Optional Incentives For Editors

Hi,

Here is a suggestion for a means of recruiting and retaining more ODP editors.

Firsly, please note that I have no axe to grind, nor do I stand to gain in any way if my idea were to be adopted. That is due to the fact that my own site's recent ODP submission, listing, and subsequent re-categorisation was promptly and courteously handled, and I just don't have the time to volunteer to be an editor myself.

My suggestion is:

(a) There would be an non-monetary incentive scheme for ODP editors, which they could choose to avail themselves of, or not, just as frequent flyers can choose to use their accumulated points or not.

(b) Every ODP editor would receive the same number of points per month.

(c) AOL Time-Warner would offer free access to a wide selection of their products and services to ODP editors with accumulated points.

What appears above is just a broad concept which would need a lot of refining. If the editors and owners of ODP were attracted to my suggestion, then they would have to work out the details amongst themselves.

"We rely on the philanthropy of our volunteer editors, and strongly discourage anyone from accepting or soliciting any form of compensation for their participation in the Open Directory. Additionally, we discourage submitters from soliciting or bribing editors in exchange for listings in the directory. Editors found to be accepting or soliciting bribes in exchange for listing sites or unfairly promoting these sites over others will be removed from the directory."

http://dmoz.org/guidelines/conflict.html

May I respectfully suggest that the post refering to the ODP guidelines and giving and accepting of bribes was misguided. How on earth could anyone who had actually read my suggestion make such a connection?

The suggestion only relates to a proposal for a scheme which would be based on the time that a person has been an editor, full stop. No benefit could possibly accrue to an editor for the adding or deletion of particular listings in ODP in my suggested scheme, so no bribery would be possible.

The portion of the guidelines that was quoted effectively sums up the philosophy towards an all volunteer pool of editors -- and an extaordinarily deep resistance towards any from of compensation or rewards program.

This issue has been suggested many times in the past, and as someone once said "that dog don't hunt" or words to that effect.

We understand that the spirit of the suggestion was well-meaning, and no one is accusing you of offering a bribe. The indisputable fact is that any compensation/reward idea is deeply opposed by both The Project and by a large portion of its editors. It also flies in the face of the philosophy espoused by our social contract.

Editors are rewarded. They are rewarded in many intangible ways and by recognition from the community. For me, the satisfaction of making a better and more useful web is enough.

If you wanted to suggest some reward programs that weren't tangible goods, services or money that might encourage potential editors to apply, I think we'd all listen.

Add another voice to the chorus that is sympathetic to the idea of trying to reward editors, but convinced that in this fallen world, and with our current community, any scheme is likely to fail.

The community was formed by people drawn to the concept of self-driven editing...and whatever merit other schemes have had in other environments (Yahoo has built a respectable directory using mercenaries, for example) our community is fundamentally opposed.

I wouldn't say the dog won't hunt, but you wouldn't take a Pekingese to hunt bears either.

I share the sentiment that Xixtas expresses in the statement "For me, the satisfaction of making a better and more useful web is enough." My own contribution on the web is also an attempt to make the web more useful, in my own small way.

There will always be people who find reward enough in the act of contributing. As to what other intangible rewards may be considered for contributing as an editor, frankly I am stumped. Maybe I lack the imagination.

Anyway, I made my suggestion to give something back to ODP, even if it was only an idea. I didn't intend to upset anyone.

You may wish to consider my suggestion in light of an analogy:

In some countries there are sufficient unpaid blood donors to meet the demand for blood. In other countries there are not enough unpaid blood donors to meet the demand so payment is offered to donors. In the second category of countries many people still donate blood without accepting payment, as they are motivated by alturism.

Its my belief that the same philosophical question arises in the case of the demand on the ODP and the case of the demand on a country's blood supply. If the demand is too great for persons motivated by altruism to meet, should alternate methods be considered to supplement the response to that demand?

I am not a direct stake-holder in the ODP, although I DO hold the ODP and those who contribute to it in high esteem. I have have had my say, and I thank you for the opportunity to do so. This will be my last post on this topic.

A flaw in your suggestion is the presumption that we aren't getting enough people applying to become editors. I personally think that all that offering incentives would do is get us more people applying for all the wrong reasons.

>> If the demand is too great for persons motivated by altruism to meet, should alternate methods be considered to supplement the response to that demand?

The answer would be "No". It's a similar argument used by people who think we should relax the standards so that we accept more new editor applications and is (at least partly) based on the concept that the suggestions pile is our primary reason for being.

From a purely practical point of view, why would AOL bother forking out money (which is essentially what offering their services for free would be) for something people are lining up to do for nothing?

As to what other intangible rewards may be considered for contributing as an editor, frankly I am stumped.

Click to expand...

It's a hobby. People edit for the same reasons anyone gets really involved in a hobby. It is interesting. I am constantly learning a lot - both from websites and from other people, directly and indirectly. There's an interesting community of people to interact with and form friendships with. It can be easy to squeeze into small amounts of spare time. It is a good "brain break" from other real life things. As with any other hobby, you get out of it what you put into it.

This is probably at the root of the disconnect between what editors do and why, and what most outsiders think we are doing and why. I have a friend who is a train hobbyist. He had a whole room for his stuff and had spent 2 years building a platform and setting up this elaborate track layout, but still hadn't actually gotten the track to connect in a complete circle, because he was always in the middle of upgrades and starting new ideas. His wife never understood why he didn't just connect the track so he could run the trains. What his wife didn't understand was that the process was more important than the product.

Why do I edit? I enjoy it, pure and simple. As to why I enjoy it - there are lots of reasons, but underlying them is the community of people, most of whom edit for similar reasons. Underlying the community is the social contract. The community wouldn't be what it is without the social contract, and suggesting changing the social contract would fundamentally change the community, which would ultimately lead to many editors leaving the project. It's all interconnected.

While we appreciate the suggestions, there are some that would so fundamentally change who we are that we can't even consider them. I hope I've given a little more insight into this.