Eric-the-Bun
Curlie Meta
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
At times life sucks.
Well it has got a lot bigger which means more maintenance. Today I logged on and found that the automatic link checker (Robozilla) had run and identified over 50 bad links in the area I can edit. This means that for each one, we have to search to see if the sites have moved and try to relist them, though in doing so we often find other useful sites to add. Quality is very much more of an issue than 5 years ago and old descriptions have to be brought up to date and improved. Looking at my edit count, about 75% are maintenance related.
Similarly the volume of submissions have grown as well as the number of 'scams' we have to try to avoid. The net result is that certain areas are 'bogged down' with things moving forward slowly. However overall we add around 20,000 listings each month.
What has not changed is the 'hobbyist' aspect of the ODP. There are large numbers of people joining to improve the categories on their favourite topic, be it a band, a movie, football club or whatever. Some editors stay with the one category and leave once they feel they've done enough, others go on to become more involved.
We have had abusive editors (and no doubt always will) but when found out they are instantly sacked. Most editors feel that any editor abusing their position devalues the work that we do and are very keen to prevent abuse.
Before applying to join the ODP, I did an investigation on my own account and followed dozens of 'leads' of anti-DMOZ threads years back to 1999. I found no one who put forward a believable account of DMOZ wrong-doing and ended up being surprised to find that an organisation with some 50,000+ ex-editors had so few who claimed a bad experience. In fact it was my perception of the quality of the people inside the ODP compared to that of the detractors outside that convinced me that joining would be worthwhile.
From my own personal viewpoint, the concerns raised elsewhere really show a poor understanding of the ODP and the internet as a whole. Most of the external discussions seem based on the assumption that if you repeat something often enough (and in different forums under different names) and claim to speak for the 'webmaster community',' it becomes somehow true.
Most editors joining DMOZ are aware of the concerns of people outside that editors might favour their own sites and our biggest problem is convincing people that the main reason they are not listed is the volume of work.
A fair question.
I submitted my site in May 2005 to the two categories (one topical and one regional) and the regional one was listed quickly. (At the same time I suggested 20+ other sites to do with my hobby as I felt the ODP was missing out). I became an editor in September 2005 to a different category and was promoted some months later such that I could edit in the topical category I had suggested my site to.
I listed the other (shorter) entry in Jan 2006 after I had added every other listable site waiting in unreviewed in that category. To put that in perspective some of the listings I was adding had been waiting for nearly 3 years but I found and added a large proportion myself (i.e. no waiting time).
Many editors feel it is 'bad' to add your own site to a category until you have made sure that all sites already waiting in unreviewed are handled first and that any sites that could be seen as a 'competitor' are also added, whether suggested or not. One of my first actions on being able to edit in that category was to review my 'competitor', find that their site did not meet guidelines (broken links) and email them to let them know why so that they could fix them. As soon as they let me know they were fixed, I listed them.
There is nothing wrong in adding your own site to a category you edit but the onus is on you to be sure that the rest of the sites suggested to and listed in that category are treated fairly.
regards
Well it has got a lot bigger which means more maintenance. Today I logged on and found that the automatic link checker (Robozilla) had run and identified over 50 bad links in the area I can edit. This means that for each one, we have to search to see if the sites have moved and try to relist them, though in doing so we often find other useful sites to add. Quality is very much more of an issue than 5 years ago and old descriptions have to be brought up to date and improved. Looking at my edit count, about 75% are maintenance related.
Similarly the volume of submissions have grown as well as the number of 'scams' we have to try to avoid. The net result is that certain areas are 'bogged down' with things moving forward slowly. However overall we add around 20,000 listings each month.
What has not changed is the 'hobbyist' aspect of the ODP. There are large numbers of people joining to improve the categories on their favourite topic, be it a band, a movie, football club or whatever. Some editors stay with the one category and leave once they feel they've done enough, others go on to become more involved.
We have had abusive editors (and no doubt always will) but when found out they are instantly sacked. Most editors feel that any editor abusing their position devalues the work that we do and are very keen to prevent abuse.
Before applying to join the ODP, I did an investigation on my own account and followed dozens of 'leads' of anti-DMOZ threads years back to 1999. I found no one who put forward a believable account of DMOZ wrong-doing and ended up being surprised to find that an organisation with some 50,000+ ex-editors had so few who claimed a bad experience. In fact it was my perception of the quality of the people inside the ODP compared to that of the detractors outside that convinced me that joining would be worthwhile.
From my own personal viewpoint, the concerns raised elsewhere really show a poor understanding of the ODP and the internet as a whole. Most of the external discussions seem based on the assumption that if you repeat something often enough (and in different forums under different names) and claim to speak for the 'webmaster community',' it becomes somehow true.
Most editors joining DMOZ are aware of the concerns of people outside that editors might favour their own sites and our biggest problem is convincing people that the main reason they are not listed is the volume of work.
A fair question.
I submitted my site in May 2005 to the two categories (one topical and one regional) and the regional one was listed quickly. (At the same time I suggested 20+ other sites to do with my hobby as I felt the ODP was missing out). I became an editor in September 2005 to a different category and was promoted some months later such that I could edit in the topical category I had suggested my site to.
I listed the other (shorter) entry in Jan 2006 after I had added every other listable site waiting in unreviewed in that category. To put that in perspective some of the listings I was adding had been waiting for nearly 3 years but I found and added a large proportion myself (i.e. no waiting time).
Many editors feel it is 'bad' to add your own site to a category until you have made sure that all sites already waiting in unreviewed are handled first and that any sites that could be seen as a 'competitor' are also added, whether suggested or not. One of my first actions on being able to edit in that category was to review my 'competitor', find that their site did not meet guidelines (broken links) and email them to let them know why so that they could fix them. As soon as they let me know they were fixed, I listed them.
There is nothing wrong in adding your own site to a category you edit but the onus is on you to be sure that the rest of the sites suggested to and listed in that category are treated fairly.
regards
