My story: Three weeks ago I applied to a regional category 6 levels down that contained 6 sites (it's a leaf with no children). I spent a couple of meticulous hours with the application. I disclosed my personal site and listed a few reasons why I thought my site should not be listed anywhere at DMOZ. I've received no response as of yet and that made me realize the editor approval process needs improving if DMOZ is to grow.
It's been stated that the site and editor approval queues are backed up into the hundreds per category. In my humble opinion, DMOZ will never be able to clear out the queues if Editor applications take "up to 2 months". (The unprofessionalism of "rejection without notification" simply compounds the problem. Anyone who is offering to volunteer their services should be treated with a little more respect and good, old-fashioned politeness, IMO.)
Editor approvals should be top priority. Approving one editor increases "company output" for the life of that editor. Most other DMOZ tasks (approving sites, dealing with abuse, etc), although completely necessary, do little to increase long-term productivity of the DMOZ entity. A person wiser than myself once said "Work smarter, not harder". <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Suggestions to reduce the backlog of editor approvals:
In 4 words: Increase barriers for application.
1) Make the application form longer or more complex This will weed out those that "don't have the time" or the inclination for detailed, meticulous, and monotonous work.
2) State that most applications will not be accepted
About.com does this well. They state with full transparency that only about 25% of the applicants are chosen. Add phrases like "only those with extensive internet experience will be accepted" for effect. This negativity will discourage applicants that don't have the experience, know-how, or confidence in their abilities.
3) Probation period
State that all new editors start on a "probational" basis for the first several months (keeping the time frame intentionally vague). During this time:
- they must login at least once a week
- they must review at least 2 sites per week
- they must check all sites in their categories once per month for guideline compliance
- their site additions & removals will be logged and reviewed by Metas and any signs of abuse will result in rejection of editor priviledges.
This will weed out the fly-by-night spammers that just want to get in, add their sites, and leave forever. Spammers like "quick-n-easy", not "long & tiring commitment".
4) And yet more discouraging wording <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />
"If you find the above requirements too demanding and time-consuming, then unfortunately this job is not for you. Being an editor is more like a second job than a hobby. Only serious and committed individuals should apply."
In my opinion, without more editors, most of the current editors will eventually burnout or become disenchanted with the never-ending approval queues. Being perpetually behind does nothing for morale.
It's been stated that the site and editor approval queues are backed up into the hundreds per category. In my humble opinion, DMOZ will never be able to clear out the queues if Editor applications take "up to 2 months". (The unprofessionalism of "rejection without notification" simply compounds the problem. Anyone who is offering to volunteer their services should be treated with a little more respect and good, old-fashioned politeness, IMO.)
Editor approvals should be top priority. Approving one editor increases "company output" for the life of that editor. Most other DMOZ tasks (approving sites, dealing with abuse, etc), although completely necessary, do little to increase long-term productivity of the DMOZ entity. A person wiser than myself once said "Work smarter, not harder". <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Suggestions to reduce the backlog of editor approvals:
In 4 words: Increase barriers for application.
1) Make the application form longer or more complex This will weed out those that "don't have the time" or the inclination for detailed, meticulous, and monotonous work.
2) State that most applications will not be accepted
About.com does this well. They state with full transparency that only about 25% of the applicants are chosen. Add phrases like "only those with extensive internet experience will be accepted" for effect. This negativity will discourage applicants that don't have the experience, know-how, or confidence in their abilities.
3) Probation period
State that all new editors start on a "probational" basis for the first several months (keeping the time frame intentionally vague). During this time:
- they must login at least once a week
- they must review at least 2 sites per week
- they must check all sites in their categories once per month for guideline compliance
- their site additions & removals will be logged and reviewed by Metas and any signs of abuse will result in rejection of editor priviledges.
This will weed out the fly-by-night spammers that just want to get in, add their sites, and leave forever. Spammers like "quick-n-easy", not "long & tiring commitment".
4) And yet more discouraging wording <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />
"If you find the above requirements too demanding and time-consuming, then unfortunately this job is not for you. Being an editor is more like a second job than a hobby. Only serious and committed individuals should apply."
In my opinion, without more editors, most of the current editors will eventually burnout or become disenchanted with the never-ending approval queues. Being perpetually behind does nothing for morale.
