When is an editor deemed 2b awol ?

Hi

I fully understand that editors are unpaid volunteers and it's good of them to do it.....

But how long does one have 2b inactive b4 something's done ie.a heavy nudge or a specific ad on their particular page for a new one ?

I knew I'd have problems when the only activity in my category of interest in the last 3+ months was when he removed his name from the page !! -which makes me wonder if he's given up
And it's also unfortunate that a page can deemed to have been updated without necessarily materially altering or adding to the actual listings.

Not much point being an editor if you're not going to edit.And as mine has much less input than most,there's really even less excuse.

"Well,stop bleating about it and volunteer !"
Yes,well I could certainly do that.I have a broad knowledge of the category and would obviously declare my site interests.
And if I did I'd actually take it seriously and put the effort in.
Just a pity you have to do it because the incumbant's gone awol.

Every category has more than one editor who can access it. Some editors are assigned specific categories and then can access that category and those below it as well as editall and meta editors who can access all categories. Editors can edit once every 4 months and they will remain an editor. Editors can edit as much or as little as they want provided they are active enough not to time out. Editors aren't paid and the service they provide is free, so they are welcome to edit as much or as little as they want. That doesn't mean someone else won't come along and review sites in that same area, even if there is a listed editor who isn't overly active. No editor "owns" the category where they are listed.

Thanks Kokopeli

It does beg the question though....How much motivation/interest there is to edit a category for which you didn't volunteer ?

And,unpaid volunteer or not, the 4 month rule does seem overly generous.
-especially when you can apparently does the smallest of alteration ( ie.administrative and not even relevant to the listings) and effectively buy yourself another 4 months.
Although why anyone would want to volunteer and the sit on their hands for months on end is hard to fathom.

Volunteer -great.But only if you're actually going to put some time in

Although why anyone would want to volunteer and the sit on their hands for months on end is hard to fathom.

Click to expand...

Life happens. Someone may have had time to edit when they first applied but doesn't right now.

How much motivation/interest there is to edit a category for which you didn't volunteer ?

Click to expand...

Probably very little -- categories aren't assigned to editors so they have to volunteer to edit whichever ones they edit (kokopeli meant assigned as in given access to because they asked for access, not because it was thrust upon them).

Hi Motsa

Thanks for taking the time.

With regard to your 1st point....
I realise life gets in the way but if you haven't been able to contribute for months then maybe you should hold your hands up and bow out.And a specific request for a new editor(s) placed on the category page.
-Or alter the 4 month rule so the decision is taken out of their hands.

It just reflects badly on the people who do actually put the time in,and makes the whole submission process too much of a lottery.
All of which is unfortunate.(and obviously not helped by what you went on to say about who edits what.)

>> the 4 month rule does seem overly generous <<

We have had top-rate highly-active editors with serious illness, or final university exams, or posted abroad for short term contract work, or who go on extended vacation, and for them 4 months was too short. We were glad to have them back, when they were able, but at that point they had to re-apply for the job.

>> I realise life gets in the way but if you haven't been able to contribute for months then maybe you should hold your hands up and bow out <<

That isn't how it works. Whether or not anyone is named as an editor for a category, any editor higher in the tree, and any editall or Meta editor can also edit there. If the named editor makes one edit per month, then that is one edit per month that someone else doesn't have to do, and it is one site per month that got listed that if no-one else took an interest in doing it themselves, it would not have been listed at that time. Think "hive" not "cabal".

>> It just reflects badly on the people who do actually put the time in, and makes the whole submission process too much of a lottery. <<

Anyone who makes one edit every 4 months has put some time in, and we thank them for their effort. Next month, they might have so much free time that they spend two whole days per week editing stuff. We can't tell that in advance, so no one is turned away unless they are doing "bad stuff" or forget to come back for 120 days. Even then, if they timed out, they can re-apply to edit, and will rarely be turned away if their previous history was of "positive contribution to the directory". Contribution is measured as whether the person makes good or bad edits, not by quantity.

With 10 000 active editors and 650 000 categories the pattern of editing is entirely random. Editors pick something that interests them, and get on with it at whatever pace they feel like. That has no impact on any other editor and what they may decide to do next. A "slow" editor is not blocking the workflow of anyone else.

The vast majority of edits in the whole directory are made by people not named in that particuar category they edited. Only a few weeks ago, I looked at the recent edit history of one particular editor, and in the last 100 edits, they had been into at least 20 different categories - and they aren't the named editor in any of them. Some of those categories had a different named editor, while others had no named editor. The editor making the edits would not be concerned as to is named there or not, and likely did not check. They just got on with what needed editing at that time.

I realise life gets in the way but if you haven't been able to contribute for months then maybe you should hold your hands up and bow out.And a specific request for a new editor(s) placed on the category page.

Click to expand...

You need to remember that the presence of a listed editor in a category (whether active or inactive) does not prevent anyone else from applying (or being accepted) to be an editor in that category.

Hmmm.......

Doing 1 edit every 4 months is indeed better than none.
But doing 1 every 2 months is better.
My point being that if you're incapacitated then let dmoz know and they can actively seek a replacement.And if you're not,and you can't even manage 1 measly edit every 1 month or 2 then frankly the same should apply.
It's like your kids saying their too busy to phone -no-one ever believes that either (and nor should they !)

I realise it's a big overall undertaking run on goodwill.
But there's such a huge variance in submission waiting times,and so many pages littered with dead links,perhaps a less laissez-faire approach should be adopted.
As with a lot of voluntary stuff,everyone's terribly understanding and worthy but the end result isn't half as efficient as it could be and it's twice as frustrating as it should be.
At which point I'd best retire to pop on what's doubtless the same make of flak jacket that you editors are issued with.....the one's who put in an appearance that is !

There is no such thing as "replacement". The "slow" editor can remain, and anyone else who wants to edit that category can just get on and do it anytime they want - if they already have the editing privilidges. If they can't already edit there, then they can apply and be granted and named, anytime they want.



Let's give an analogy: you are in a sponsored walk. You are walking very slowly. However, you are quick to point out that you are not hampering the effort of anyone else. You are not in the way. Anyone walking faster can easily pass by. You know that you'll eventually finish, and your sponsorship money will be gratefully received by the charity you are supporting.

How are you going to react to the heckler at the side of the road, saying that your effort isn't good enough, and that you should drop out and make way for someone "better"?


Can you now see our point of view?

Giz

I obviously see what you're talking about.I just don't happen to agree with it
Frankly if you took 2 months (plus) to complete the course,the police would probably call time because you were getting in people's way.
And a lot of categories are considerably longer than that.

When people go to a category page and see there's already an incumbent editor they have a fair right to assume that there's at least some degree of urgency ,voluntary or not.
And most people don't apply to edit a category simply because there is someone already listed as doing it.
So perhaps your post should be put on every category page.

Most people who know about dmoz view it as slow,and invariably out of date.
And as it's placed itself in the fastest paced medium of all,getting there that slowly is tantamount to not getting there at all I'm afraid.
Harsh but true.

>But there's such a huge variance in submission waiting times,and so many pages littered with dead links,perhaps a less laissez-faire approach should be adopted.

Think about this.

You create and publish a site. How does that affect reality? Well, it is obviously one more opportunity for an an ODP editor to review -- one more "challenge", one more "task" (if you're going to go the micro-management route). Reality changed, and ideally the ODP should adapt.

Now, suppose you submit a site. How does that affect reality. Is there any more work for an ODP editor to do? Is there any new challenge? Is there, in fact, any change in reality at all? Obviously not!

So ... why start a clock at a moment when ... NOTHING HAPPENED?

We don't. We won't. So you're off here gearing up for a massive micromanagement effort, starting 10 clocks at irrelevant moments, nine of which will never stop.

Setting ANYONE'S priorities off that particular set of random irrelevancies, would simply be insane.

But ... that's bad enough. Reality is far worse.

So far, I've asked you to imagine nothing that any normal person couldn't figure out for themselves. For this next step, you may have to stretch your imagination a bit. Imagine that you are a malicious, malevolent, manipulative, money-grabbing spammer. (Yeah, I know, I find this hard to do also. Go read some forum threads in SEO forums, and chew some ragweed, or whatever it takes to get you into that mindset.)

Now, you know that submittals are taking 7 months, 12 days to process through this ODP micromanagement system you've set up for us.

(Actually, we'd suddenly find out that it was now 300 years, because all our most trusted and active editors had been co-opted to do the micromanagement work, and most of them had left because they came here to do site reviews, not micromanagement. And most of the rest of the editors left because they came here to review sites they were interested, not boring 95% doorway spam. But that was just the "insanity" bit. And you may have to trust me on this, but the fact is, I DO know the mind of an editor, because I carry one with me all the time.)

All that aside, imagine that we have a 7-month 13-day queue. What is your MMMMS going to do when he finds out about it?

Well, DUH! He's going to submit a thousand doorway pages off his domain to random categories all over the ODP! And he's going to think, "sure, all of these pages are empty, but in seven months, I'll go out to all the SERP perp forums, and I'll be selling URLs guaranteed for a two-week review time! And when someone buys my URL, I'll just make that page redirect to their site. I'll be RICH!"

And an MMMMS down in the next level of the Inferno thinks, "Wow, if I had a hundred domain names, I could submit them all now, and in six months I could sell domain names with a guaranteed six-week review time. I'll be RICH!"

Some other devil-in-training thinks, "You know, I could set up 500 one-page sites on Geocities, absolutely free, and in seven months I could get RICH, RICH, RICH,selling ..."

OK, you didn't think of that? Well, I wouldn't have either, but ... you know, people are already doing all of those things, to the tune of thousands of submittals daily, even though EVERYONE with a room-temperature IQ knows you can't manipulate editors' priorities that way -- there's that "enormous variance in that irrelevant interval" that you mentioned. But just think if the MMMMS's suddenly found out that their technique was guaranteed to work? That the editors had given total control of their priorities to them?

And the second critical point is, technical means aren't going to be able to stop this kind of spam, because every single jerk is going to do it a different way.

Sorry, man, but in this reality what you see as "variances in the irrelevant interval", editors see as "the only way of not giving entire control of all editing priorities to the very people who, more than any other beings in the universe, hate the ODP and all its works."

And we see that as a GOOD thing, for these reasons which you must recognize even as you deplore.

"Well,stop bleating about it and volunteer !"

Click to expand...

....

>Frankly if you took 2 months (plus) to complete the course,the police would probably call time because you were getting in people's way.

That's the beauty of the ODP concept. Nobody CAN get in anyone else's way. Any site I don't review, another editor can do without waiting for me.

Your concern is obviously with the webmaster who needs quick submittal services. It is no secret that the ODP doesn't offer that, and it's not a VERY well-kept secret why.

So pointing out that we don't provide the service we don't offer is a little bit like harnessing two dead horses together so you can flog them more efficiently.

When people go to a category page and see there's already an incumbent editor they have a fair right to assume that there's at least some degree of urgency, voluntary or not.

Click to expand...

There most often is...and here is where you are going astray.

The urgency is for building the directory.

The urgency is not for processing submissions. There are far, far better ways of finding sites that can be added, and there are any number of execeptionally valuable tasks that an editor can do that are not reflected in the "last edit" date.

You cannot, for example, see any of the test categories where editors singly or by team, design and build categories, seek broad concensus and then publish them. Some category reorganizations have lasted well over a year -- during which time there is no visible action to the public, even though a lot of high quality work is being done.

Well, if nothing else, kudos to JayC for staying the course without getting nasty about it - I admire your persistence, patience and professionalism ...

However, it does conjure up another question ... I'll post separately so as not to convolute this lovely discussion.

spectregunner said:

The urgency is for building the directory.
The urgency is not for processing submissions. .

Click to expand...

Fine.But unfortunately the evidence would appear 2b that neither is being done particualrly well.
Ask anyone,who doesn't know about the ODP and frankly isn't interested,to dispassionately pick some category pages at random and go through them to check for signs of life,relevance and quality and I suspect they'd find it generally disappointing.

Maybe the ODP is just too ambitious,with a vast number of categories that you'll dobtless never have enough editors for -or ones who actually put the effort in.
If it wasn't for the fact that you have selective entry and such search engine prominence people wouldn't have any expectations.
But you have,so they do.

Depending on the type of category - how many sites do we actually need to list?

If a category is informational - then listing the 10 best sites out there is clearly more useful to surfers than listing all sites out there. If we listed everything then good stuff would get drowned out in the clutter.

Yes it is an unfortunate truth that web sites decay over time - and a site that was the best on a subject at the time a category was originally built, may no longer be so now. And it may also be the case that we no longer have an editor sufficiently interested in a subject to revise it.

But this is a volunteer project - if a category looks like it needs a refresh, then people interested in its coverage area can apply to be an editor and refresh it. (Subject to certain minimum standards - such as good English skills and ability to follow guidelines for writing titles and descriptions).

Maybe the ODP is just too ambitious,with a vast number of categories that you'll dobtless never have enough editors for -or ones who actually put the effort in.

Click to expand...

IMHO this concept of editors putting effort in is missing the point really. We are all volunteers and therefore we can do as little or as much as we choose depending on spare time / RL commitments etc. If an editor in a specialist category adds only 1 site in 4 months - that is still better than no editor adding no sites. (Which others have already said in this thread as well.) I would much rather have a new editor who added only a few sites in the right categories with compliant titles and descriptions, than one who added absolutely loads of unlistable sites and by doing so generated a quality control nightmare that subsequently wastes limited editorial resources cleaning up.

If it wasn't for the fact that you have selective entry and such search engine prominence people wouldn't have any expectations.
But you have,so they do.

Click to expand...

We aren't dumb - we know search engine prominence is why SEO types get so upset at ODP. But that doesn't mean we will compromise our standards to please them. The angrier the SEO community gets, the more assurance we get that we're doing the right thing. If they suddenly went quiet and started singing our praises - I'd be really worried

But unfortunately the evidence would appear 2b that neither is being done particualrly well.

Ask anyone,who doesn't know about the ODP and frankly isn't interested,to dispassionately pick some category pages at random and go through them to check for signs of life,relevance and quality and I suspect they'd find it generally disappointing.

Click to expand...

That is hardly evidence; it is supposition on your part. You have apparently looked at a few categories where you have a vested interest, and they are not updated to your liking, so you feel a need to disparage the efforts of ~10,000 volunteer editors who make several thousand edits daily.

Maybe the ODP is just too ambitious,with a vast number of categories that you'll dobtless never have enough editors for -or ones who actually put the effort in.

Click to expand...

Maybe you are simply mistaken. Maybe we should just have one category. then the timestamp would be constantly changing and you would be happy.

Because, what it comes down to is that YOU are saying that because YOU do not see progress where YOU are interested, somehow WE are failing. Sorry, that is the blame game and most of us won't play.

We see the progress, we see the new categories get developed and published, we see the quality control efforts, we see the piles of garbage that are politely called submissions, we see the updates that are little more than attempts to keyword stuff titles and descriptions, we see the growth of the directory because we look at the big picture, not any given category.

No, your arguments are simply without foundation. But they are generally polite.

Try this test: ask your dispassionate observer to go to that random category and ask this question: "What relevant information can't I find in any of the listed sites in this or the obviously related categories? (Or what relevant good or service isn't offered by any of the businesses listed?) What listings are inaccurate? And how hard would it be to find a site that does contain that information, or offer that good or service?

THAT'S the measure of relevance, quality, and comprehensiveness respectively. (Check the Yahoo! category for a reality check on your standards and as a comparision.) For "signs of life," look in the rocks of Mars or in the back of your refrigerator.

My observations are just as valid as yours actually.
Particularly as you personally seem to be able to vouch for the activities of 10,000 editors and Lord knows how many categories !

Anyhow,as your unpaid volunteers it's unfair to expect much.
But I wish you all well