Too Many Cats Spoil the Broth

JonBoreman · Jan 31, 2012

Like many folks in these forums I've come across dead links, out of date descriptions and even complete change of content - possibly ownership of sites/domains that are linked to from the ODP.

Reading the large number of posts in here asking how long it is likely to take to 'Get Listed'........ And sympathising with the folks waiting in the wings, I am wondering what is the value of a listing. In the main, there are a great number of listings that are out of date... even sites listed which have been reported through the abuse system many months ago which have not yet been attended to. Add to that - that the home page of the ODP claims: 93,429 editors, yet there are repeated disparities claimed by Admin in these forums. It makes me wonder which figure is correct... no academic explanation claiming both please... that's not clever and the surfers are not silly.

It seems to me that given the continued growth of the web and seemingly reduced number of active editors, that the ODP is overburdened with categories. With that in mind, I suggest the ODP Gods consider a massive culling of Categories, then increasing the listings per category which would in turn increase the number of Editors per category. Consolidation!?

Additionally, having read the requirements of becoming an editor, I would suggest that the requirements could be modified to include submitting three sites already listed.... but to present updated information and therefore an improvement to the current content. This could be particularly useful IMO.

Finally, he says... in my opening salvo - (with best intentions) I note the ODP claims to power the core directory of Google. My understanding is that Google no longer uses ODP dump data and don't actually have a core directory... if I am wrong in this I would be surprised, but would indeed like to see evidence of this continued claim.

Thanks
Jon

jimnoble · Jan 31, 2012

The 93,429 editors shown at the bottom of the page is the number of editor accounts that have been created over the last decade or so. This is not a secret and has been explained many times. Currently, we have under 10000 active editor accounts. Pareto rules of course and so the majority of the work is done by a much smaller number. New editors join and experienced editors leave every day. If you want to know the exact number, you can download our RDF database dump and count them - so that's not a secret either.

If our purpose was to list suggested websites, which it is not, I don't understand how reducing the number of categories will somehow reduce the amount of work to be done. In fact the actual process of reduction would itself create work that we wouldn't otherwise have to do.

I would suggest that the requirements could be modified to include submitting three sites already listed

We ask for examples so that we can see how well an applicant can find appropriate websites for the category and write guidelines compliant publishable descriptions for them - because that's the job. Your suggestion would deny us the opportunity of evaluating how well the candidate understands the scope of the requested category.

I note the ODP claims to power the core directory of Google

Does it? it's not true so please tell me where we say that so that I can ask AOL (who own us) to fix it. Their resources are extremely limited so this might take some time.

JonBoreman · Jan 31, 2012

I'm confused why you moved my feedback out of the feedback thread?

jimnoble said:
The 93,429 editors shown at the bottom of the page is the number of editor accounts that blaaaaaaaaahhhhrrrrrr bage!

You are what you claim - or you are misleading people: The ODP claims ninety odd thousand editors on the home page... that's misleading people who don't take time to download data from the RDF dump... so that will be almost everyone won't it? I only discovered the figure is nearer 10k by visiting this forum and seeing your posts... I'll pass on downloading data from the RDF dump.

jimnoble said:
If our purpose was to list suggested websites, which it is not, I don't understand how reducing the number of categories will somehow reduce the amount of work to be done. In fact the actual process of reduction would itself create work that we wouldn't otherwise have to do.

You clearly claim much higher numbers of editors than actually exist and your labour is spread too thin. If you reduce the number of categories then you'll be able to pool your labour sources, make them more effective at working together in larger teams. It's pretty much basic stuff which most companies understand. Basically, the ODP is suffering a quality issue because it is ignoring this fact... not that it matters because the ODP has no cash value... you can bet your life if AOL relied on the ODP for cash... it would have no option but to chop out the dead wood - categories..

jimnoble said:
We ask for examples so that we can see how well an applicant can find appropriate websites for the category and write guidelines compliant publishable descriptions for them - because that's the job. Your suggestion would deny us the opportunity of evaluating how well the candidate understands the scope of the requested category.

I disagree. If a potential editor can demonstrate an improvement within a category then the potential editor has obviously proved they understand how the system works and how to improve it. There is a great deal of improvement needed! As it stands, the ODP's reputation is being damaged by the many badly listed / described and not updated content. I'm guessing you'll think differently - but I'll still say you are still wrong. I do not accept that new editors working within the restrictions of a specific category are left entirely un-monitored under the current system - so your argument just doesn't stand up.

jimnoble said:
Does it? it's not true so please tell me where we say that so that I can ask AOL (who own us) to fix it. Their resources are extremely limited so this might take some time.

Aye it does... might be a legacy page that's not been chopped...

The ODP powers core directory services for some the most popular portals and search engines on the Web, including AOL Search, Netscape Search, Google, Lycos, and HotBot, and hundreds of others.

SEE LINKY: http://www.dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html

motsa · Jan 31, 2012

You clearly claim much higher numbers of editors than actually exist and your labour is spread too thin. If you reduce the number of categories then you'll be able to pool your labour sources, make them more effective at working together in larger teams. It's pretty much basic stuff which most companies understand. Basically, the ODP is suffering a quality issue because it is ignoring this fact... not that it matters because the ODP has no cash value... you can bet your life if AOL relied on the ODP for cash... it would have no option but to chop out the dead wood - categories..

The main reason that this suggestion would be counter productive is that, at its core, the directory's volunteer system is truly based on volunteering. No one is assigned categories or given minimum amounts of time they must spend doing editing tasks in the categories they have editing access to -- each and every editor chooses where they edit, how often they edit, and what editing tasks they do when they're editing. Reducing the number of categories may well eliminate some poorly maintained categories but that would really be its only potential benefit (and an iffy one at that). It's not something that could be just done without extensive forethought. (Parts of the directory are like a game of Jenga -- you have to be careful how you start pulling out pieces or you'll end up with a mess.) Discussing, planning, and then implementing something like that would tax those editors who are likely already among the more swamped editors in the directory. And, since editors already choose where, when, and how they work, removing dead categories isn't going to result in people suddenly banding together to amp up other categories -- if they don't edit in those categories already, this isn't likely going make them suddenly start to.

I disagree. If a potential editor can demonstrate an improvement within a category then the potential editor has obviously proved they understand how the system works and how to improve it. There is a great deal of improvement needed! As it stands, the ODP's reputation is being damaged by the many badly listed / described and not updated content. I'm guessing you'll think differently - but I'll still say you are still wrong. I do not accept that new editors working within the restrictions of a specific category are left entirely un-monitored under the current system - so your argument just doesn't stand up.

Actually, it doesn't necessarily prove anything of the sort. Showing that you (that's a general "you") can fix up descriptions or titles really only tells meta editors how well you've read the guidelines; it says very little about your understanding of the scope of the category.

That's not to say that the directory couldn't improve; but what constitutes reasonable and doable changes would probably be a hot debate.

vladd · Jan 31, 2012

You are what you claim - or you are misleading people: The ODP claims ninety odd thousand editors on the home page... that's misleading people who don't take time to...

On the homepage it doesn't say "active editors" or "editors with at least 100 edits in the last year", it simply says "editors", so I don't think it's misleading.

One could produce a histogram that shows how many editors there are which last logged-in X months ago, for values of X ranging from 1 to 12+. This would give a more accurate picture but it's also harder to generate.

JonBoreman · Feb 1, 2012

motsa said:
The main reason that this suggestion would be counter productive is that, at its core, the directory's volunteer system is truly based on volunteering.

I realise that the ODP is edited by volunteers, but I'm missing your point.

motsa said:
No one is assigned categories or given minimum amounts of time they must spend doing editing tasks in the categories they have editing access to -- each and every editor chooses where they edit, how often they edit, and what editing tasks they do when they're editing.

I don't see how consolidating some of the smaller.. low to zero content sections would be a negative, or TBF... how this statement is relevant in any way.

motsa said:
Reducing the number of categories may well eliminate some poorly maintained categories but that would really be its only potential benefit (and an iffy one at that).

Again... this comment means nothing at all.

motsa said:
It's not something that could be just done without extensive forethought.

Agreed. Thinking is a very good thing... planning change and making it better is a good thing. The alternative is a foot shoot!

motsa said:
(Parts of the directory are like a game of Jenga -- you have to be careful how you start pulling out pieces or you'll end up with a mess.)

It's already a mess, nobody is claiming it should not be done with proper planning, and possibly in stages.

motsa said:
Discussing, planning, and then implementing something like that would tax those editors who are likely already among the more swamped editors in the directory.

I doubt it, since when were editors responsible for the core build of the directory? Editors should be dealing with content.. not getting bogged down with the structure of the database.

motsa said:
And, since editors already choose where, when, and how they work, removing dead categories isn't going to result in people suddenly banding together to amp up other categories -- if they don't edit in those categories already, this isn't likely going make them suddenly start to.

The idea is that if you have several sub-categories below a top category, where there is very few listings in the full top to bottom, that the sub categories could be amalgamated into one much larger category. This would not dilute any of the editors editing editing rights, indeed it would not only enhance them... but it would also mean that senior editors can monitor and assist newbie editors with much more effect.

motsa said:
Actually, it doesn't necessarily prove anything of the sort. Showing that you (that's a general "you") can fix up descriptions or titles really only tells meta editors how well you've read the guidelines; it says very little about your understanding of the scope of the category.

All new editors are going to be an unknown quantity, at least until they have completed a few edits. Given that as I mentioned earlier... I cannot believe that new editors are not monitored under the current system - your argument falls at the first hurdle. Add to that - with a simplified category structure, the monitoring and coaching of new editors would be simpler if the other proposals I have presented were implemented.

motsa said:
That's not to say that the directory couldn't improve; but what constitutes reasonable and doable changes would probably be a hot debate.

No time like now eh?

JonBoreman · Feb 1, 2012

vladd said:
On the homepage it doesn't say "active editors" or "editors with at least 100 edits in the last year", it simply says "editors", so I don't think it's misleading.

The point I made when I used the phrase 'Active Editors' was based on the disparity between the home page number claimed and the actual number being claimed in this forum by Admin / Jim.

I drew the obvious conclusion - but only after I visited this forum.

I stand by my accusation that the home page number is misleading. But don't let it burn you... I'm not suggesting any malicious intent... but it demonstrates how from the home page down there is potential for lots of housekeeping and general improvement.

vladd said:
One could produce a histogram that shows how many editors there are which last logged-in X months ago, for values of X ranging from 1 to 12+. This would give a more accurate picture but it's also harder to generate.

I'm no SQL expert, but I would have thought that a pretty simple problem to resolve. If it's not... then I'll wager you everything you own against everything I own - that deleting the unnecessary misleading claim is no more than a few seconds worth of work

jimnoble · Feb 1, 2012

deleting the unnecessary misleading claim is no more than a few seconds worth of work

Absolutely, but no editor has the permissions necessary to amend the document you refer to. Only AOL folks can do that and, as I said at the beginning of this thread, they have very limited resources right now. Frankly, I don't see this particular issue climbing to the top of their priority list any time soon.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some editing I'd rather be doing.

motsa · Feb 1, 2012

I doubt it, since when were editors responsible for the core build of the directory? Editors should be dealing with content.. not getting bogged down with the structure of the database.

Editors aren't responsible for the actual functioning and upkeep of the database but they are most definitely responsible for the upkeep of the taxonomy and category structure. Category structure *is* part of the content.

The idea is that if you have several sub-categories below a top category, where there is very few listings in the full top to bottom, that the sub categories could be amalgamated into one much larger category. This would not dilute any of the editors editing editing rights, indeed it would not only enhance them... but it would also mean that senior editors can monitor and assist newbie editors with much more effect

Ah, thanks for clarifying -- I misunderstood your suggestion to cull categories as meaning to completely remove, not to amalgamate (since amalgamation wouldn't eliminate dead links, bad descriptions, or other quality issues), which would be why most of my earlier post seems irrelevant.

Most categories that are set up that way are like that in order to facilitate cross-linking between them and other sections of the directory. In those cases, removing the subcategories and just lumping everything together in the higher-level category would reduce the overall functionality of the directory while not really improving the quality of the listings. (The presence of subcategories does not prevent an editor from volunteering to clean up a category, nor does it make the monitoring of new editors any more difficult for senior editors -- in fact, it frequently makes it easier to check.)

All new editors are going to be an unknown quantity, at least until they have completed a few edits. Given that as I mentioned earlier... I cannot believe that new editors are not monitored under the current system - your argument falls at the first hurdle. Add to that - with a simplified category structure, the monitoring and coaching of new editors would be simpler if the other proposals I have presented were implemented.

It only seems to fall at the first hurdle because you assume you know more about how the directory functions.

JonBoreman · Feb 1, 2012

jimnoble said:
Absolutely, but no editor has the permissions necessary to amend the document you refer to. Only AOL folks can do that and, as I said at the beginning of this thread, they have very limited resources right now. Frankly, I don't see this particular issue climbing to the top of their priority list any time soon.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some editing I'd rather be doing.

Just so there is no confusion, the misleading claim I am referring to in this instance is the number of editors claimed on the front page. Not the misleading claim about powering the core directory of Google. Both claims are misleading and equally bringing the ODP and AOL into disrepute, but equally both are separate issues. Which begs other questions of the ODP / AOL Gods... about the vast number of misleading and inaccurate claims being made about the ODP by the ODP / AOL.

If you'd rather be editing, then you are free to ignore... but your sarcasm is asked for this..............

The ODP claims to follow in the footsteps of highly respectable authorities of word, citing Oxford English Dictionary. Given the whopping errors within the ODP's own content... it is yet another misleading claim. Then there are claims about the ODP being able to keep a more accurate record of up to date web content - claiming that search engines cannot keep up with the pace of the internet. This is yet again a complete pile of doo doo. Automated indexing of web pages is much more efficient and hence why Google and others dumped the ODP.... along with the fact that it's way out of date and completely unreliable.

It claims to be the internet Brain, yet another outlandishly inaccurate claim... once again claiming to power the core directory of search engines which is NOT true.... on yet another page here: http://www.dmoz.org/docs/en/about.html

Now, providing accurate, honest and high quality information might not be high on the agenda of AOL, and not likely to be given any priority any time soon... but this just by default makes the whole exercise an ego massage parlour for people who clearly don't give too hoots about presenting accurate - up to date information about themselves - never mind the sites they list. It's a joke mate... to claim accurate content about others when your own is wholly inaccurate and the best you can come up with is... it's not important... wowwwww - and you are admin? Strange attitude mate. Wouldn't wash in the real world of real business!

motsa said:
since amalgamation wouldn't eliminate dead links, bad descriptions, or other quality issues).

You have missed the point!

Amalgamation would mean more effective editing, so the end result would be improvements all around. At the moment there are not enough editors to do the job and from what I can gather... the ratio isn't improving.

motsa said:
Most categories that are set up that way are like that in order to facilitate cross-linking between them and other sections of the directory. In those cases, removing the subcategories and just lumping everything together in the higher-level category would reduce the overall functionality of the directory while not really improving the quality of the listings.

Nonsense, if there is amalgamation of threads and categories where there is little to no content, there would be no loss of functionality.

motsa said:
It only seems to fall at the first hurdle because you assume you know more about how the directory functions.

How the directory functions is blatantly obvious and public information, it's discussed here and in hundreds if not thousands of other forums. It's not a big secret mate.

informator · Feb 2, 2012

I think this thread has run into a dead end. Feel free to start another.

motsa · Feb 2, 2012

How the directory functions is blatantly obvious and public information, it's discussed here and in hundreds if not thousands of other forums. It's not a big secret mate.

There's only so much understanding you can gain from reading public discussions or publicly available documentation. To really understand how the directory (the entire entity, including its volunteer force) functions, you need to see it from the inside. If you're not open to the concept that perhaps you don't know everything there is to know about DMOZ, then all we can do is thank you for sharing your suggestions and let it end there.

Too Many Cats Spoil the Broth

JonBoreman

Member

jimnoble

DMOZ Meta

JonBoreman

Member

motsa

vladd

Meta/kMeta

JonBoreman

Member

JonBoreman

Member

jimnoble

DMOZ Meta

motsa

JonBoreman

Member

informator

kEditall/kCatmv

motsa