Help Where Help is Needed

Hi all,

I understand that categories with heavy volume are not recommended for first-time moderators, but does such a rule not also serve to lock out quality help from a category where help is most needed?

I have applied to moderate a particular category for which URL submissions have gone unanswered or missing for up to a year. This category NEEDS HELP. Regardless, myself and others in my community have been refused the opportunity to break this log jam loose, all for the ironic reason that this particular category is "too big." We are effectively told to take our relevant professional experience to some other category. [?!] I simply cannot see the logic in turning away qualified help (or allowing moderators to turn away qualified help) where a demand is so overwhelmingly apparent.

Am I on track here or am I overlooking something?

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I'm definitely not a meta editor and I have nothing to do with the editor approval process. Given that, let me share some thoughts:

New editors are generally started off in smaller categories where there are few problems. There is a ton of learning that needs to take place before an editor becomes experienced.

New editors are also given smaller categories because, frankly, if they really screw up or are malicious, the damage can be minimized and the scope of repair is not too great.

New editors, editing and learnign in their small categories are providing a valuable service to the directory. Every properly done edit is valuable, every properly added site is valuable. In addition, they are freeing up a more senior editor to go work in some of the more complex categories, where the experience of thousands, or tens of thousands of edits helps them handle the "problematic" submissions, which may not appear to be "problematic" to the less exprienced eye.

To help make this a bit more personal, I have more than 7,500 edits under my belt, and there are any number of categoies that I would be hesitant to undertake, not because of subject matter, but due to my knowledge of just how much about editing I do not know.

Hope this helps.

Being an ODP editor of any status, regardless of you're editing a category of 3 sites or 100,000, is placing yourself in a position of trust.

The community functions best if newcomers are not given immense privileges without any prior experience regardless of your credentials. There are people with PhDs in their given field yet they are not automatically given access to edit such categories because of the 'integrity factor.'

People who are seeking a higher place up in the editor hierarchy would do best by possessing a respectful, mature, and patient attitude. This also applies to potentials who are in fact waiting on a joining application.

Specifically, even if you know the most about your subject there is no indication that you might 'self-cool' your own sites or promote them in any way that is contrary to ODP guidelines.

I do not mean to implicate that you yourself are an untrustworthy person, but with a good 100,000 editors there's always a handful that use their privileges for personal gain, and ODP is quick to remove these types of people.

ODP continues to be a most honorable project and I imagine the only things that lay ahead of them in the future can take them in a direction that leads solely upwards. I applaud you all for your hard work!

but does such a rule not also serve to lock out quality help from a category where help is most needed?

Click to expand...

Three points from my Meta-side of view:

1) An editor in a small category with few submissions can look for sites himself. In fact, from my own "life" as an editor I know that this is the way the best sites are found. People with great sites normally don't bother with submitting them somewhere. They have plenty of backlinks from everywhere just because the site is great. In my opinion adding that specific site weighs more than a dozen sites that are just good enough for a listing. As a result I prefer adding new editors to small categories, where they can add sites on their own.

2) If we accept editors to large categories with lots of submissions, this will give the editor a lot to do, that is true. We might benefit a lot, that is true, too. But if the editor goes berserk, we will have to spend whole days reparing the damage. I did this job several times myself. You can imagine that we try not to do this to often.

3) In a big category, only a very addicted editor would be a help for long. He would have to spend a lot of time on the ODP - otherwise he would never feel the satisfaction of "having cleared all unreviewed" and soon become very frustrated. Now, if this very addicted editor starts in a small category, he will have made it into a large one soon. And if he has done this properly, we assume he will perform as well in another large category. So he will be accepterd if he applies for that one, too. In the end, we gain much more benefit this way.

Thank you all for your helpful replies.

I must confess that I am now more curious to see the DMOZ from the inside than ever. I can certainly understand the importance of trust -- it stands at the heart of DMOZ's quality -- but still question the efficiency of a system that sends would-be firemen away from a fire. I can't help but think that there exists a better solution. But, until I see the process first-hand, I shouldn't pontificate.

Again, thank you.

but does such a rule not also serve to lock out quality help from a category where help is most needed?

Click to expand...

There are ways to help even without being an editor. You can always make really good suggestions - quality sites, to the most appropriate category, with titles and descriptions that follow ODP guidelines.

Probably you've read in these forums that there are no guarantees when an editor volunteer will do anything. But if an editor is glancing over a category with a whole pile of cruddy looking unviewed stuff, and there's one that appears pretty darn good, a lot of folks will go ahead and do that one first.

In addition, a lot of concerned net users, who are not editors, have contributed greatly by supporting our efforts at ongoing quality control. If you look in the Abuse Reporting fora, particularly at this thread, you will see ongoing evidence of these contributions.

but still question the efficiency of a system that sends would-be firemen away from a fire

Click to expand...

I think that you might be missing some info here. Just because we don't grant larger categories to new editors doesn't mean that we never grant these categories. Once an editor has experience editing they apply for new categories internally. Thats how editors get to those larger categories. I assume that this would be obvious but it seems like maybe it isn't.

Also, just because a category doesn't have a named editor it doesn't mean that no one is editing that category. Editors above and editors with "edit all" privileges can, and do, edit in those categories.

Don't assume that someone who knows the subject is always the best person for the job. Sometimes this is true and sometimes it's not. Having the most experience with a subject can sometimes be a hindrance. We're not always looking for subject experience as much as the ability to learn how to edit. You don't always need a fireman when a fire extinguisher will do the job

Also, categories that are considered to be a problem area by submitters (webmasters) are not always considered to be problems by editors. A category that already has a great many good resources with unique content does not need as much help as a category with outdated links and only a few sites listed, even if the first cat has hundreds of submissions waiting and the second cat has none.

We are building a directory, not processing submissions.