Under Review for 17 Months

Please don't direct me to the Site Submission Status forum. I just did and found out the same thing I was told more than a year ago - the site, http://www.everythingtights.com, is under review.

The category, http://www.dmoz.org/Shopping/Clothing/Undergarments/Socks_and_Hosiery/Children/, has three sites listed. How can it take so long for a site in a category with three sites to be reviewed?

I understand the magnitude of incoming requests, I run a Technical Services group at a major Performance Marketing services company. We receive approximately 1000 incoming issues a day and answer 90% within 72 hours. So please don't throw the volume rap at me.

I also understand that you don't owe me anything, but this is just absolutely atrociously poor service.

Sorry, if I violated the forum rules by venting, but you have to see my point.

Mark

Well, the purpose of your tech service group is obviously to provide service for the people who request it. The purpose of the ODP is spelled out in our Social Contract and you will notice there is nothing in it about providing service for people who suggest sites to us. So you see that our service isn't really atrociously poor - it's not a service at all.

The number of sites listed in a category has no bearing whatsoever on the number of unreviewed sites waiting for review.

And finally, reviews would be quicker if there were more editors interested in editing in that area. Since there aren't, reviews take a long time. That is the reason, and I'm afraid you'll have to accept that.

[Posted at the same time as nea, but I'll leave it in]

You are more than welcome to vent. I can appreciate your frustration.

However, you seem to have a few misunderstandings about the purpose of the ODP, reflected by your comments about poor service.

It is not the purpose of the editors to provide service to the webmasters, or submitters to the ODP - these are suggestions for sites to list.

Also, you get what you pay for - this is a FREE listing. There are other search engines out there which will allow you to pay them for a much quicker review.

Categories which do not have an editor named in them are tended by a pool of editors - those in categories "above" in the tree-based hierarchy, plus so-called Editalls and Metas, who can edit everywhere in the directory. They have to divide their time between many MANY categories. As they are all volunteers, this is on an interest basis.

I hope this has helped explain a little more about the situation at the ODP.

poor service

Click to expand...

Well, there's part of the misunderstanding. We don't provide a service to anyone. People may take advantage of an ODP listing for their own purposes, but we aren't a business providing a marketing service.

How can it take so long for a site in a category with three sites to be reviewed?

Click to expand...

Because there is no one interested in that topic. We are first and foremost hobbyists. We edit because we enjoy it and maybe because we feel like we are contributing to a worth-while project. There are far more topics than there are active editors. People work on what they like.

We receive approximately 1000 incoming issues a day and answer 90% within 72 hours.

Click to expand...

I presume you have staff that works a 40 hr work week and is focussed on that task? We have a loose collection of individuals some of whom may be able to edit anywhere from 1 to 20 hours a week. Others may only get to edit a few hours every couple of months.

So please don't throw the volume rap at me.

Click to expand...

~8500 current editors, 4,000,000+ listed sites to maintain, 1,000,000+ waiting review, 5-30 minutes per site to review. You do the math.

If every person who anxiously awaits the listing of their submission became an editor (in a category not their own) and added 100 sites to the directory, there wouldn't be a backlog. If just 10% of the submitters listed 10 sites, there wouldn't be a backlog. Interesting thought, huh?

If you don't like the service you can get a refund for what you paid for it.... oh no you did not pay anything so you are getting what you paid for. But now you are complaining about the fact that you did not get anything for free - or that I or one of my colleagues did not give you for something for free in a time frame that you feel is appropriate. Give me a break. We are all volunteers. It takes as long as it takes.

Ok, let's do the math.
Assumptions, based on your numbers:
1. 5,000,000 total websites to maintain and review
2. 20 minutes to review a site (the high side of your 5-30 estimate)
3. On average, the time 8500 editors spend each week is 5 hours

- 5M x 20mins/site = 100M minutes required
- 8500 editors x 300 mins/week = 2,550,000 mins available each week
- 2,550,000 into 110M = 39 weeks to maintain the 4M sites and review 1M new sites.

What if the assumptions are changed:
- Time to review = 15 mins. The results would be 29 weeks instead of 39 weeks.
- Time to review remained at 20 mins, but average editor time/wk was 10 hours vs. 5 hours. The result would be 19 weeks instead of 39 weeks.
- minutes per site was 30 minutes (your high estimate) and the average editor time remained at 5 hours. The result would still only be 59 weeks.

It's quite difficult to see how my site can be at 72 weeks and counting based on your numbers. Interesting thought, huh?

Maybe if you managed this more like a service, you could improve. If you would like some consultation on how to improve the management of the work you do, please don't hesitate to ask. All I ask in return is to get reviewed.

Mark

I don't know where you get your numbers but there is no way you can even be close to accurate because there is no way you can assume an editor spends any time editing. You can also never assume that editing is done equally across the directory. Areas of the directory that attract editor interest tend to be better maintained than areas that have little or no interest to volunteer editors. You math is skewed because it is based on false assumptions and innaccurate information.

Maybe if you managed this more like a service

Click to expand...

Read again, ODP is not a service. Yahoo is a service.

My numbers came from Lissa's post. You said nothing to prove my assumptions false.

TradeMark

I don't know where you get your numbers but there is no way you can even be close to accurate because there is no way you can assume an editor spends any time editing. You can also never assume that editing is done equally across the directory. Areas of the directory that attract editor interest tend to be better maintained than areas that have little or no interest to volunteer editors. You math is skewed because it is based on false assumptions and innaccurate information.

Click to expand...

I really didn't say it was. I said "If you managed it more like a service".

Maybe if you managed this more like a service

Click to expand...

Read again, ODP is not a service. Yahoo is a service.

Click to expand...

The directory would not benefit from being managed more like a service to webmasters. It is now managed like a service to web users, which is what it is intended to be.

Once again: Reviewing submitted sites takes longer than we might like in some areas, but it is not something that can be changed by making inroads on the volunteer system. Forcing editors to work in certain areas, or to review submitted sites, or to work a certain number of hours, would be very detrimental to the directory. On the other hand there are always ongoing, internal discussions on better ways to, for instance, lessen the amount of spam suggestions which make editing a misery in many parts of the ODP.

Thanks for all of your responses. I think we should end this thread...

Take care.

Mark

OK, the point has been made. 17 months is no record, FYI. ODP is not a FIFO queue anyhow, so some sites may never ever get listed even if they were submitted in 1998 when ODP started.