Status Enquiry Clipperlight

If a business depends on the ODP to succeed, it has already failed, and its owner has failed to notice.

It is extremely important for the integrity of the ODP that it retain its current approach of recognizing success, rather than arrogating to itself the right to confer it. We're always looking for editors who understand and sympathise with the ODP approach.

Will you please get your act together and accept help when it is offered.

Click to expand...

I have absolutely nothing to do with the approval or disapproval of editor applications, and it is probably a good thing that I do not, because I would have a very hard time imagining that anyone professing that type of attitude could become a successful part of the editing community.

You have missed the point, it is not about failing or succeeding, but about a fair and even playing field ie. If a site gets a quick acceptance in the directory it had an immediate advantage over one the perhaps takes twelve or more months to be reviewed.I am not trying to be rude or offensive, but do take offence at the content of the last poster, so unnessesary to be so rude, politeness costs nothing. I suppose I have no option but to carry on waiting to be reveiwed.
Regards
Anvil
Anvil

Anvil,

The tone of responses rather echoed the emotions felt when being told what an person's "moral duties" need to be and to "get their act together".

As someone said recently: "politeness costs nothing".

Do you have any evidence that your application to edit was "ignored"? I have heard about applications not being received, and applications being rejected, and applications that are still waiting to be reviewed, but never of one that was ignored. I suggest to ask over in the Application Status forum, if you are interested.

You made the comment about how a listing in the ODP "may mean the difference between an internet company being successful or failing" and then you say that "it is not about failing or succeeding". I'm sorry, but I am confused. What point are you trying to make with these statements? If it's that you are not happy that your site has not been reviewed yet, then I can certainly understand your point of view. I was in a similar situation before I became an editor. But the nature of the beast that is the ODP is that it can take a LONG time to get a site reviewed (and that can mean several years). There are many discussions elsewhere about why this is, and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, but the fact is that this is the way the world of the ODP is.

The only way to change this is get have more editors who get the Vision of what the ODP is about. It's not an easy one to "get", and most people don't really want to get it, especially when it clashes violently with their own self-interest. If you can get it, then I would love to welcome you to the ranks of ODP editor.

No, I'm afraid that you have missed the point.

The point I was making was simple and in direct response to the tone of your postings.

You lectured us, telling us that we do not have our act together, that we somehow violated your sense of fairness by not doing something we never promised to do. You presumed to try and define for us what our moral responsibility is, and complained that we did not accept you into our editing community.

I simply point out that, in my opinion, I did not think (based on the above) that you would be a good fit in our editorial community.

If that offends you. I'm sorry.

anvilpoint, we simply have no way of determining which sites will get "quick" reviews and which "belated" ones.

As has been often pointed out, submittal date is no guide -- you have a "submittal age" of about 7 months. Your site could be 10 years old, or it could still be in development. WE CAN'T TELL FROM THE SUBMITTAL QUEUE. And we don't ask editors to waste their time figuring it out some other way. Better to review two sites and be ready to start on a third, than to spend the same amount of time figuring out which one to review first.

alucard has gently suggested that you study the material readily available elsewhere, to learn about the advantages of the ODP approach ("not trying to do what you can't do at all" is by no means the least important.)

The system isn't "fair". We lean over backwards to try to be not-too-unfair to people who don't submit their sites at all, but even so, people who submit their sites have an advantage. That's OK, and we won't be doing anything to try to take away the advantage you got by submitting. And the editor who reviews your site won't be concerned in the least about what other businesses might be harmed by listing you first. (Otherwise your site would certainly NEVER be listed!) So you have good reason to be thankful we're concerned about "being good to surfers", not "being fair to all the other webmasters."

Faireness

I am not trying to say that you guys don't do a bad job, and has unpaid volunteers I have no doubt you do your best. It's the system under which you operate which seems to be cumbersome to say the least. It is important to any web master or web site owner to get their site listed in the open project directory, not for its own sake, but because it is used as an important sourse by the search engines. I have no interest in trading unpleasantries, so will now wait patiently untill someone gets round to reviewing my site.
Kind Regards
Anvil

volunteer editor

I have checked back in my records and found that I had a confirmation e.mail on 8.8.04 that my request to be a volunteer editor was valid the reference number is enclose, and I have heard nothing since.
0ccdf9268b52ad6d2917c134114d2c86
Regards
Anvil

You might be better asking in the editor app part of this forum, which will remain open.

It may be important to the webmaster, but until it is important to the SURFER, it is IRRELEVANT to the ODP.

Who decides what's relevant to the SURFER?

The surfers who volunteer to edit the ODP.

It is an imperfect system -- as you can guess from the fact that it is operated by humans. It is a very effective system -- as you can guess from all the importunate webmasters. But, I would argue, its importance derives from the fact that (unlike almost all other directories on the web now) it is built for surfers instead of webmasters. If we changed that, the ODP would soon cease to deserve whatever importance it has earned by its current approach.

But surerly with power comes responsibility
Kind Regards
Anvil

Power? We are a volunteer organisation that offers our work free of charge to anyone who want to take it and agrees to the licence terms. The responsibility for any commercial benefits lies with those who take our work and turn it into something perceived to be valuable - it is not of our doing. We are not in the least interested in the commercial benefits that accrue from any listing we grant, we simply list sites we think would be of interest to other surfers of the web. At our own pace.

We are researchers if you like, compilers of a catalogue of useful websites. Not a listing service for webmasters - they exist and you can use them, that is their role. We don't compete with them, we provide something entirely different in concept and there is room for our way as well as theirs.

>But surerly with power comes responsibility

Yes, but who defines that responsibility? The people who gave the power -- who allowed editors privileges, and gave them tools, and published their work? Certainly, and thanks for the power! My best understanding of the good of the customer? Certainly, I always owe this to myself, and it ought not to be an easy debt to pay. The editing community? Certainly, my work would be nothing without the rest of them. Other people who understand my mission well enough to show where I did a poor job? Certainly, and thanks for the help!

People who want me to do something else? Sorry, but absolutely not. Even the ODP staff and admins can't assign editors work; the community won't tolerate anyone else trying!