W
webster
Agreed
And my apologies to you spectregunner for the rude response. I am editor of a very small category, so I don't really understand what the editors of the larger categories go through. I have been looking for another category to apply for greenbuster rights to, if you let me know which ones I might be able to help with, I will apply to those and will help as much as I can.
And my apologies to you spectregunner for the rude response. I am editor of a very small category, so I don't really understand what the editors of the larger categories go through. I have been looking for another category to apply for greenbuster rights to, if you let me know which ones I might be able to help with, I will apply to those and will help as much as I can.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2003
- Messages
- 5,872
Re: Agreed
sfd, it's true that one can't know until one sees it what it's like to suddenly have several thousands of unreviewed lined up on one's dashboard! (And editalls have hundreds of thousands...) The first thing to do so as not to get overwhelmed is to remind oneself that clearing every waiting suggestion isn't the point of what we are doing. All the same, finding site suggestions of perfectly good sites that have been waiting since 2000 is still frustrating at times - so many editors are apt to get annoyed when a submitter suggests that a few months is a monstrously long time for waiting!
In any case, many of us editors have sites waiting to be reviewed, same as the public... I have one in Language and Linguistics that's been waiting since March; what I've done is list it in my bookmarks, both to make it clear that it's my site and also to be able to see from the editors' notes what's happening to it.
But like anybody else you are allowed to ask here, too, of course. While reguests on this board won't get a site listed quicker, it occasionally makes editors notice a category that's not been taken care of for very long and do some general house-cleaning there.
As for greenbusting privs - ask about that in the internal fora, as those are populated by many more editors
sfd, it's true that one can't know until one sees it what it's like to suddenly have several thousands of unreviewed lined up on one's dashboard! (And editalls have hundreds of thousands...) The first thing to do so as not to get overwhelmed is to remind oneself that clearing every waiting suggestion isn't the point of what we are doing. All the same, finding site suggestions of perfectly good sites that have been waiting since 2000 is still frustrating at times - so many editors are apt to get annoyed when a submitter suggests that a few months is a monstrously long time for waiting!
In any case, many of us editors have sites waiting to be reviewed, same as the public... I have one in Language and Linguistics that's been waiting since March; what I've done is list it in my bookmarks, both to make it clear that it's my site and also to be able to see from the editors' notes what's happening to it.
But like anybody else you are allowed to ask here, too, of course. While reguests on this board won't get a site listed quicker, it occasionally makes editors notice a category that's not been taken care of for very long and do some general house-cleaning there.
As for greenbusting privs - ask about that in the internal fora, as those are populated by many more editors
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,204
Re: meeting-place.net
*cough* *cough*
I wonder that noone mentioned yet that "June 1991" must be a typo. The ODP simply does not exist that long)
See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory_Project#Motivation_and_Founders for some details.
*cough* *cough*
I wonder that noone mentioned yet that "June 1991" must be a typo. The ODP simply does not exist that long
) See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory_Project#Motivation_and_Founders for some details.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
Re: meeting-place.net
Thanks windharp!
Definitely a typo.
That should read June 2001.
Thanks windharp!
Definitely a typo.
That should read June 2001.
W
webster
Re: Agreed
Well imagine that . . . . so maybe my idea isn't quite as stupid as someone seems to think . . .
Well imagine that . . . . so maybe my idea isn't quite as stupid as someone seems to think . . .
Re: Agreed
I think it's just more likely that patience will lead to that than criticism will.
Hey, and if you're an editor, you probably don't need this forum -- you can check on site status yourself. Just paste the URL into an Add URL box (as if you're going to add this site), then take a look at the editor notes and just close the screen without clicking "update." Hey, it might give an editall a bit of extra time for other kinds of work.
I think it's just more likely that patience will lead to that than criticism will.
Hey, and if you're an editor, you probably don't need this forum -- you can check on site status yourself. Just paste the URL into an Add URL box (as if you're going to add this site), then take a look at the editor notes and just close the screen without clicking "update." Hey, it might give an editall a bit of extra time for other kinds of work.