How often does editor check submitted links?
- Thread starter greatone
- Start date
G
gimmster
Yes, and when an editor gets to it they will review it. That might be today, but it might be years away (literally).
we don't do 'feedback'. What use is it to help us with listing content? The site will either be listable or not when reviewed, you can only work on the content and try to make it useful, unique, and comprehensive when reviewed (ie 'listable') until then.
No. An editor must make one edit every 4 months to stay an editor, we don't tell them when or where to make that edit. Additional edits are at the editors discretion, based on their interest, time available, online access, and alternate Real Life activities.
:tree:
Thanks for your answer Gimmster 
Another question:
Why does an editor will apply for being an editor if he can only give a very little time of his time to check submissions? Requiring them to edit at least 1 submission for every 4 months is the same as making other submissions suffer.
Just an example:
If I would like to make an online business then the first thing that will come up with my mind is to be a DMOZ editor for a category related to my future business and I will be building 1 site related to my category per 3 months and will successfully list it in DMOZ directory since it is allowed to edit only 1 submission within 4 months.
I am referring to Editor’s rule as general.
Answer will be greatly appreciated.
gimmster said:
Another question:
Why does an editor will apply for being an editor if he can only give a very little time of his time to check submissions? Requiring them to edit at least 1 submission for every 4 months is the same as making other submissions suffer.
Just an example:
If I would like to make an online business then the first thing that will come up with my mind is to be a DMOZ editor for a category related to my future business and I will be building 1 site related to my category per 3 months and will successfully list it in DMOZ directory since it is allowed to edit only 1 submission within 4 months.
I am referring to Editor’s rule as general.
Answer will be greatly appreciated.
jimnoble
DMOZ Meta
Isn't one edit every few months better than none at all?
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
But you seem to be making the assumption that the processing of submission is somehow important, and that the editors have an obligation to the submitters.
Neither is necessarily true.
The editor who makes only one edit (not the processing of a submission, but an edit within the direcdtory) has accomplished something meaningful. They are not blocking anyone or keeping another editor out. Oh, sure, we'd love it if they did more, but they are not doing any harm by only doing the minimum, and to the extreme, if we had 10,000 editors who only did 4 edits a year, that is 40,000 edits.
You asked why an editor would only do the minium. The answer is almost always the same: real life. Editors reflect almost every possibly segment of world society. Editors in the military get deployed or transferred, parents have kids who enter or leave school. Some add to the world's population. People change or lose jobs, get bored or burned out, or decide to go on a sabattical. Rather than lose their editor account, they may do the minimum, or slightly more than the minimum so that when and if real life allows, they don't have to go through reinstatement.
Neither is necessarily true.
The editor who makes only one edit (not the processing of a submission, but an edit within the direcdtory) has accomplished something meaningful. They are not blocking anyone or keeping another editor out. Oh, sure, we'd love it if they did more, but they are not doing any harm by only doing the minimum, and to the extreme, if we had 10,000 editors who only did 4 edits a year, that is 40,000 edits.
You asked why an editor would only do the minium. The answer is almost always the same: real life. Editors reflect almost every possibly segment of world society. Editors in the military get deployed or transferred, parents have kids who enter or leave school. Some add to the world's population. People change or lose jobs, get bored or burned out, or decide to go on a sabattical. Rather than lose their editor account, they may do the minimum, or slightly more than the minimum so that when and if real life allows, they don't have to go through reinstatement.
greatone, people with that attitude (and it is a common one) couldn't have built the ODP into what it is today -- and so it really doesn't matter what they would have done under that particular procedure.
But you misunderstand its purpose. It is not meant to coerce editors into being more active -- people without internal demons that do that, aren't going to be a factor in the ODP one way or another.
It is a simple and standard server security issue -- to disable unused logins. An editor who edits heavily for a time, then is inactive for six months, will upon reappearance be welcomed back to the salt mines (and reactivation of the login is virtually automatic.) So, in a very real sense, no editor is "required" to edit one site in each four months.
Folk who are "required" to edit aren't volunteers. And there isn't any procedure anywhere that "requires" anyone to edit. Editors ARE volunteers. That's a pretty fundamental part of the ODP concept.
And, once again, I repeat, because you seem to have missed it the first time, that's one EDIT. Not necessarily a submittal review!
So let's not talk about "requiring" anyone to do anything.
Let's talk about "allowing" a volunteer to do one edit every four months. If ten thousand volunteers do that, that's a hundred edits a day. If all those edits were submittal unrevieweds, that alone would clean out the backlog in a year or so. Would that, you think, (1) PENALIZE other submitters or (2) HELP submittals get reviewed more quickly?
But you misunderstand its purpose. It is not meant to coerce editors into being more active -- people without internal demons that do that, aren't going to be a factor in the ODP one way or another.
It is a simple and standard server security issue -- to disable unused logins. An editor who edits heavily for a time, then is inactive for six months, will upon reappearance be welcomed back to the salt mines (and reactivation of the login is virtually automatic.) So, in a very real sense, no editor is "required" to edit one site in each four months.
Folk who are "required" to edit aren't volunteers. And there isn't any procedure anywhere that "requires" anyone to edit. Editors ARE volunteers. That's a pretty fundamental part of the ODP concept.
And, once again, I repeat, because you seem to have missed it the first time, that's one EDIT. Not necessarily a submittal review!
So let's not talk about "requiring" anyone to do anything.
Let's talk about "allowing" a volunteer to do one edit every four months. If ten thousand volunteers do that, that's a hundred edits a day. If all those edits were submittal unrevieweds, that alone would clean out the backlog in a year or so. Would that, you think, (1) PENALIZE other submitters or (2) HELP submittals get reviewed more quickly?
greatone said:
You apparently have the very common misconception that an editor has exclusive rights to edit in "his/her" category. In fact, that is not the case, as has been pointed out many times in this forum. The FAQ has a related question, There's no editor for my category - will my submission ever get reviewed? The answer there also applies to categories that do have listed editors.
And of course an editor may edit in very many categories and have done 2000 edits in the last month, but none in the category someone is particularly interested in. I believe at the present time there is a net gain of about 20,000 sites being added every month on average after dead sites being removed are taken into account, nearly a quarter of a million in the last twelve months. I cleared maybe 15 categories with no named editor of waiting sites last Sunday, none of the sites had been waiting more than a couple of weeks, most of them only a matter of days. That's the other side of the coin.
Editors aren't assigned to sites.
(1) Editors aren't ASSIGNED to ANYTHING, they are ALLOWED to HELP.
and
(2) Editors are allowed to help on CATEGORIES.
(3) Editors first ask for permissions to help. So categories where more surfers are interested in helping -- get more help.
So you can't think of editors (by which I you apparently mean editor assignments) being "divided." It's all "permissions", and permissions aren't divided. They are added (or subtracted.) And it is each editor's choice where he may get added. Are fifteen editors wanting to help with Green Widgets, and nobody at all wanting to help with Blue Gadgets? Then the Green Widget category will be world-class, and Blue Gadgets will be relatively neglected. And that's OK. When someone cares enough about blue gadgets to take the time to volunteer to help -- then blue gadgets will be important enough to need improvement. Until then, it evidently isn't that important.
(1) Editors aren't ASSIGNED to ANYTHING, they are ALLOWED to HELP.
and
(2) Editors are allowed to help on CATEGORIES.
(3) Editors first ask for permissions to help. So categories where more surfers are interested in helping -- get more help.
So you can't think of editors (by which I you apparently mean editor assignments) being "divided." It's all "permissions", and permissions aren't divided. They are added (or subtracted.) And it is each editor's choice where he may get added. Are fifteen editors wanting to help with Green Widgets, and nobody at all wanting to help with Blue Gadgets? Then the Green Widget category will be world-class, and Blue Gadgets will be relatively neglected. And that's OK. When someone cares enough about blue gadgets to take the time to volunteer to help -- then blue gadgets will be important enough to need improvement. Until then, it evidently isn't that important.