Status of Editor Application - jameskal

lissa, thanks for the reply. You have an excellent idea.

>> jameskal - you have some good ideas, and I'm sure they will go into the looonnnngggg list of suggested improvements.<<

Lissa, if your list is already too loooooooonggg, it reiterates what I have written in my reply to dfy. So, these new ideas are not going to be implemented in our lifetime, if at all.

>> (Improving the ODP is a favorite editor topic. )<<

From what I have read on this forum, I guess it is remaining a live topic. Just a topic.

>> However, as has been said before, our one programmer already has a lot of other higher priority stuff and unfortunately cannot work some of the nifty ideas.<<

Again, this is one of those "to be done first" jobs. I am sure she will never get time to look into these ideas. We might as well forget the implementation.

>>ODP has to gear up to clear the backlog in a short time<<
>>A common mis-perception is that dealing with unreviewed is the main thing to be done. It's not at all - editors spend a lot of time ensuring quality of existing listings, improving ontology and finding sites on their own. Yes, we'd like to get the unreviewed quantities down, but it isn't the only thing we are focused on.>>

Agreed. But isn't quantity equally important as quality for a directory ? I believe it is. So all this will have to go together; not one at the expense of others. Speedy disposal does not mean at the expense of quality.

>> There is lots of discussion about ODP needing help. Obviously, the most helpful and within current abilities is to become an editor. But for anyone who can't get accepted as an editor or doesn't want to be one, there are still other ways to help. For example, clicking listings to see if the site is still there, doesn't redirect, and hasn't turned into something else. For sites that give an error, there is then research time to see if a new location can be found or if the business/organization is really gone. Problems that are found can then be summarized for a senoir editor to fix. ~Anyone~ can do this, and it really is helpful. When I start working in a category that hasn't been tended in a while, this is the first thing I have to do. What's the point of adding a bunch of good listings if half the ones there are bad or misplaced? If someone had already verified what was there, I could spend more time on listing unrevieweds.<<

Good, practical point. But, I must hasten to add, that, if ODP doesn't change the ways it treats non-ODP community, whether this help would be forthcoming. If the posts in this forum are any indication, a lot of editor applicants get a very unprofessional raw deal from ODP. (I know that once a person is accepted, he is in good company). If a person who offers himself willingly to dedicate some time to be an editor is treated like this, what will be the fate of someone who just offers to help ?

In any case, there will be some people who will swallow all this humiliation in good spirit and for a good cause, and continue to be pro-ODP. They will certainly be interested in offering help.

Modify Lissa's suggestion a little, and accept applications for the post of Sub-Editors only. The Sub-Editor's job will be exactly as Lissa wrote; cleaning up the mess in the categories. He may not be asked to review or recommend any sites (let us finish the cleaning up first). He will not modify anything online; all he does is passing the necessary information to his Editor. Because a Sub-Editor is not permitted to make any online real time modifications, you don't have to worry about him abusing his editorial powers (he has no powers !). That makes the selection of a Sub-Editor rather easy. Move him from category to category until he completes a minimum period. His Editor(s) will know how good he is at work; how dedicated he is; how good his grammar and spelling is; and all that kind of stuff. If he is good enough, by then he must have picked up some tricks of the trade to write good Titles and Descriptions. Ask him to submit three mandatory reviews. If, after working as a Sub-Editor, he has not developed the necessary skills to be an Editor, you thank him for his services and send him home. Or else, promote him to be an Editor. He will be a real asset to ODP.

So Lissa, what are you going to do about this ?

You're assuming that we've never discussed this and other issues before <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> You can't imagine the stuff we talk about in the internal forums. Ideas get bounced around all the time. Some of them get implemented, some don't. Sometimes it's because of resources, other times it's because the consensus is that it's not a great idea at the moment.

For the most part the system works. Don't assume from the posts in this unofficial forum that every applicant is being rejected or that there is a problem with the way the system works. You are seeing a small part of what really happens with editor applications. No one would disagree that there could be enhancements made, but I think as has already been pointed out, they will be made when we think we need them or when we have the resources to do it. From an outside perspective it may seem like things are brokem, but really they're not. There are some glitches here and there, but really it's a small percentage of the applications that are processed in a day.

And back to that quality vs. quantity issue. We really do strive for quality over quantity. Don't forget that the ODP is supposed to be a directory of quality web sites. Because there are some admitted benefits to being listed in the ODP it has become a serious goal for many people to be listed, but it's really not our goal. We just want to have a directory of quality content. We may not have achieved that goal yet, but we're not in a huge rush <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

&gt;&gt; The Sub-Editor's job will be exactly as Lissa wrote; cleaning up the mess in the categories. &lt;&lt;

There are already some projects like this that existing editors can apply for to broaden their horizons; the GreenBuster and CatBuster projects, and there have been numerous changes to those projects over time, and numerous other suggestions.

There are many ideas and initiatives discussed internally. The average editor isn't a programmer and has no idea if the suggestions are easy or hard.

Some things are easy to program, get quick agreement and get changed rapidly by the staff programmer. Usually these make some little editing task simpler.

Some tasks are something that editors who can program write tools to facilitate doing, such as repetitive tasks like interlinking categories. Editor produced tools are a huge productivity enhancer.

Some editor initated projects are so successful that hard-coding them becomes high priority. Greenbusters was one that went from a manual project to programmed permission level.

The hardware, software, guidelines and editor community are in constant improvement. An idea that isn't feasible now, may be feasible in 6 months. An idea that would've been great last year might not matter at all now. Strangely, that's part of the fun. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

&gt;&gt;So Lissa, what are you going to do about this ? &lt;&lt;

Ask you if you can program. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

I work to my strengths, and programming isn't one of those things. One of my current side projects is trying to prevent new editors from timing out because they never logged in to edit.

Ball in your court. <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;So Lissa, what are you going to do about this ? &lt;&lt;
Ask you if you can program. &lt;&lt;

Well, Lissa, the answer is yes. What next ?

Donaldb, I did not assume that there were no internal discussions on improvement. It is inevitable in any organization, where most people involved would like changes, for the better. I am sure that this forum itself must be the result of such internal deliberations.

Donaldb, when I was young, my Mom used to tell me to pray thus: "Lord, give us the courage to change the things we can, serenity to accept those we cannot, and wisdom to know the difference" (of course we prayed in local language). Perhaps repeating this hundreds and hundreds of times has resulted in a mindset always looking for changes that can make things better. Hence these suggestions, which will be backed up by necessary efforts and time, should such an opportunity arise. Please don't feel otherwise.

No, the ODP, from the outside, doesn't look like it is broken. Only when we enter inside we realise that there are loose joints here and there. I agree that there are only small glitches in the system. But my observation is that it is those small things that take up most of your and other metas'/editors' time. If these small glitches are dealt with soon, it will ensure much a smoother, streamlined, stressless, fast and high quality production cycle.

Resources may be a limiting factor for large scale changes, but intuitive resourcefulness is often the limiting factor in determining the need for a change. This has to originate from within. I am confident that resourcefulness is available within.

&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; No dfy, it doesn't require all that massive programming. For several reasons. One, this forum is already working well, and so is the editors' forum. &lt;&lt;

True, but irrelevant. This forum is not an official part of the ODP, and is in no way connected to the ODP (ie. there is no data sharing). I believe this forum not only works in a radically different way to the internal forums, but it's written in a different language. I believe that the author of this forum has no knowledge of the coding of the ODP or it's internal forum, and the ODP staff techie has no knowledge or access to this forum's code. No data sharing means that there is no way to tie resource-zone logins with ODP logins. &lt;&lt;

No, dfy, if all the parties agree, data sharing is a routine thing.

Thanks for your suggestions, jameskal. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> I'm afraid that I don't see this idea as an improvement, thoguh. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> Some reasons why:

• The titles and descriptions are, to me, the least important part of the application. No, I'm not suggesting applicants should leave them blank or fill them with random text, but a decent attempt at writing an unbiased, informative description without blatant spelinng, and, GraMatikal, erorrs is sufficient. If the application is mostly good, I'll accept it even if the descriptions don't meet the guidelines completely.
• The choice of sample URLs is fairly important. I want to see what kind of sites the applicant suggests.
• Seeing all the suggested URLs at once can sometimes give important insight. If one site is described as "An incredibly great resource, with lots and lots of fun stuff!!" and the two others are "A lame site" and "Another lame site", this might give me some hints about the applicant's ability and intention to be impartial. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> [/list:u]
  (added)
  The above is a reply to the suggestions in this post
  
  As for the sub-editor idea: The main problems I see are that 1) it would increase the workload of the editors who had to review, in detail, the work of all beginning editors, and 2) just doing clean up, without being allowed to add any sites, sounds incredibly boring to me. If we implemented that, I'm afraid a lot of new editors would lose interest and leave the project. We're volunteers, remember? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> Editing is supposed to be fun.
  
  Regards, Hilde

Hilde,

Thanks for the very informative post. Certainly this kind of information will aid the applicants to submit their applications correctly.

BTW, if an applicant chooses a lean locality-based sub-category with 10 or less sites, won't it be difficult to find 3 more "quality" sites in the sub-category ? Won't the applicant's choice be very limited, to whatever is available ? In that case, won't he be disqualified if one of these turns out to be a bad choice in your opinion ?

IMHO, any person without vested interests and a reasonable command over English should be able to describe a site objectively with good grammar and spelling. It is the vested interests that mostly corrupt the descriptions.

Even though there may be some differences from meta to meta, I think I will keep these in mind when I submit my application next time.

A suggestion is often just the initiative, and until it is studied and thought about well, will always generate opinions of all kinds. Perhaps one suggestion alone may not bring in the desired improvement, but when combined with others, they could turn out to be a lot better than the original suggestion. Isn't it good that a lot of people are spending their time thinking about ways and means of improving situations ?

Regarding sub-editors: Without sub-editors, the editors will have to do all the work themselves. Whereas, if there are sub-editors around, they will do most of the category cleaning re-search to submit an action-to-be-taken report to their editors. Then editors will have to only formally verify the report and take action. The editors can thus save the time they have to otherwise spend on re-search.

It is true that the work of a sub-editor, as described above, will be boring to you and many others. That is why you are a meta ! But, there are many people who will be happy to confine themselves to just that activity, even though they may be good enough to be editors. There are all kinds of people in this world, so it should not be difficult to find some in this category also. Those who want to be editors and metas, are likely to gear themselves up in this process and eventually get lifted.

&gt;BTW, if an applicant chooses a lean locality-based sub-category with 10 or less sites, won't it be difficult to find 3 more "quality" sites in the sub-category?

&gt;Won't the applicant's choice be very limited, to whatever is available?
If there aren't two or three sites out there the ODP doesn't already have, then that category may not need an editor. Check on the next 'burg down the road.

&gt;In that case, won't he be disqualified if one of these turns out to be a bad choice in your opinion?
If you suggest three, and you've been slimed by a shotgunning hotel-reservations-affiliate-spammer in one of them, you might well be accepted with a warning, if the other two are good.

&gt;IMHO, any person without vested interests and a reasonable command over English should be able to describe a site objectively with good grammar and spelling.

Almost right. True, any good editor is a good knowledgeable editor, if they know enough about the subject.

Some people can't spell. Some can't gramm. Some can't taxonomize. And some simply don't know enough about the cactacae to know whether stapeliads belong there or not. And some that are good at spells and grammars, and know all about xerophytes, are too busy teaching botany in Botswana to have time to edit.

Dishonesty is a problem, true, but it's not what disqualifies most disqualified volunteers.

&gt;&gt; Dishonesty is a problem, true, but it's not what disqualifies most disqualified. &gt;&gt;

The sad part is that others will know if an applicant is dishonest or not, only after he is accepted. At least in most cases. Is it because of this, more weightage is given to other aspects ?

Regarding categories:
One doubt. When the category is correctly established for a site, then why do we need the detailed description ? For example, if a car-rental service in included in ....../Travel Services/Car Rentals/ , then why do we have to write "A car rental site, etc." ? Won't the category name itself make it self-explanatory ?

In one of the categories I looked into, I could find three sites and all of them are doing the same business. But all of them are relevant and good sites (I mean, sites of genuine businesses). What shall I do ? Leave this category and choose another one ?

Regards,


James.

For example, if a car-rental service in included in ....../Travel Services/Car Rentals/ , then why do we have to write "A car rental site, etc." ? Won't the category name itself make it self-explanatory ?

Click to expand...

We dont need that, thats right. As the guidelines state:

Good descriptions:
- Do not repeat the title of the site or sections of the category path name.

it's all in the guidelines. So a description in a car-rental category containing "A car rental site" would be a bad description per our guidelines. While in a regional categpory (the hometown of that service) this is a quite necessary part.

windharp,

thanks for the info .... I tried to go to the "guidelines" but no access ... asking for authentication. Sure I can go in there ?

Even at the regional level, in ..../country/state/city/travel services/car rental/ category won't that description be bad ? Is there any limit to the category levels ? How deep can we go making categories ?

Regards,

James.

Sorry for the broken link. Forgot to change it from the "editor only" to the public address. Fixed it above.

For the regional question: If a category like this exists: Yes of course that would be bad stile. But in most regional categories (since they are splitted on town level) such categories are not existant.

&gt;&gt;why do we need the detailed description ?&lt;&lt;

The most important thing in the description is to describe the contents of the site itself. A commonly used format is &lt;describe business&gt; &lt;describe site&gt; but when the category path makes it extremely clear what the business is, you can drop the first part.

e.g. in Business/Widgets/Blue/Manufacturers since you know the category is for manufacturers of blue widgets, you would have listings like these:

Widget Wonders - Includes product catalog with prices, company history, and description of services.
Wonderful Widgets - Offers online ordering, product specifications, and factory virtual tour.

Unfortunately far too many are simply:
Blue Widgets - Company overview, contact details, and photos.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. Though this information is good for an editor, but metas are not looking for perfect descriptions. We're looking for common sense, and some decent grammar and spelling skills (you don't have to be perfect everywhere (I know I'm not), but consider your application like a résumé, you spell check a résumé, so spell check your application too. Also put a period on the end of sentences [you'd be surprised how many people don't.]). We're looking for honest people who have the ability to learn how to edit well. You don't have to have perfect guideline compliant descriptions to be accepted at all.

Enarra, this information is encouraging. Glad to realise that we can learn to be good editors and don't have to be born editors !

Regards,

James.