The Problem with the ODP

OK. Let's say someone sees a category with no sub-level editor. He/she has a site to put in the category. They apply for, and get, the editor job.

They then add their own site to the category and ignore further submissions awaiting review. Why? Because they can. All the editors from the top down have a "wait 2 hours or 2 years for review" attitude. So why bother adding competitors to the category?

Ah, all the editors say. We aren't interested in the webmaster wanting to get his/her site in the ODP, we're interested in the users. Guess what? Some, if not many, of the sites rotting away (deliberately) in an unreviewed pile would be beneficial to your users.

Because very, very few editors are unethical?

You are quite right about many submitted sites being beneficial to our end users. That's why we have a system where people can submit sites (In many, many categories, the majority of the submissions are listable. Problem is, you don't often hear from the people who submit to those categories and are listed quickly...)

Anyway. In what way do you see it as a problem that the person in your example gets to be an editor? If s/he hadn't been accepted, the submitted sites might have been languishing for a couple of years. That there is an editor named for a category doesn't hinder other editors with editing rights there from editing in it; in fact, categories with new editors in them tend to get some extra scrutiny from higher-up editors who want to see how the new gal or guy is doing.

But even if our new editor only adds his or her own site, neither the directory nor any of the webmasters whose sites are waiting for review have lost anything. If the new editor started to remove their competitors' sites they would be guilty of abuse and lose their editing privileges. Meta editors work pretty hard to prevent this, and have a number of ways to minimise the risks of it happening, though.

Oh yes, that does happen. But some of us look around and find things like this, and then they get investigated.

And as stated, adding the site may have been "preferential" but not in the long run wrong for ODP users as a whole. Of course when the editor adds both of his mirror sites, thats abuse.

Right, what Nea said. An editor can't BLOCK any sites from being listed in a category he works in, and they wouldn't have gotten listed if he WASN'T an editor... so an editor who adds his own site and then disappears hasn't actually hurt the directory any (except for the waste of the metas' valuable time evaluating, aceepting, and trying to mentor him, of course). The elapsed time before any of the pending sites gets reviewed is still going to be the same as it would have been if the lazy butt had never joined. (-:

Post deleted. Sacred11, you do not have the right to question the priorities of any editor, and you may not use this forum to do so.

If you can demonstrate that you can contribute to a category, the number of editors there will hardly ever be a consideration.

I don't approve editors, but I have seen a couple of cases where I was sending sites to categories where the editor was not very active, then I noticed a second editor was allowed in the categroy, and went to work, than later on, the first editor timed out for not working, and disappeared.

sacred11, what "makes sense" to you is beneath irrelevant. Editors may choose their own priorities, and our priorities do not even have to "make sense" to other editors.

I'll speak for myself and say that if I had a choice of editing 2 different categories...one with a listed editor and one without, I spend more time in the category without the editor. That doesn't mean I *don't* edit in the other category....

No, they didn't exacty say that.
A top-level editor often spends more time helping and controlling new editors in their first few weeks/months. When (s)he understands the principles of ODP the top-level editor can now spend more time on other categories that need attention.

No, because the concept of "categories with editors" is severely misunderstood. [Probably because it's confusing]

I am named as an editor in about 22 categories, but I actually edit in well over 100.

All categories have editors who can work there. However, editors are discouraged from putting their name on every category in which they are able to edit, this leaves it more open for new editors to apply. The theory being, that if I am actively editing in a category, but my name is not on it, then if someone else comes along and finds 3 more sites to add, he can get to be a named editor there - but I'm also still the editor there, even if my name does not appear.

This is my additional explanation http://www.dummies-guide-to-dmoz.org/categories_with_no_editors.htm

Post deleted. Sacred11, you may not misrepresent editors in this forum.

a bone-idle editor will harm the category he/she is an editor in.

Click to expand...

Only insofar as people do not understand what being listed as editor of a category means...

The point of encouraging editors to join is delegation of work. Once a new editor is installed it will hopefully give you more time to edit elsewhere.

Click to expand...

It's not like we really "recruit" editors. Once an editor is "installed" there will likely be some to time out and/or quit, etc....

I think the fact that most of my posts in this thread were deleted by "hutcheson" says it all really. I neither mentioned any editors by name, nor did I say all editors were sub-standard.

I stand by my original post, and I'll leave future readers to guess what my replies were before they were deleted.

Yes, I think a great deal of the frustration with dmoz.org has nothing to do with the backlog but rather the very poor treatment a lot of people are getting at the hands of its volunteers.

The ODP sets up rules (both for the directory, such as for submissions, and for this forum) to keep things running efficiently. The rules are set up for the good of all; the rules about what we will and will not discuss on this forum have been developed to keep the ODP editors on this forum from wasting time repeating the same debates over and over again, and give us more time to help people.

Its amazing how many see it as our fault when people choose to not follow these rules, and not the fault of those that didn't follow the rules -- Foe

Good point.

Debate IS pointless, and IS a bad thing. Especially when those lowly editors are doing it. After all, all the good ideas have already been thought of and no one else really has anything new to contribute.

Sigh.

Keep it organic folks. Arbitrarily stepping in warps the evolution of ideas. Try listening instead of reacting - believe it or not you might learn something.

tshephard said:

Debate IS pointless, and IS a bad thing.

Click to expand...

I never said that. Try rereading my post -- Foe

Oh, whenever we get anyone that seems to know anything, we pick their brains ... and much more closely than would be considered polite in some contexts. I'm afraid we lose a few potential informants to the "I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition" reaction.

There are both categories and guidelines that can trace their inception to someone (who never became an editor) who took the trouble to figure out the facts -- and kept showing us specific sites that were either sneaking in inappropriately, or were consistently being miscategorized. And I've seen spammers announce in outside forums, "I've given up on the ODP. I used to have umpteen dozen sites, and they were all removed, and I can't get in any sites now" -- that I believe can be traced back to some of that outside help.

But the clue is: adduce the facts in detail, present a methodology.

Most outside proposals, on the other hand, amount to nothing other than an attempt to subvert the fundamental ODP principle that a lot of editors, each working on priorities they set based on their own interests, produce the best possible sampling (from the surfers' viewpoint) of the available web content.

These take various forms, usually boiling down to "editors' priorities should be driven by submittals" or "editors should be responsible to submitters" -- both of which are categorically rejected by ODP founders and staff.