great, but it really isn't the main focus of the ODP to list every user submitted web site in the world

Click to expand...

What is the main focus of ODP then? Watching all these forums it looks like the focus is on defending out of date policies.
Nothing personal as I think the original initiative was a smart one and I would even love to help on a minor scale (4.000.000 sites /50.000 editors or so, if only someone would answer me (I have gone the regular route you know?).

Dutch

&gt;I would say that editors who do not show up at least every three to four weeks should (un)voluntarily resign or at least have an 'Out of Office' sign in their profiles with a reason.

In the face of a daunting amount of work, we feel that adding arbitrary strictures to the editors' responsibilities, and requiring activities that do not directly contribute to the directory, would be counterproductive.

A lot of applicants get all hung up about the presence of a listed editor. (That's why we encourage editors NOT to leave their name on low-level categories if they can edit them because of other permissions...and that way, submitters can get all hung up about the _absence_ of a listed editor.)

But these things aren't that big a deal. No editor owns a category, only meta-editors can control who else gets to edit "their" category (and you don't get to be a meta-editor without really really WANTING more people editing in your beloved categories that are being neglecting while doing meta-stuff.)

If a good application is written for a smallish category, it will "almost never" be rejected because of the number of editors. If the category is "neglected" (no edits within the last two months or so) I venture to say that it has _never_ happened. We know that "mystery editor XXXX" has 17 count them 17 categories" (just to pick a number out of a shoe), and we'd accept a new editor into any of them in a flash -- given a good application.

All very valid points Hutch.
But what is a good application?
One where I want to be transparent and apply for a cat that I know lots about and even have an interest?
Or one where I 'emotionally intelligent' mislead the meta.
How can you really tell?
Maybe I should look at your cats and see if there is something for me. Yet I prefer just to get an answer from the people where I believe my expertise can really be of use. Just wait and see.

Dutch

What is the main focus of ODP then?

Click to expand...

To build the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web.

But that doesn't mean that we are going to list every site in the world. We appreciate that people help out by submitting their web site for inclusion in the project. But we're not sitting around waiting for people to submit their web site. Part of an eitor's responsibilities is to go out and find those quality web sites to add to the directory.

comprehensive

Click to expand...

'Comprehensive' according to Thesaurus means |Including much| or |All inclusive|
'Most comprehensive' topples that.
OK, we're only human.

Dutch

&gt;But what is a good application?

The meta guidelines are open.

Basically: information demonstrating knowledge of subject, public-spiritedness, linguistic fluency sufficient to write professional-looking descriptions according to the guidelines, and ability to search the net well enough to find more sites applicable to that category.

&gt;&gt; comprehensive &lt;&lt;


Do we,

1. Include the majority of all of the web sites that ever published information on a particular subject, a vast amount?

or,

2. Include enough web sites with unique content so that a surfer has available almost every piece of information about a subject without vast amounts of repetition in those sites?



In this case one definately does not equal two.

[Answer: the ODP strives to do number two]


[Further thought: I don't want any comments about RDF dump thank you]

&gt;I would say that editors who do not show up at least every three to four weeks should (un)voluntarily resign or at least have an 'Out of Office' sign in their profiles with a reason.

This would be the wrong way to do it. Editors can contact other editors by e-mail. Thus, if say an editor of a subcat I edited were to go on a 3 month vacation, all they'd have to do is e-mail me saying so, and that I should handle everything until then. Also, higher level editors can check in see what is what in subcats. I wouldn't hesitate reviewing greens I found in a child cat that were 3 months old even if it did have a listed editor.

Dutch hits the nail on the head.
The problem of absent editors coupled with DMOZ's - might one say "puritanical" - approach to acceptance of new editors, even when they have a good profile and good area knowledge, will inevitably lead to DMOZ falling increasingly behind in its inclusion of new sites, even the most interesting ones. It is mathematically unavoidable, unless a lot more editors are recruited.
Even in the reasonably short term, a huge and growing backlog of unlisted sites can only serve to show that "humans do not do it best", however laudible the DMOZ ideal may be.
As one who has been twice rejected as an editor, and consequently given up trying (whose loss is that?), could I suggest that instead of refusing new editors and at the same time inviting them to "apply again for a smaller category", DMOZ changes policy, and accepts such editors but offering them a smaller cat than the one they originally applied for. That would save a lot of time, and bring in a lot more editors, and might just start to allow some of the backlog to be caught up. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

&gt;...accept editors but offer them a smaller cat than the one they originally applied for.

This is already the practice, if the descriptions look good and a couple of the sites would actually fit a smaller cat.

The difficulty here is that the sample URLs are used not only to guage proficiency in the target language, but also understanding of the taxonomy.

As the standard rejection letter indicates, these are two of the most common reasons for rejection. Just to make things more difficult, most people that don't have those skills don't recognize that they don't have those skills. (If they knew what they wrote was grammatically nonstandard or ambiguous, then they'd have known not to write it. If they had been able to notice that the ODP doesn't put retail with informational coin collecting sites, they would have realized listing a collector's personal page to the shopping category was a bad idea.)
And so people go away thinking "I made C or better in bonehead English all the way through high school. I may not be able to spell "scalar" but I be one. They couldn't reject me for cluelessness vis-a-vis the grammatical aspects of communicating in the indicative mood. Obviously they suspect me of abuse, or they are protecting their own abusive editors."

Or people look at a boilerplate list of six reasons for rejection, and say, "How could they reject me? Why, at least two and possibly four of these reasons could never apply to me...they must be lying!"

Well, taxonomy is a very concrete application of sets, and set theory is a branch of logic...and a severe deficiency in the capability of logical thought is a good predictor of poor performance at categorizing. If it must be spelled out: even if only ONE of those reasons apply, the application is rejected.

But if you can take that list of reasons, and write another application that _none_ of them can fit, well, you may not be accepted, but at the worst, you have a fairly good chance of getting a personal rejection note.

Remember that the editors who review applications have access to all sorts of information that other editors do not. If they think you would abuse your position as an editor, then no matter how good your application is, you'd be rejected.

Of course, we could lower the bar and accept more editors. But then the quality of our output would go down, and we don't want that.

How About A Compromise

I believe that both sides of this argument have valid points and therefore I point towards a compromise.

If the application shows promise but is not perfect the applicant would be allowed to edit a lower level cat far a probationary period. During this period editors could evaluate their work and decide if they should continue?

This is more of a win/win situation where new editors would be given a chance to prove themselves and learn more from experienced editors. This would create a better situation for both sides. Just a thought...

Ryan

Re: How About A Compromise

Speaking general that already is the case. Editor applications can be changedby metas so that a new editor can for example be assigned a subcategory of the original one. Of course:

1) The application has to show that the editor could handle that - if the Meta thinks he would screw up a small category it can be as much work to clear it as the next category up.

2) The application has to show some region of interest. If you apply for widgets and you provide a side about blue widgets, one about disabled widgets and one Online-Shop for widgets, and your details (like affiliation, "why I want to be an editor", ...) dont show any specific regions of interest - the meta could not be sure to do you a favour. So he maybe would reject with the notice to look for a smaller category yourself.

3) The application should show that the guy wants to be an editor. The additional work has to be justified. Its of no use attracting bad or selfish editors that way.