Why aren’t more editors approved?
- Thread starter Quasar
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,204
We do accept a lot of new editors, as you can see from our Status Reports. We have no limits regarding the amount of new editors we acceot. If the number of good applications doubles, we would accept twice as many new editors as we do today.
As you can surely imagine, accepting everybody would not be the solution to the problem. A large number of the people would just list their site, and maybe remove (or modify) those of their competitors. Those generate a large amount of extra work with no benefit for the directory.
If you are thinking about implementing other models, please reread the previous threads in this forum. Nearly everything has already been discussed.
As you can surely imagine, accepting everybody would not be the solution to the problem. A large number of the people would just list their site, and maybe remove (or modify) those of their competitors. Those generate a large amount of extra work with no benefit for the directory.
If you are thinking about implementing other models, please reread the previous threads in this forum. Nearly everything has already been discussed.
If you are talking about the unreviewed site suggestions: Well, to us it isn't. It's nice that people suggest so many sites, but those are just suggestions. We might use them eventually, but it's not a burden.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2003
- Messages
- 5,872
(It's also a number we don't have. We do know how many sites are currently unreviewed, but there is no way of knowing how many have been suggested from the outside, how many have been moved from the directory into the unreviewed sites by editors (for any of several valid reasons), how many have been submitted internally by editors, etc, etc. No way, that is, apart from going to every category and checking manually which would take weeks and serve no purpose... and by then the numbers would have changed anyway )
)
jimnoble
DMOZ Meta
The usual reasons why I decline applications include the following - in no particular order.
- Poor communications skills - including spelling, grammar and ability to read the question. Without these skills, an editor would be unable to evaluate and describe a website reliably.
- Lack of integrity - I've detected outright lies.
- Inability to select appropriate websites for the chosen category.
- Self serving - I've good reasons to believe that they want to become editors to promote their own agendas.
- The category is too large or too spammy for a beginner.
If you were reading a potential employee's application form, which of the above would you tolerate
?I cannot imagine the scale of how many low life scammers and BS con artists come to the ODP. Those folks who simply try to nobly make a difference on the web such as those who volunteer for the ODP are to be commended.
I would like to think that there are quality controls such as an apprenticeship period and oversight after being approved.
I would like to think that there are quality controls such as an apprenticeship period and oversight after being approved.
All editing logs are available to all editors to see, so all editors check each other all the time. If mistakes are found then we either correct them on the spot, send an update request in, or let someone who can edit that area know about that problem. And I guess that the meta editors routinely check things out for people that they have approved as new editors too.
Eric-the-Bun
Curlie Meta
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
Yes, someone usually checks up on new editors and offers advice. There's internal forums where new editors can ask for help and a mentoring system.
Editors wanting to edit in another category have to apply in a similar way to becoming an editor and it is not unusual to be turned down.
I am not a meta (someone who reviews applications) but I have heard that there has been a decline in the number of quality applications (not that it is harder to become an editor, as some have speculated). This makes sense to me because I think the early adopters of the internet were more likely to be more educated and tech savvy than the average internet user today, and probably more likely to find the ODP and want to contribute. Combine that with the fact that there is so much more stuff for an educated, tech savvy person to do nowadays on the internet, and it makes sense that a smaller number of acceptable applications are being recieved now than there were in the early years of the ODP.
jimnoble said:
No offence, but so what? Do you really believe that DMOZ is better off with people with no economic interest in the field? If you do, you are wrong.
Having editors that actually work with the theme of the catagory they edit, would give DMOZ a very valuable asset, instead of just having people interested in it on a hobby basis. I believe, that if this is how you do your screening of new editors, you may have rejected alot of possible expert editors.
Eric-the-Bun
Curlie Meta
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
This is of course true. The real problem is that one bad editor could do a lot of damage.
The key wording is 'fairness'. If the ODP suspects that an applicant is 'self-serving' this means that they might be wanting to merely list their site or worse affect their competitors in some way (ignoring their sites, poor descriptions or deleting them). To be fair to everyone, no editor is better than an editor that is promotes their own site over other peoples.
This is one of the hurdles applicants to commercial areas have to surmount. Reading relevant posts in the 'become an editor' section gives all the information on how to do so. If an applicant grasps the problem the ODP has and is really interested in the ODP, the solution that many an editor has recommended makes sense and they will follow it.
The application process is not merely about being able to find and review sites
regards
InvisionCube
Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 12
I have to say, despite ODP's obvious, and clearly not disputed flaws, it does some amazing work when you consider the scale of what they do.
Call me gutless or defeatist, but I know that I couldn't do it. I don't think my motivation levels would take the strain throughout the abuse.
Call me gutless or defeatist, but I know that I couldn't do it. I don't think my motivation levels would take the strain throughout the abuse.
Then you would be editing in the wrong area.
Editing is a hobby, not a job, and editors are free to work on the things they enjoy. Some really like the challenge of taking on a spammy area, tackling the pool of suggestions, and figuring out what is good and what is junk. Others prefer to tuck themselves away in non-spammy areas and mine their own links from their own trusted sources. When you find yourself de-motivated, it's time to find another area to work on.