Theory/rules behind site classification

I recently applied to be an editor for “Regional: North America: Canada: Nova Scotia: Travel and Tourism” where you will find the Evangeline Trail Tourism Association (ETTA), Central Nova Tourism Association and a listing for the World Acadian Congress (WAC). For my choices to add to the directory, which I will assume are only a “test of my skills” rather than sites to be submitted, I choose the south Shore Tourism Association’s (SSTA) site (http://www.ssta.com/) and a small company site producing a travel DVD that covers all of Nova Scotia, Tourism on Video (http://www.tourismonvideo.com/).

My question is this… How does the SSTA differ from ETTA in content and in its “appropriateness for this directory” and how does tourism on video differ from the world Acadian congress – in short they both cover tourism related activities/events within Nova Scotia as an entire province, not region specific.

My rant is in reply to the comments I received with my rejection letter:
“Reviewer Comments:

http://www.tourismonvideo.com/ is a company designing travel videos -- it would be listed in the locality where they are physically located. http://www.ssta.com/ is already listed appropriately in the South Shore region category. You might want to apply for a small (under 50 sites) locality level instead since that's where most sites get listed in Regional.”

I’m confused about the SSTA vs ETTA listings. If they offer the same content for slightly different regions of the province (right next to one another) why are they in different categories and why would I be wrong to want to place the SSTA under “Regional: North America: Canada: Nova Scotia: Travel and Tourism”, the same category as two other regional tourism associations......

Thoughts anyone?

Wayne

It's really very simple. A site goes in the smallest Regional category that will encompass it. Always.

If there is a South Shore Region category, than ANY site about that region as a whole goes in that category. End of story.

As to when there are categories for regions without a political definition, that's a very complex question. I avoid it, and I recommend that you avoid it for your first five to ten thousand regional edits.

The advice given was good. Start with a local category; learn what goes there (most regional listings). When you have enough experience spotting the exceptions that don't go there, you're ready to move up to the larger geographic entity categories.

As to your "test" assumption: sorry, bzzt, wrong answer. There is no test, it's a practicum, and those examples would potentially be your first three real edits. (The ODP really isn't about mickey-mouse-makework...it's about getting in and building the directory.)

Thoughts anyone?

Click to expand...

I think you're asking good questions.

If the above from hutcheson is true, then why isn't The Evangeline Trail Tourism Association under "Regional: North America: Canada: Nova Scotia: Regions: Annapolis Valley ", the area or region the association covers. It currently resides under "Regional: North America: Canada: Nova Scotia: Travel and Tourism".

Using the rules noted by hutcheson, "ANY site about that region as a whole goes in that category. End of story." ETTA, with information about the annapolis valley, with an office located in the annapolis valley is in the wrong category!

Not trying to pick on anyone but it's hard to learn what's proper with poor examples!

We have a technical term for this. It's called a misplaced site. The directory isn't finished, which is why we're still accepting editors.

"You want to deal with people, you'll have to learn to deal with imperfect ones" -- as the magistrate told J. S. Bach, who had less reason than most of us to tolerate fools gladly. Back when I was a computer science student I studied the poor examples much more carefully than I did the good ones. And I learned much (about what not to do and how not to do it) which has been profitable to me ever since. Today, patterns of mis-submitted or misplaced sites give valuable information about aspects of the taxonomy that are difficult, confusing or ill-defined. (which, by the way, is of course where I learned the rule, "leave the regional region categories for the experts.")

So. You think you can learn to learn even from "imperfecta"? It's part of the prerequisites for being an editor. Because I warn you, some of these other ODP editors make mistakes sometimes. (And IIRC, the first summer I was an editall, there were about a half-dozen major group projects to, um, clean up my edits in different areas.)