Is the editor of my category AWOL?

What monitoring capability does ODP have to make sure that an editor is doing their job? What is to stop an editor from orphaning a category?

The reason I ask is that the number of companies listed in my category hasn't changed since I started monitoring it (for a month). And the editor supposedly has a big backlog, which makes sense if they aren't actively managing it.

I hope ODP has something to stop this from happening.

Thanks

Some categories have 1 or more "named" editors, many have no named editor(s). In either case there are many editors with permissions to edit them. Any editor in a higher category can edit any of the subcategories plus hundereds of editors have directory wide permissions.

There really isn't a way for anyone to "orphan" a category since no editor owns a category and anyone with higher permissions could edit there. Volunteers (which all editors are) edit when they can, where they feel like it is needed and at their own pace. Eventually (maybe today, next month, or in two years) an editor will come along and decide that a category needs work and clean it top to bottom.

On the other hand, if the category is a large spammy category it can receive 100's of submissions at a time and editors working there spend most of their time removing the spam, duplicate submissions and relocating mis-placed submissions.

You are forgetting that we are volunteers. A good way to lose volunteers is to bug them that they aren't giving you enough hours.

No category is ever orphaned. Read There's no editor for my category - will my submission ever get reviewed? - it's not your situation, since there is an editor named for the category which concerns you, but the info there is still pertinent.

There's another conceptual hiatus here. You talk about an editor "actively managing the BACKLOG" as if that is something that anyone would ever, ever do. It's not.

We don't "manage backlogs". We don't "oversee submittal queues". In fact, we don't "supervise anything, really, except the quality of the work that DOES get done.

An editor that never visits any submittal queue could still be doing vast amounts of productive work (been there, done that), and an editor could spend days and days in the submittal queue -- does the expression "Augean Stables with a cheese fork" mean anything to you? -- without doing a single productive thing for the directory (been there, done that too.) We want people to build the directory: that's all that matters.

Even putting aside the illusion of "management" -- what editors do is review sites, not manage them! ... We hope editors are picking efficient ways of working. That may mean treating large queues in batches, to detect large-scale patterns of submittal abuse; that may mean deliberately avoiding predictable behavior that might be manipulated by abusers. It may mean working on one area for awhile, then switching to another just to keep mentally alert (and enthusiastic!). It's pretty certain it'll never mean reviewing submittals in chronological order.

Well...I think you've answered all my questions. Nobody is managing the backlog, and someone may stumble on my category in 2 or 3 years and decide to add my site.

Or not.

Here's an idea you've heard a thousand times. Have companies pay to get reviewed for submission. You've heard it a thhousand times because it is an OBVIOUS solution to the problem.

No guarantee of submission, just like Yahoo. You can then afford to have thousands of paid editors, and you can afford to have people doing the oversite. Right now, you have editors that do a great job in some categories, and some that are doing nothing in others. Like my category, for example.

Sorry, this structure doesn't work for a lot of people. You can talk about how this is the right way to do it, blah blah blah. But the bottom line is there are sites that submitted to ODP 4 years ago and they are still waiting. No reply. No nothing.

This isn't a system that is working. Not for a lot of people, anyway.

Thanks for confirming what I already suspected. Save the flames for someone who cares.

rcarr said:

Here's an idea you've heard a thousand times. Have companies pay to get reviewed for submission. You've heard it a thhousand times because it is an OBVIOUS solution to the problem.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of other sources (not just Yahoo) offering paid services. The ODP is not one.

But the bottom line is there are sites that submitted to ODP 4 years ago and they are still waiting. No reply. No nothing.

Click to expand...

That may very well be the case. There are also hundereds (if not thousands) of sites added each day that were never "submitted" at all. Perhaps the concept of the submission actually only being a suggestion is the one so many have trouble with.
No reply. No nothing: Correct and there won't ever be. When you make a suggestion to someone, there is no reseaonable expectation that they will respond. The suggestion is always appreciated, but may or may not result in any action.

This isn't a system that is working. Not for a lot of people, anyway.

Click to expand...

It seems to me to work just fine the way it is intended. Editors create and organize a useful directory of unique content to make the internet a better place. Unfortunately some are under the misconception that the ODP is a "Listing Service" whose business it is to add sites submitted by businesses, individuals and webdesigners. This is just not the case. A small portion of the editors work is done reviewing sites that are suggested (and that is all a submission is-a suggestion). A much larger part is weeding through spam submissions and deleting them, going in search of sites on their own and adding them, and moving and reorganizing as necessary. Oh, buy the way many of them also come here to answer questions when they are taking a break from the other duties.

Thanks for confirming what I already suspected. Save the flames for someone who cares.

Click to expand...

Sorry if you feel that someones post was meant to "flame" you. I personally have seen no responses from editors in this thread that I would take personally if on the other side. They are just responses to various issues that the thread has brough up. Remember though you started out by accusing volunteer editors of not doing a well enough job to suit your needs.

It appears that the thread has reached its conclusion

No flames are necessary. Many people ask these questions, and we can't always tell by the form of the question how sincere their queries are. So we always try to explain what the ODP does, and what it doesn't try to do.

People who have never organized a large collective activity, or who have never attempted a large intellectual endeavor, really can't have a good idea of what either one entails. And both of them have inherent limitations: no science can encompass all of reality; no scheme can categorize all knowledge; no group can accomplish all tasks. And overextension is a recipe for disaster.


Now the ODP includes (in a rather populist form) aspects of both. As such, it has the intellectual limitations imposed by its design and methodology; it also has social limitations consequent on the interests of the people that are attracted by its vision. But ... what it tries to do, it currently does better than anyone else on the planet -- which is still not as well as we'd like to do.

Help us with our work, if you wish; if that vision doesn't attract you, don't. If you have a competing vision, you're welcome to design a methodology and a social structure to try to implement it -- you might even get some ODP editors to help you also. Or ... if what the ODP does is of no interest to you, you're welcome to deal with people who offer what you want. Thousands of sites offer various forms of pay-for-exposure: deal with every one until you find exactly what you want. We won't be offended.

Or ... take the ODP data and host it, offering your own pay-for-placement service. I never have figured out why no honest person has tried this yet -- it seems such an obvious thing to do. But I have little experience in web marketing, and my recommendations on a subject on which I know nothing about are (like yours) probably worth very little.

Thanks for the replies. I understand what you guys are saying, but the reality is that my site is excluded while a lot of other sites in the same line of business are not. And that has caused my site not to be listed in a lot of places. I pay the price every day for this.

I look over the listed sites trying to find some unique content or something else that would make them worthy while my site is not. I cannot come up with anything. They are offering a service just like we are. Nothing more. Nothing less.

If my site is not worthy of addition to the category, then explain why the 182 other sites are? What is different about them?

All I am pointing out is what is obvious. There is a problem with my category. This will always be an issue with a volunteer system, and it isn't meant to be a slam on all volunteers. I am sure that everyone that responded to this post is a serious editor, making a difference. Their participation shows that they care. My issue is with the editors that are AWOL, and the structure that is setup to make sure that doesn't become a problem.

BTW, I want to make it clear once again that I do not have an issue with editors in general. But my category seems dead and I don't see a way to mitigate it.

Maybe 2005 will be the year my site finally gets listed in ODP. I can dream, right?

What is different about them?

Click to expand...

Rather, you should be making it obvious what's different (ie unique) about yours.

Or ... take the ODP data and host it, offering your own pay-for-placement service. I never have figured out why no honest person has tried this yet -- it seems such an obvious thing to do.

Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for someone to make www.not-in-dmoz.com , as has been previously suggested in RZ. Charge for reviews, only accept sites with unique content, write good titles and descriptions, and monitor the RDF to purge stuff that gets added to dmoz.org. Seems like an easy money-maker for the webmaster, and likely an easily mined resource for editors. Win-win. I just don't get it.

An interesting idea.
Based on all the sites I have rejected over the years and all the suggested descriptions I had to change I think you can make much more money if you make a small change:

Charge for reviews, only accept sites without unique content, write titles and descriptions purely based on marketing hype

pvgool said:

An interesting idea.

Charge for reviews, only accept sites without unique content, write titles and descriptions purely based on marketing hype

Click to expand...

Its very sad for me to read your negative approach :thumb1: What makes you think that dmoz is and will be the only directory that requires unique content? Do you really think that all of the paid directories is using and will be using titles/descriptions that are purely based on marketing hype?

It wont work for the obvious reason; famous SEs wont synch their directories from the alternate one, neither they will give additional rank for the sites listed there, the alternate will never get popular and catch the interest, specially when its a paid one. So it will not work but indeed it was a very interesting idea lissa :thumb2:

Oh, I don't know whether it'll work or not. The model seems to pay off for network TV....and there are certainly plenty of people trying it on the web. Which means I don't have to guess, I can just wait and see.

Current rumour is that Google is demoting paid directories, since they are mostly spam loaded keyword hyped, and weighted in favour of paying advertisers, rather than true content.

hgurol said:

Its very sad for me to read your negative approach :thumb1: What makes you think that dmoz is and will be the only directory that requires unique content? Do you really think that all of the paid directories is using and will be using titles/descriptions that are purely based on marketing hype?

Click to expand...

You clearly missed the big grin I put at the end of my posting.

thats not the only thing I missed I believe...anyway, sorry

rcarr said:

The reason I ask is that the number of companies listed in my category hasn't changed since I started monitoring it.

Click to expand...

Number still hasn't changed. LMAO!

AWOL editor.

Perhaps this misunderstanding may not have been specifically corrected before, but it should be: How can someone be "absent without leave" when you don't need leave to be absent? We're volunteers, not press gangs!

And there's one new misunderstanding. You seem to think each category of the directory is like an assembly line -- one site reviewed and added every 4.752 days. But it's not like that, not at all.

The focus isn't on reviewing submittals (that may have been mentioned once or twice before). It isn't really even on reviewing sites (although that is obviously necessary), but on building the directory. In practice that means building _categories_.

So the usual mode of editing is to select a CATEGORY that needs work, and work on it. That might entail creating links and subcategories, moving sites out, fixing bad descriptions (yes, we have had them....), removing broken sites, looking for, reviewing, and maybe even adding sites. A lot of work might get done in one or more sessions over a short time (several days). Then the editor goes to another area to work. That one category might not be revisited for months. Does that mean any editor is AWOL? Of course not (though some editors, we don't know which, may have gone inactive).

On the other hand, the editorial activity which you want so much to happen (reviewing submittals) can chew up a lot of editors' time without having any effect at all on the visible number.

If you'd read some of the other recent threads, you'd have seen independent proof of it. One submitter complained that "no new sites had been listed in his category since 2003" but mentioned in passing that "he'd seen editor visits in his logs every two weeks ago." Well, obviously some editor (not "THE EDITOR", which, as has been mentioned, isn't a concept that the ODP has!) had been checking that category's unreviewed queue regularly, even though there was no visible effect THERE. (The only visible effect was elsewhere, since many mis-submitted sites were being moved to the correct category where they could be reviewed for a listing.)

Well for my category of interest no sites seem to have been added or deleted in over a year.

I wanted to remedy this problem and have attempted to become an editor 5-6 times over this year. I was declined for all. The only feedback that I have ever received is a statement from one of the kind volunteers which intimated that because the site submission wait list (rather than the listings) was quite large for my category, I will likely be declined for editorship.

That seems completely ridiculous to me; you can’t become an editor for a category where an editor is really needed...

Is it incompetence, systemic inefficiency or conflict of interest which is to blame? Maybe it is a mixture of all of these problems? How can we turn around this downward spiral?

I have given up trying to help, like so many others!

As Hutcheson explains, much more is going on than meets the eye. In one area of categories I edit, I may go for days without adding a single site. Someone who is watching that area, may feel their sites are not being dealt with, and no one is editing there, but on the contrary, at times 100% of the sites being reviewed are moved to other areas. The site owner could have avoided that, since the category description clearly explains what sites are to be submitted there and indicates when they should be sent to other categories.

Until someone has worked actively as an editor for some time, it's difficult to really grasp what is going on and why.

On the other hand you could be totally right, no one is interested in working on the category. If so, the last thing we want to do is assign an inexperienced editor who goes and messes everthing up. If no wanted to work on the category before, then it would even more inlikely for someone to want to clean up the mess there.

Some volunteers, though well meaning, are just not cut out to be editors, it's always safer to limit the possible damage.