>I am disturbed that reviews are not necesarily first in/first out, if I understand your information correctly.
You may be still more disturbed by these facts, which have been inherent in the project organization from the beginning:
1) Every editor is explicitly given blanket permission and encouragement to NEVER review any particular site, whether or not it has ever been suggested, if he feels uncomfortable with it for ANY REASON whatever!
2) And every editor is STRONGLY encouraged, in many different ways and whenever he requests a new category, to list sites that have NEVER been suggested!
3) And the editors aren't here to review suggested sites. Editors that only do that, really aren't doing their job! Editors are supposed to be building the directory, in whatever way seems most effective to them.
4) Neither your priorities as a webmaster, or my priorities as a meta-editor, have any weight with any other editor! They are all volunteers, and they choose their own priorities, with only one limitation: "no priority to sites you're associated with."
Some editors feel very strongly that sites should be reviewed in order. Others feel that sites which have been waiting for over a year or so ought to receive special attention. Still others are concerned to build new categories for subjects that didn't exist a month ago -- the ongoing North American power failure, or some new sleazy commercial scam. I personally do what I feel I can do effectively (or what piques my curiosity at the moment), with special attention to a couple of projects that other editors mostly neglect.
The AVERAGE length of time a site waits in the queue is shorter, the more efficiently editors work. So we let editors decide how they can work most efficiently. Think macro-economic model (as is of course most appropriate for a volunteer organization), not micro-economic.
