Last update: 21:47 PT, Saturday, July 30, 2005

The category that we submitted our site to in 12/05 has not been updated since Saturday, July 30, 2005.

As there are only 5 sites listed and many others that have certainly been submitted (as well as easily discovered and added by an active editor), is this considered an unacceptable length of inactivity by the editor?

No. An editor must make 1 edit somewhere in the directory every 4 months.


See the current 5 or 6 other open threads on "time to listing" for more information.

I'm not sure I understand. If there is a "rule" such as "An editor must make 1 edit somewhere in the directory every 4 months." - is it enforced?

If so, by whom?

How is a neglected category brought to that person's attention?

>How is a neglected category brought to that person's attention?

Anyone can see a category's "last update" (for what it's worth, which is nothing.) All editors who can edit in a category can see how many suggestions have been made to it (for whatever THAT'S worth, which is often the same).

Any editor, or any other person, who feels a category is neglected, can volunteer to edit it (perhaps starting out by editing a small subcategory and working up).

So "that person" doesn't exist. The world and all its dogs already see all they need to see, to do all they're willing to do.

So...what are you willing to do?

To clarify, if that category had an editor named on it, and that editor only had that single category, then if he did no edits in that category in 4 months, his membership would expire automatically.

But if that editor also works actively editing other categories, than nothing forces him to edit that specific category. On the other hand there are several hundred other editors who can edit in that category. But again, nothing forces any of them to edit that specific category.

Editors will work at their own pace. Some are more active than others but like what was said previously, once every 4 months is the minimum.

So, then, even if I were to apply to be the editor of that category, there's no guarantee I would get it? Even if otherwise qualified? Because the current editor is just neglecting it while he works on other categories?

The existence of another editor is not generally a barrier to acceptance. An editor was just accepted in a sub-category of a category that has my name on it. He managed to find three sites that I had not found.

So, then, even if I were to apply to be the editor of that category, there's no guarantee I would get it?

I would have hoped THAT would go without saying. But yes, there is no guarantee.

>Even if otherwise qualified? Because the current editor is just neglecting it while he works on other categories?

OK, maybe this is a clue to your particular form of misunderstanding. We focus on demonstrated skills (see, I can do something pro bono, and I'd like to do something for THIS topic; see, I can find good websites, and describe them in good English.) This isn't rocket science--some sixth graders have done fine editing work, and you don't need professional experience to build most categories. (I have hardly ever edited in the areas where I DO have professional experience.) But these are not universal skills either--many glib oral communicators really can't handle the objective, information-rich style required. (I'm the other way: I really can't do the glad-right-hand-and-left-hand-in-wallet spiel.) No amount of paper qualifications can hide that fundamental distinction in the substance of communication.

Now, how do we tell the current editor is neglecting it? Simple. We all know he isn't. Because he doesn't exist. There is never a "the category editor." Never. There is no such thing.

So, how do you tell if ALL the editors are neglecting a category? Simple: see if you can find lots of good sites that aren't already listed.

So, your application to be an editor is the challenge -- you assert that there really IS work to be done in the category, and as evidence you show several good sites not listed.

If nobody can do that, or if nobody cares to do that, then by definition the topic isn't neglected. It is receiving all the attention justified by its body of knowledge and its social importance.

This perspective is broadly useful in dealing with any number of extremely complex prioritization issues. It is unfortunate that it is so seldom used.

Say what? (How's that for "good English"?)

>There is never a "the category editor." Never. There is no such thing.

Why, then, do some categories have:

Category editor: (EditorName)

listed at the bottom?

FWIW, I can edit in dozens of categories, however I am a "named" editor in maybe a dozen. To clarify: say that I have permissions for category "A" - I also can edit in the say 50 subcategories under category "A", though you won't see me as the "named" editor for 99.9% of them. You may, in fact, see other "named" editors in some of them.

I don't own category "A". Anyone with permissions in that category, above that category, or with broader permissions (such as metas, editalls, cateditalls, etc.) can edit there as well.

We all work where we have permissions and where we feel, today, that work needs to be done.

So, no there is no the category editor, even though there may be a "named" editor.

Hope that makes sense.

RayJay said:

Why, then, do some categories have:
Category editor: (EditorName)
listed at the bottom?

Click to expand...

It indicates that a certain editor has permission to edit in that category and all sub-categories thereof. Unless an editor has specific permissions, he/she is unable to edit any given category.

In addition there are a few hundred editors who have permissions at the 'top level' so can edit anywhere. These are known as editalls. Despite having permissions anyway, many editalls will retain their names on other categories where they have a particular interest. This doesn't mean they own the category in any way, more that they have an interest, and might like to be involved in any discussions affecting that branch (there's far more to editing that just adding new sites).

Perhaps it is unnecessary to have the named editors listed on the public pages, or more importantly, perhaps it gives a misleading impression to the public. But it does serve a useful purpose for other editors...

It's very difficult to give information to someone who is determined to misunderstand; almost every statement about the ODP has been publicly misunderstood in some forum thread where it was presented. So, if there is a reasonable way of understanding a particular fact, there's no reason to suppress it for the sake of the deliberate misapprehensive.

We did give up on telling people how many suggestions were waiting review in particular categories, because it proved impossible to express that in any way that didn't immediately lead to aberrant behavior.

But the 'LISTED category editorS' concept doesn't ALWAYS cause that problem.

If the editor listed in a particular category does not "own" that category, why doesn't the "Volunteer to Edit This Category" link appear as it does if there is no "named" editor?

Should it not say "Volunteer to Help Edit This Category"?

If the editor listed in a particular category does not "own" that category, why doesn't the "Volunteer to Edit This Category" link appear as it does if there is no "named" editor?

Click to expand...

Because it doesn't?

The directory software is set up to automatically put either the names of listed editors or a "Volunteer to Edit This Category" link at the bottom of categories, depending (obviously) on whether or not there are listed editors. It has nothing to do with "ownership" of category, a concept which is (or should be) alien to ODP editors.

Well, it certainly appears to anyone who has an interest in a particular category with a "named editor" that the category is "taken".

Back to my original point, are all editors made aware of inactive categories?

Particularly those that are having sites submitted to them for review?

"Made aware of" -- not as such. Editors can see, same as anybody else, when a category was last updated; it is also possible for an editor to find out the number of sites awiting review in any one category, even if s/he doesn't have editing rights there.

Editing is based on interest, on reviewing sites that interest the individual editor. Sure, sometimes there will be an internal appeal to deal with under-developed categories in some particular area, but that's also done on the basis of interest in that area.

There are close to 600000 categories in the directory, though, and all of them won't be edited equally much all the time.

Any editor can look at the last updated date of any catgory.

Any editor can find out how many listing suggestions are awaiting evaluation in any category. (Put an @link to it from your bookmarks )

So far so good - but

No editor is forced to edit anywhere.

If no editor is interested in processing a category today, it won't be processed today. Same thing tomorrow etc.

Other than some automated QC tools, we have no systems or schedules in force which ensure that every category is processed on a routine basis. Instead we have several thousand editors, with widely varying interests, flying in a loose swarm working on the topics which they think are important when they have the time and inclination to do so.

Until the category which interests you interests a volunteer editor, it will go untended I'm afraid.

<added> I'm catching the slow typing habit. Nea said it much better.

Nea and jimnoble - Thank you for the concise, direct answers, very refreshing and much appreciated.

It would appear that the only way to get a site listed (at least reviewed) in a "neglected" category with no editor is to apply to become the editor of that category.

I wonder if ODP, as a whole, is concerned that this system negatively impacts its relevancy since many new, genuinely useful sites do not appear for such a long period of time? (sometimes never)

Google and Yahoo have a similar relevancy problem as they suppress new sites in their "organic" SERPs for competitive keywords as an incentive for site owners to pay for their AdWords program.

Frankly, if I were to become a part of ODP as an editor, I would want it to be the most relevant and useful resource possible. I don't sense that with ODP when I read some of the bloviating and arrogant responses from current editors in this forum.

Just some constructive criticism, for what it's worth.

It would appear that the only way to get a site listed (at least reviewed) in a "neglected" category with no editor is to apply to become the editor of that category.

Click to expand...

Or obviously for someone else to do this, or for a current editor to chance upon the category.

If you look at the total number of categories (708,584)* and the total number of active editors (7,495)* you'll see that on average each editor would have around 100 categories to look after. It's actually worse than that since many editors don't have permissions in anything like 100 categories (or an interest in doing so), which leaves more work for the volunteers who do!

As it is, editors edit where they feel like, which may be an interest in the topic, or wanting to tidy up a few categories. If no-one volunteers to help with a particular topic it's listings are likely to get out of date. On the plus side though, editors are surfers, so the things that interest them are likely to correspond (to some extent at least) with the things on the web that interest the general public -- thus there's a natural prioritisation of sorts which should benefit the people (surfers) that we're trying to serve.

Finally, don't take too much from the "last updated" date. It does not mean that every submitted site in the unreviewed pool has been looked at -- merely that a single listing/de-listing event has occured.

(* Figures from the ODP Monthly Report: May 2006)