Reorganization and why dmoz human editing fails

Re: Reorganization and why dmoz human editing fail

score a submission

Click to expand...

Great idea! Criteria that could be considered:

- title and description spelling, grammar, capitalizations
- format and style compared to existing listings in the category
- title and meta tags on the site itself
- based on description, likelihood of belonging in the submitted category
- keyword/marketing hype analysis

It would definitely help prioritize things.

Re: Reorganization and why dmoz human editing fail

If you're going for a heuristic (and I sure wouldn't recomend the Paul Revere algorithmic AI approach for anything), I think it would be helpful to offer suggestions for where (geographically) the site goes. That is, cull any addresses on the site, if they're incomplete compare with other geographic clues, etc.

Re: Reorganization and why dmoz human editing fail

Along with that, have it parse the site and generate an intelligent list of the the links and redirects off of the first level of pages. Something that says:

www.foo.com - 4 links
www.bar.com - 2 redirects
etc.

That would save us from having to click all the links and look at all the source code, and would give us a better idea as to whether the site is real or a redirecting mirror of some sorts.

Similarly, if the ai would also look up the registration and give us the ownership. Thus saving us many, many steps.

Re: Reorganization and why dmoz human editing fail

Also could do with a Language scan that could point out non-English and multi-lingual sites. I get an excessive number of non-English sites submitted with an English description and I like to weed those out sooner than later, so they can be sent to World, rather than sitting around.

Re: Reorganization and why dmoz human editing fail

I see that this discussion is taking a significant turn in direction, and I think it is one for the better.

We are now discussing how to use technology to make the existing (and future) human editors better and more efficient, which is something that most editors will enthusiastically support -- rather than going down the path of most resistance -- trying to discuss how to replace editors.

These sound like some good ideas!