Paying Editors

Apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere. If so, please point me to it. Thanks.
-------

Are there existing arguments for/against the idea of a small DMOZ submission fee. I figured that, if that fee was split between DMOZ and the editor reviewing the site, it would:
(1) Provide additional motivation to editors who are slow / inactive.
(2) Make DMOZ some money.
(3) Speed things up for those webmasters who want their sites reviewed within a reasonable amount of time.

Of course regular, free submission should still be offered.

Everyone wins right? Or am I missing something?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere. If so, please point me to it

Click to expand...

See for instance It's time for an ODP revival, Paid Listings, and Should ODP learn from Zeal?

Thank you tuisp.

See also the ODP Social Contract.

We promise to keep the distribution of ODP data, and the submission process to this data, entirely free.

Click to expand...

(bolding mine)

-- Foe

Historically, the "Social Contract" wasn't demanded by our users (individual surfers) nor yet our distributors (AOL, Google, etc.) nor even our content providers (webmasters and submitters.) It was produced based on heavy lobbying by EDITORS; and a failure to produce it would probably have significantly impacted our ability to recruit and retain good editors. We want our work as widely available as possible -- which means we don't want financial, technological, or legal barriers keeping potential users back. It seems strange to say that we wanted to not be paid, but the community felt that a "two-tier" system of mixed "professional" and "volunteer" editors wasn't socially viable. (The Looksmart/Zeal folk are empirically testing that theory now.) The best possible shot at a fully "professional" editorial community (Yahoo) had (in our opinion) already failed: it had basically given up on timely reviews of noncommercial site suggestions. One could want the ODP to have more editors, but it is not apparent that other FINANCIAL approaches would accomplish that -- the evidence as cited above is the opposite.

We focus on the SOCIAL model of editing community. It is working better than anything else so far attempted. Some day someone may suggest some approach that HASN'T yet been tried unsuccessfully; but the ODP is constrained as well as empowered by its social organization. Rather than subvert the ODP and dissolve its community, you would probably need to start building a new community organized to fit the new project's financial scheme.

We want our work as widely available as possible -- which means we don't want financial, technological, or legal barriers keeping potential users back.

Click to expand...

Seems I was indeed missing something.
I agree that the ODP model is proving itself. Thanks for the detailed answer.

Awhile back I posted a bunch of stats. Some of the information has changed in minor ways, but the fact remains that Business, Computers, and Shopping remain the three most backed up areas. It should come as no surprise that these are the same areas making the largest cry for processing fees.

Some of the submissions in backwater categories haven't seen the light of day in *years*, but as others have said, submissions are only one way we build the directory. And too, to some unscrupulous folks, a processing fee implies that we'll list a site no matter what. There are too many businesses out there holding to ancient practices, many of which fall under our Do Not List policy. Mirrors, affiliates, most (but not all) deeplinks, etc - often submitted multiple times in a variety of categories - all work against our processing submissions in a timely fashion.

Slow processing time is not always the fault of the submitters. Sometimes ODP's categorization is unclear or underdeveloped. Some areas of Business have made immense(!) headway in the 1½ years of the ongoing Business reorganization, but it's still very much a work-in-progress. If it is a categorization issue like in Business, it takes time to research, develop, and discuss a workable solution. As many submitters have discovered, editors do not always respond to emailed feedback - this holds true even with their fellow editors. Part of the solution process may include drafting a team of editors to discuss potential fixes and assist with reviewing. And remember, we can't just process what has been submitted by others, there's *also* the time it takes to re-review + re-categorize the existing listings, *and* review whatever we've found on our own. On average (quality) sites take 10-20 minutes to review, but (due to aforementioned unscrupulous folks) problem children site reviews may range from 30 seconds to 2+ hours depending on if they're known or unknown.

The ODP process is slow-going and ever-evolving, but we do our best to keep up. Paying a fee would be of little assistance. When someone figures out how to add more hours to the day, a bunch of us will be interested.