Last Edit No Add Equate to Reject?

Okay, this is a multi-fold question; I beg your tolerance in advance

I know this has been somewhat answered before, but please refresh for my fellow blondes. But, why are some categories not updated for over a year? Is it possible they're being updated "from above" and the date simply doesn't get changed?

For a category that has been recently updated, one which you've submitted to, and your link was not added in during that editor's update, is that a "tacit" rejection? I realize there's going to be a plethora of yes, no, maybe so possible answers ... but if updated and site not added, is it "safe" to resubmit without penalty?

Thanks in advance!

Rob
w®m

<tolerance on>

Some categories are not updated for more than a year for several reasons, the most common of which is that no editor has chosen to go edit there. Quick: do the math, 590,000 categories, about 10,000 active editors. Sure, there are editors who can edit in all those categories (say =/- 250) and lots of editors who can edit in lots of categories, but the numbers are huge.

Now, when a category is updated, and the date on the bottom changes, what does that mean?

From a practical sense, it means nothing, and no conclusions should be drawn from it.

-- an editor might have visited and spent some time working on the unreviewed pool, but did not finish.
-- an editor might have visited because they found a dead site or an expired domain and wanted to do just that one thing.
-- an editor might have visited because someone submitted an update request, which they processed, and did nothing else in that category at that time.
-- an editor might have visited because, on their own initiative, they found a really nifty website, added it to that category and did no other editing in that category at that time.
-- the date might have changed because an editor moved a site there without ever actually visiting the category.
-- the date might have changed because an editor discovered there was a site there that violated our guidelines, and removed it.
-- the date might have changed because one of the sites there was hijacked and removed without an editor actually visiting the category.

And I could go on.

The point is that while one would think that the date of last edit is a useful bity of information, it really is not. It is much like a mutual fund sales flyer. It tells you in big type that last year, it grew 56%, but in almost invisible type it says: past performance is no gurantee of future growth.

Great Info

Thanks for the great information - good information!

Also - thanks for <tolerance on> ...

>But, why are some categories not updated for over a year?

Do the math. 600,000 categories, about 1 million visible edits a year, NOT evenly distributed (because ... more sites get reviewed more efficiently if an editor works on "batches" of sites in a particular category.). So it is not at all uncommon for a category to go that long between updates. Bear in mind also that in many heavily targeted spam magnets, an editor may easily do dozens of site reviews with no visible change to the category (and no change in the category updated date.)

>Is it possible they're being updated "from above" and the date simply doesn't get changed?

No. The other way 'round DOES happen -- top-level Shopping is rarely changed, although SOME subcategory is changed daily. (This sometimes confuses people who are used to the Yahoo! way of marking a "category change" all the way up the tree. In the ODP, only the actual category changed is marked, and it's always market. Well, almost almost always, and the EXTREMELY rare exceptions are software glitches.)

>For a category that has been recently updated, one which you've submitted to, and your link was not added in during that editor's update, is that a "tacit" rejection?

Absolutely not. The update happens every time a single listing is changed. An editor may done as many edits (or as few) as fit into his plans and his available time for the day. An editor may have visited the category only to fix a high-priority quality problem (say, bad link or misspelled word); or may have been working on sites found via Google or some other source rather than submittals; or may even have added a site he found while REALLY working on some OTHER category (to which he immediately returned); or may not have had time to do all the sites he knew about in that one session.

Really. This is not just "occasionally a wrong assumption." It is almost always a wrong assumption.

>I realize there's going to be a plethora of yes, no, maybe so possible answers ... but if updated and site not added, is it "safe" to resubmit without penalty?

Don't do that. As I say, it would be basing your actions on an assumption that is nearly always wrong. And it can even hurt. Suppose, for instance, that you submit your site to Widgets/Blue. Normally, resubmittals to the same category don't hurt. But in THIS case the editor looks at your site (it may even show in your server logs, although it doesn't have to) and moves the site to Widgets/Green, because that's the way WE classify Cyan Widgets. You immediately resubmit to Widgets/Blue. A couple of weeks later, the editor sees the submittal, and moves it to Widgets/Green -- again. (Remember, he probably won't review it for a listing -- he may not be ABLE to edit Widgets/Green, or he may not like to edit there, or he may just be focusing on this category -- which is the normal mode of operation, because it's more efficient that way.)

After a few months, you've got a while pile of submittals in Widgets/Green, and one ticked-off Widgets/Green editor thinking about spam penalties.

You may think you aren't in this situation, because you're sure you got the category right -- but most submitters don't, and the odds are against you. In fact, if you're really confident you got the category right, it's a pretty good sign you're not understanding the problem at all. (I'm often not sure about specific sites outside my area of expertise. And even inside my area of expertise, I'm sometimes sure only because I defined the taxonomy...)

Again, this is something that is different from Yahoo! (which, I understand, just deletes sites that are missubmitted.) We move them to a better category. (Well, supposed to, and editors who don't get a friendly reminder when it's noticed. An editor NEVER has to review ANY site, but SHOULDN'T make it harder for some OTHER editor to review it.)

Not intentionally piling on -- the gunner just copied my answer from some prior querant , while I composed a fresh answer. He doesn't really type faster than I do.

Or at least, that's what I tell myself.

Thanks for the very comprehensive clarification!!

>Is it possible they're being updated "from above" and the date simply doesn't get changed?

What I meant, was could a higher editor (editall, whatever) ... that's been answered though ... touched in any way, shape or form is updated.

-> We move them to a better category.

That's what makes the human edited process at ODP superior - nice to see it done, and reinforced.

Thanks again!

Rob
w®m

hutcheson said:

Not intentionally piling on -- the gunner just copied my answer from some prior querant , while I composed a fresh answer. He doesn't really type faster than I do.

Or at least, that's what I tell myself.

Click to expand...

It would seem as though ou both have the ability to type as well and quick as you think.

Maybe he was a soda pop or cup of java ahead

Yeah, you got it: it doesn't matter how the EDITOR has permissions to the category. It was the CATEGORY that got changed.

As to the other point: we say, over and over again, "the ODP isn't a site submittal service, submitting isn't an order." And most of the time that means what people don't want to hear, which is that the editor isn't obligated to do what you want.

But there is the flip side -- if (as we claim) site submittal is really you helping the ODP editor, then the editor is going to be crazy to throw your help away -- even if you didn't help quite as much as you theoretically could have. We'll take whatever help we get from submitters and be grateful. Just as, in the same way, we take whatever help we can get from editors and are purely grateful -- instead of being angry or frustrated that more help could have been given but wasn't.

hutcheson said:

But there is the flip side -- if (as we claim) site submittal is really you helping the ODP editor, then the editor is going to be crazy to throw your help away -- even if you didn't help quite as much as you theoretically could have. We'll take whatever help we get from submitters and be grateful. Just as, in the same way, we take whatever help we can get from editors and are purely grateful -- instead of being angry or frustrated that more help could have been given but wasn't.

Click to expand...

I've been in (internal) forum and E-mail correspondence with an editor who seems to be submitting sites to not quite the correct category. I'm a little frustrated with my inability to explain my reasoning as to where my sites should go, but I appreciate her mining "her" category for sites that belong in "mine", even if she doesn't send them quite to the right place.

The same is true for external submissions. Some of them suggest that we need to rewrite descriptions or guidelines, but a suggestion of a good site is appreciated from whatever source.