Suggestion To Ease The Frustration

It seems that from reviewing all the recent posts on this forum including my own experience that there appears to be a simple explanation for the divide of expectations of those submitting and those reviewing.

I think the majority of people that have submitted sites and then have written here with frustation from what appears to be lack of activity on the editors', don't have a true picture of the overwhelming workload of the editors (myself included). We are on the outside and we read this http://dmoz.org/help/submit.html. This is not telling us the same thing as your FAQ's here. By the time we get here, we are desparate and have already been informed by the more accessible and prominent link that I just stated which is from the front end of the dmoz.org site.

Apparently, this was written a while back when "inboxes" were less populated and life was more simple. Possibly, that many editors are so busy that they don't know what it being promoted from the front end to the public.

The statement is made on this link that "Depending on the activity level of the editors in your area, it may take up to 2 weeks or more for your site to be reviewed.". The implication is that 2 weeks is an upper limit when 2 years (as the FAQ's of the FORUM, not dmoz.org front page) is what it should say.

There seems to be a great deal of hostility and frustration between posts and this could very well be the explanation.

I would recommend a change to the text here http://dmoz.org/help/submit.html to explain the current workload to a more accurate degree from the editors' perspective. When you say "2 weeks or more" the statement can be read to mean "Geez, it can take up to 2 weeks or even more" as if 2 weeks is a really long time when it is really just a blink to the editors' current workload.

Workload? Frustration?

This isn't a job. It's a hobby. If finding and reviewing sites (from the unreviewed pile or through other, more effective means) that are useful to list becomes "work" I'll be finding another hobby. Since it's not "work" and the number of unreviewed is not a "problem"

We're victims of our own success, I guess.

No one was ever promised a listing, much less a "timely" one. It's all over the submission guidlines and the terms of service, which any submitter agrees to be bound to before they suggest their site.

Take Joe. Joe likes working with wood in his spare time. He likes to take quotes and funny saying and engrave them into wood plaques. Since other people like them he gives them away to anyone who wants them. Joe, however, is only one guy, and he knows that he can't find all of the funny or deep sayings or quotes out there, so he hangs up a suggestion box. Next to it he hangs a sign: "Thanks for your suggestion. I don't know if or when I'll use it, but it's appreciated just the same." Do you think Joe would continue to make these plaques if people who suggested sayings kept badgering him about their suggestion? If he received hateful mail from people accusing him of purposely NOT using their suggestion in order to hurt their business? If people kept saying that Joe had to work through the suggestions faster, and in order, and if he can't do the job it should be given to someone else?

I have to stop coming to this forum. Submitters are ruining my hobby.

By the by, there is currently internal discussion about clarifying that text in the submission guidelines. I expect there to be no time frame at all mentioned.

If he received hateful mail from people accusing him of purposely NOT using their suggestion in order to hurt their business? If people kept saying that Joe had to work through the suggestions faster, and in order, and if he can't do the job it should be given to someone else?

Click to expand...

You forgot: you didn't use my suggestion so you must be corrupt.