Sub-category redirect query

Under Top: Arts: Performing Arts: Dance: Folk Dancing

the subcategory Aztec@ points to Mexican

(ie Top: Arts: Performing Arts: Dance: Folk Dancing: Mexican is reached through both links).

I see that there is an '@' next to Aztec - does that mean its being dealt with?

Thanks

The "@" means that, instead of it being a category by itself, it points to a different category.

now, whether that link makes sense I will leave to someone who knows the subject better than me.

Well the mexican sub-category does include 1 aztec dance site.

The aztec/mexican/native american linking is actually already under discussion internally, although it is a rather slow-moving discussion.

If you have a particular interest in folk dancing, please consider applying to be an editor...

My application was rejected by myself...

Acrtually I was considering applying for Folk Dancing:International.

To that end I've been trying to understand how that category fits into Folk Dancing and poking around all the related cats.

Overall the problem seems to be in classification - I believe the Folk Dancing category shows organic growth (ie cats added as and when enough sites made it viable). It is due for an overhaul because the structure is not consistent enough (a mixture of styles and nationalities).

Example Africa covers Native African (true African folk dance) plus the Afro-American (Brazil!) which deserve cats of their own. There are also 'category decomposition collisions' (lI can make up jargon ) on the India sub category.

I don't really understand the directory structure enough as I believe the solution may be at a different level of the directory organisations (eg some category entries point to folkdance sub cats of other categories.) I can see the need to make these consistent (ie either the list of sites are under folkdancing and other cats point to them or the reverse. Either way they need to be consistent).

It would be better for me (and DMOZ ) not to apply for anything related to this area.

Once I've finished 'playing' I may apply to be an editor for Regional/mytown in order to learn the ins-and-outs of editing and how everything fits together. Trying for a cat in an area that I am interested in where I can see problems which needs to have a thorough knowledge of 'classification' and the directory structure and the subject is a recipe for disaster.

Your analysis sounds very well thought-out, and that, with a bit of patience with the consensus-building, would be (IMO) a great contribution to the discussion. But working on your town category while contributing on the side to the discussion is another reasonable option.

Thanks - I am still getting to grips what I think editors need to ‘get’ as opposed to just ‘knowing’ or ‘thinking that you know’.

So far I ‘get’ that there is no right or wrong way to order the directory only an agreed way that takes into account a host of factors (mainly user perceptions and the need to clearly determine where a site should reside).

The ordering criteria must be abstracted from what is being ordered. For example a contentious issue is whether Tango is real folk-dancing as opposed to Ballroom Dancing. The answer is 'why care?' – the important thing is that there is a clearly defined Tango sub-category and both Folk Dance and Ballroom can point to it, as could other cats that could justify it.

Thus on the Mexican/Aztec/Native_American issue, a practical solution would to first ensure that there are the lowest level sub-cats for submittors/editors/users to work with easily. How the categories relate to each other is a separate issue (and common to other nationalities/types in the category), any 'final' solution needs to be generic not specific and en route there will probably be various intermediate solutions.

[Of course it is not just that simple as there will be issues with sub-cats of subjects involving Tango (e.g. would it be, say, Dance_Schools/Tango pointing to Tango/Dance_Schools or vice versa) to be considered.]

If that understanding is not very wrong, I think I would be confidant enough to finding the smallest, most indivisible sub-cat in Folk Dancing that clearly will have no problems with it (famous last words) and concentrate on the specifics of applying for that.

The knowledge that there is a discussion going on makes applying for a related cat very attractive as it will make the learning process so much easier. It is difficult to determine from the outside whether the things that seem obvious or seem complicated are in fact so.

regards

One comment about how the ODP cat structure grows..

We try to grow cats "organically" (to use your term) - what we try to avoid as much as posisble are empoty categories, or ones where there are only one or two sites listed. (It's not always possible, of course)

For example, if we had a bunch of sites about Hampster breeders, and there were red, blue and green hampters, and we found one breeder website for each of the colours (yes, you can tell I'm making this up, can't you?)

Then what we will NOT create are the categories
Breeders/Rodents/Hampsters/Red
Breeders/Rodents/Hampsters/Blue
Breeders/Rodents/Hampsters/Green

But probably only create Breeders/Rodents until such times as that got too big to handle, and then we break it down to create a "Hampsters" category.

So working out structure becomes on on-going thing, depending on how many sites you have.

Hope this helps.

there were red, blue and green hampters, and we found one breeder website for each of the colours (yes, you can tell I'm making this up, can't you?)

Click to expand...

Hah, everyone knows hamsters are Purple, Pink or Yellow!

I can see that were I to want a Purple hamster sub-category, I would not argue the case for one, but go and find enough Purple hamster sites to warrant one.

[Of course, having found the sites, someone may point out that a better way to organise the category would be not according to colour but some other factor (e.g. length of hair) which, from the larger number of sites, we can now see the breeders prefer.]

I can see that there is always a 'But...'