Minimum Number of Reviews

Hi,

First of all, let me say that I am grateful to the dmoz editors who give unselfishly of their time. I am not talking about you when I say ...

I have submitted 3 sites to DMOZ in the past year, (the most recent was about 4 months ago, the oldest one was in March of last year) and so far none of them have been listed. They were all submitted to a regional category.

These are all perfectly good sites with nothing in common other than they're all located in the same city ... a major city. They are all submitted to different subcategories within the city category. One is a day spa, one is a delivery company, and the other is a photography company.

They're all cross-browser compatible sites.

There has been no change to the number of listings in each of the different categories that these sites were submitted to, which tells me that either the editor doesn't have the time or the desire to review anymore ... or the dmoz is intentionally not adding any more sites to these categories.

If the first is the case (the editor doesn't have the time or the desire to review anymore), then shouldn't dmoz remove the editor and replace them with someone who can fill their responsibility to some degree? Shouldn't an editor be required to do a certain number of reviews per month to remain an editor?

If the second is the case, and dmoz is not interested in adding any more sites to some categories, then shouldn't they just close submissions to the category down and display a notice that they're not accepting any more submissions?

I sincerely hope that someone can shed some light on this for me.

It is the former. As you say, if we didn't want people to submit sites we wouldn't let them. However, to answer your quote:

If the first is the case (the editor doesn't have the time or the desire to review anymore), then shouldn't dmoz remove the editor and replace them with someone who can fill their responsibility to some degree? Shouldn't an editor be required to do a certain number of reviews per month to remain an editor?

Click to expand...

Editor accounts are deactivated after 4 months of 'inactivity'. This means they have made no change to the directory in 4 months, which may including adding, editing or deleting a site listing in a category, or several other tasks that editors can do. Editors are not required to add sites on a regular basis for them to stay active; indeed if this was the case many of our editors would time out as there are number who concentrate more on quality control (making sure our existing listings work and are up-to-date) rather than making the directory larger.

Hi Neil,

Thanks for your quick response.

>>Editor accounts are deactivated after 4 months of 'inactivity'. This means they have made no change to the directory in 4 months<<

This is my point, that the categories have not changed, at least not in #'s, not less, not more. The # of sites listed in each of the subcategories remains unchanged.

It seems that there simply are not nearly enough editors, and I see a lot of suggestions in these forums about becoming an editor.

I applied to become an editor to help the cause over a year ago, but was declined because I was honest and admitted that I do web development. I know a lot of the editors also do web development or search engine optimization for hire.

Being honest, doing web development and admitting to it on an application form are NOT grounds for not being accepted as an editor.

I do not process editor applications, but I am absolutely certain that these were not the reasons you were not accepted with that application.

I applied to become an editor to help the cause over a year ago, but was declined because I was honest and admitted that I do web development.

Click to expand...

That's not why you were declined.

I do web development for a living.

Were you honest about your affiliations? Did you make it seem that the reason you were applying to edit was primarily to get your own sites listed?

Are you sure it wasn't just a problem with the descriptions of your sample URLs?

Doubtfull that was the reason, I also do web development some of the time, but I was totally honest about my affiliations, when applying for categories.

>> If the first is the case (the editor doesn't have the time or the desire to review anymore), then shouldn't dmoz remove the editor <<

>> It seems that there simply are not nearly enough editors <<


Spot any problem with that?

>>Did you make it seem that the reason you were applying to edit was primarily to get your own sites listed?<<

If I did, it sure wasn't intentional, but maybe that's what they assumed. I just want to see a better representation of what's available on the web, rather than a handful of sites in some categories that should contain dozens; and as a developer I admit that it is very annoying to keep having to check the status of a site that you submitted months ago. It seems like such an inefficient system and so much time is wasted. That's nothing against the editors that are pulling their weight, but I just think that there are many editors that lose interest rather quickly and then the category sits with a bunch of frustrated submissions in the queue.

>> If the first is the case (the editor doesn't have the time or the desire to review anymore), then shouldn't dmoz remove the editor <<

>> It seems that there simply are not nearly enough editors <<


Spot any problem with that? <<

Sure I do. They don't want to get rid of anyone because they have too many submissions in the queue's. But what good are they if the queue just keeps getting longer and longer?

That's why I applied to be an editor. I was up front about the fact that I do web development. I figured they would not want me to hide this; not because I just wanted to get my own sites listed.

I think that editors should be cautioned before acceptance about the responsbility they're taking on and not to take it unless they can devote a certain amount of time each week to it.

to keep having to check the status of a site that you submitted months ago.

Click to expand...

You don't actually have to. The most efficient approach would be to submit and then not worry about it. If and when the site is listed, you will either see the link when you check for backlinks or you will see traffic from Dmoz or one of its clones or both.

You know what they say - 'A watched pot never boils.'

They don't want to get rid of anyone because they have too many submissions in the queue's.

Click to expand...

No, the powers that accept and remove editors are not concerned about the number of unreviewed submissions waiting for review. It is still true that there aren't really enough editors, but that's a quality maintaining thing - it's hard for the existing editors to keep up with the listed web sites and making sure they are still ok. (We have automated software telling us when a site goes dead, but if it moves and leaves a note saying "We Moved!" the software can't spot it...)

And naturally, building (not just maintaining) the directory is the first priority. But the sites suggested by the public is only one source of links, and the number of unreviewed sites in a category doesn't say much about the need to do category building in it.

An editor who makes one good edit every month is better than no editor at all. Inactivity is not, and will never be, a reason for active removal of an editor.

These are my personal opinions, not an official statement of the ODP. I'm just one editor among many.

So, just accept that it takes over a year (maybe 2 or more) to get a site reviewed? Actually I could accept it if I thought that the categories were actively being monitored and updated, but as I said they haven't.

>>Are you sure it wasn't just a problem with the descriptions of your sample URLs? <<

No, I really don't think so. I know the guidelines and am sure I followed them.

Unfortunately you are going to have to accept it because that is just the way it is. We don't exactly have a problem with it because site submissions are only one way we find sites to list.

This is just me - if dmoz.org stopped accepting site suggestions it would not bother me in the least. I am perfectly capable of finding relevant sites for categories and/or building categories without submissions. Quite honestly, dealing with submissions is actually the least efficient way I have found to build categories. Most of the time I spend with submissions is reviewing and deleting. I would rather find the sites myself. It is just a much better use of time, imho.

So, just accept that it takes over a year (maybe 2 or more) to get a site reviewed

Click to expand...

Over the last two years I have made several free submissions of a non-commercial site to Yahoo. Naturally I'm disappointed that no listing has resulted. Who wouldn't be? But I'm not wasting my time checking the category every month. If it ever gets listed, I'll know soon enough.

I know some people feel they just have to do something. But coming here every month isn't in any way necessary. It doesn't hasten the editing process. If anything it slows it down, since people who are answering questions here could be spending time editing.

Well, I'm not one who comes here every month. In fact I haven't been here in over 6 months. That's why I couldn't remember my password and had to sign up again.

I do, however, go to dmoz every month or so to see if the sites I've submitted have been included and this is a major waste of time, so you're right I will quit doing it.

Sorry, if I insulted anyone as it appears I might have, judging by the number of responses to this post.

I'm not insulted; but I do think you're missing the point a bit when you make statements like "editors should be cautioned before acceptance about the responsbility they're taking on and not to take it unless they can devote a certain amount of time each week to it." If an editor does only one edit a week, as long as they're not BAD edits, then the directory is one edit a week better than it would be if that editor was kicked off for failing to meet quotas. So what would the quota accomplish? It would only slow things down and be detrimental to the directory.

Since editors aren't being paid, any amount of consistent and high-quality work they do is better than zero, so it's all to the good and all appreciated. It's not as if accepting one editor blocks others from being accepted, after all.

>>but I just think that there are many editors that lose interest rather quickly and then the category sits with a bunch of frustrated submissions in the queue.<<

It looks like you have the impression that editors 'own' the categories where their name appears, and that they're the only ones who can review sites there. That's wrong. There are lots of categories, small and large ones, which have several listed editors. Others have no listed editor, but that doesn't mean that nobody edits there.

>>I was up front about the fact that I do web development. I figured they would not want me to hide this;<<

Right. I haven't seen your application, but doing web development and admitting to it was certainly NOT the reason why you were not accepted.

>>Sorry, if I insulted anyone as it appears I might have, judging by the number of responses to this post.<<

If you had insulted any one this thread would most probably have been locked, heavily edited, and/or deleted. I don't know what makes you think that the number of replies you got was related to insulting editors.

BTW, a few days ago you asked about the site status of www.ramseysdelivery.com . You might want to have a look at that thread again.

There is an old story making the rounds, it may or may not be true (but that doesn't matter). It seems that a coule of hundred years ago, somewhere in Asia, a decision was made to remove a mountain, leveling the ground for new farms and houses, and using the rocks and soil to build us other areas where the ground was unsuitable. The top person was asked how they were going to move a mountain with no machinery. He responded, "one basket at a time."

So too, we build the directory, one edit at a time.

I'd love to see 1,000 extra editors, each committed to doing only one edit a day. Or even just one edit a week. Because evry good edit is a thing of value, and contributes to the directory.

I applied to become an editor to help the cause over a year ago, but was declined because I was honest and admitted that I do web development.

Click to expand...

Continuing the speculation on why you might have been declined - If you applied to one of the Web_Design_and_Development categories you may have been declined because many of these are too large for a new editor. This is a concern both for not overwhelming the person and also minimizing the amount of damage they could do. Imagine an unscrupulous editor who just deleted everything in unreviewed, and a lot of the listings. We could recover the things that were listed, but not the things that hadn't been reviewed.

If this was the case, you could apply again, maybe in a category for a hobby that interests you, or perhaps your hometown. Sometimes it takes a couple tries to get a good fit between editor and category.

So, just accept that it takes over a year (maybe 2 or more) to get a site reviewed? Actually I could accept it if I thought that the categories were actively being monitored and updated, but as I said they haven't.

Click to expand...

Different areas of the directory get different amounts of attention depending on the interests of the editors and how neglected they have been in the past.

- Some areas are well-tended and have fairly active editors who keep on top of submissions, have a well-developed category structure, and spend time on category building independent of submissions.

- Some areas have spotty tending, where some subcategories are in pretty good shape, and others aren't. This tends to happen when there are lower level editors, but not a medium level editors focusing on a larger area.

- Some areas are poorly tended where they don't have any regular editors in the area and are dependent on higher level editors doing maintenance.

- Some areas are downright frightening, due to spam or horrible organization, and it takes someone with a cattle prod to get other editors to go in and do triage.

Higher level editors try to spread their efforts and work on the spotty and untended areas. Some of these categories may not get focussed attention for more than one or two years, and then suddenly they get a real work over and brought up to speed. But they sit untended for another year or two unless an interested editor comes along.

It is really hard to say when a category with poor tending in the past will get some attention, due to being identified as being behind, or having an interested editor appear. It is hard to say when a category with good tending will fall behind because of editor interests changing, increased responsibilities, or leaving the project.

When we say it could take anywhere from 1 day to 2 years to get listed, and we can't predict it, we are not trying to be snide or unhelpful, it is just the nature of the project.