Why do you deleted posts?
- Thread starter FiredUp
- Start date
http://resource-zone.com/guidelines.php
As is typical for online forums, the moderators discuss the details of implementation and enforcement with the webmaster or forum administrators.
As is typical for online forums, the moderators discuss the details of implementation and enforcement with the webmaster or forum administrators.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
This forum is privately owned and funded, and the moderators have the right to delete any post they choose, including this one.
Generally speaking, posts that disagree with us are not deleted. Spam posts are deleted on sight.
Generally speaking, posts that disagree with us are not deleted. Spam posts are deleted on sight.
If you're talking about old suggestion status posts, the posts have all been moved to a read-only forum here since, per the announcement posted at the top of every forum here, we no longer give site suggestion status checks. Depending on how old your bookmarks are, we also lost some posts quite some time ago when we switched forum software (that software change, which was about 2 years ago IIRC, also caused any bookmarks to existing threads to cease working since the URL coding changed).
No, but it *is* a privately owned forum and the moderators and administrators of this privately owned forum have the right to moderate the forum in whatever way they deem necessary. If the posts you're talking about don't fall into the two situations noted above, then they were likely deleted (as previously mentioned) because of either abuse or spamming of the forum.
The whole status forum was archived. I don't know whether that alone would break the old links, but you're welcome to browse around http://resource-zone.com/forum/index.php?showforum=22 (the archived version), and I'm sure you can still find some threads like that (most days there would have been several of them).
motsa said:
thank you. I have found some of then.
I have now a question (reading some those not so friendly messages), how many reviews average an editor per day?
I know this is not an exact number, but on one hand, people have to wait years (I guess because of waiting for review) and on the other hand most people applying for editors are rejected, so, I'm missing something, or how this can be explained?
I can't beleive some people are waiting in line over a year.
thanks
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
First, there is no line, there are pools of suggestions.
Second, some suggestions have been sitting, patiently and politely waiting for an editor in excess of three years.
Third, we do not share statistics on individual editor productivity.
Fourth, there is much, much more to editing that just looking at suggestions.
Fifth, suggestions are just one (very poor) source of potential listings. They are not a priority for editors. There are hundreds of postings that go into detail on this.
Finally, we have an excellent FAQ that addresses all of these issues in detail. It might be worth reading before you launch your next batch of questions.
Most people applying for editors don't show that they can do what the ODP does, in the way it does, as well as it should be done. Why do they not? Everyone has their own reason, but those reasons are theirs and usually have little to do with the ODP.
As for people waiting in line -- there's no line here, so THAT'S not an issue. As for waiting, again that's for their own reasons and you'd have to ask them why they're not doing something constructive instead. And if there were an ODP line and people waited in it, there wouldn't be a "listing service" at the head of the line, because there isn't one in the ODP.
As for explaining the connection between people who are wanting to offer something the ODP doesn't offer, and people who are wanting to be offered something the ODP doesn't offer -- say, that sounds like a golden business opportunity! Just get all those rejected editor applicants to form their own directory to offer the services the ODP doesn't provide, to all those webmasters who are waiting for the services the ODP doesn't provide. I can't explain why YOU haven't done it already. I can explain why I haven't -- it doesn't interest me as much as what I've done instead, and what I'm trying to do now. The sum of human knowledge is not yet online, let alone indexed!
As for people waiting in line -- there's no line here, so THAT'S not an issue. As for waiting, again that's for their own reasons and you'd have to ask them why they're not doing something constructive instead. And if there were an ODP line and people waited in it, there wouldn't be a "listing service" at the head of the line, because there isn't one in the ODP.
As for explaining the connection between people who are wanting to offer something the ODP doesn't offer, and people who are wanting to be offered something the ODP doesn't offer -- say, that sounds like a golden business opportunity! Just get all those rejected editor applicants to form their own directory to offer the services the ODP doesn't provide, to all those webmasters who are waiting for the services the ODP doesn't provide. I can't explain why YOU haven't done it already. I can explain why I haven't -- it doesn't interest me as much as what I've done instead, and what I'm trying to do now. The sum of human knowledge is not yet online, let alone indexed!
spectregunner said:
What suggestions are you talking about? - I have not made any suggestion, rarther, I have made a simple question. How do you explain that if when someone apply for becoming an editor, it is rejected because there is enough editors on that category, then a submission waits years?
This is the simple question, if can answer that, fine, otherwise, don't come up with that explanations because that is out of question.
I'm sorry, nothing personal with you, but I like people focus on what I ask.
thanks
>how many reviews average an editor per day?
Any statistically astute person will, I believe, assume that the pattern of editor activity fits an inverse logarithmic curve ... from which it immediately follows that "average" is simply not a meaningful concept.
Any statistically astute person will, I believe, assume that the pattern of editor activity fits an inverse logarithmic curve ... from which it immediately follows that "average" is simply not a meaningful concept.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
Question can not be answered. Reason: we don't know, and are not interested in meaningless numbers like thisFiredUp said:
If we were proving a listing service for webmasters this would be true. But we haven't such a service. Also remember that you only see messages form people "waiting" you will (almost) never see messages from all those people who's site is listed within a few days after they suggested it to DMOZ and from all those people who's site is listed without ever being suggested.FiredUp said:
On which information do you base this assumption. Again you see only questions from people waiting longer as they want and from people being rejected. Do you now how many new editors are accepted. No. Than you can't say "most people are rejected".FiredUp said:
Neither can I. What are they waiting for. Waiting for something we never promised them to do? Aslong as people don't understand what DMOZ is about they will have these wrong expectations.FiredUp said:
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
I think that you incorrectly refer to them as submissions.
People are invited to suggest sites to the directory. You asked why some people have waited a year for us to review their submissions/suggestions.
Does it sound familiar to you?
When you see editors referred to "suggestions", we're generally talking about the sites that people suggest to us to be listed (non-editors call them submissions but we don't).
It's very rare for a prospective editor to be rejected because there are enough editor in that category -- what happens is that people are misreading the default letter that tells them the category they've applied to is too large.
We do what we can with what we have and it works reasonably well.
A very small fraction of the people who apply to become editors come to this forum to ask about their applications. People who are accepted don't generally come along here to post that they've been accepted unless they'd already been posting all along. And, frankly, even then the ones who post here and are accepted don't always come back here to say they've been accepted except perhaps to ask for their status here to be changed. So, no, you're not likely to have noticed a lot of posts from people who've been accepted. But new editors are accepted daily whether you personally see them or not.
Again, only a small, select fraction of people who suggest their sites to us come here to post and they tend to be disproportionately in the group that is waiting a long time for their sites to be reviewed. But, as with new editors, sites are added to the directory daily and we're plodding along, growing.
If someone can't do the job of an editor, it doesn't matter how many years of backwork they can't do. They can't do any of it, and they should be rejected.
If someone can do the job of an editor, it doesn't matter how many years of future work they can do. They can do all of it they want to do, and they should be accepted.
Of course, you're still assuming site suggestions have anything at all to do with "backlog", which of course they don't. Think about it a moment!
If a good site is on the web, it deserves a review, right? It deserves that review as soon as it's published. Does suggesting it to the ODP change anything? No. It deserved a review before the suggestion, and it still deserves it afterwards. The suggestion didn't change anything.
Suppose there's a worthless site on the web. Does suggesting IT to the ODP change anything? No, it's just as worthless before the suggestion as afterwards, and it's just as big a waste of time to review it after the suggestion as before. The suggestion didn't change anything. And the site review won't change anything either. Whether reviewed today or next decade or every Tuesday from now till then, the site will remain unlisted (and its webmaster may still be waiting.) In fact, this is the case in over 80% of all site suggestions -- the webmasters will wait forever.
Now, what other possibilities are there? Listable site, not listable site, ... that pretty well exhausts the possibilities.
Therefore, no possible site suggestion can have anything whatsoever to do with any imaginable ODP backlog.
Really, this is all very simple. And very obvious. You don't have to assume anything at all about the ODP or its priorities or procedures or its policies -- the logic applies regardless, so long as you assume the ODP has criteria for listing sites.
If someone can do the job of an editor, it doesn't matter how many years of future work they can do. They can do all of it they want to do, and they should be accepted.
Of course, you're still assuming site suggestions have anything at all to do with "backlog", which of course they don't. Think about it a moment!
If a good site is on the web, it deserves a review, right? It deserves that review as soon as it's published. Does suggesting it to the ODP change anything? No. It deserved a review before the suggestion, and it still deserves it afterwards. The suggestion didn't change anything.
Suppose there's a worthless site on the web. Does suggesting IT to the ODP change anything? No, it's just as worthless before the suggestion as afterwards, and it's just as big a waste of time to review it after the suggestion as before. The suggestion didn't change anything. And the site review won't change anything either. Whether reviewed today or next decade or every Tuesday from now till then, the site will remain unlisted (and its webmaster may still be waiting.) In fact, this is the case in over 80% of all site suggestions -- the webmasters will wait forever.
Now, what other possibilities are there? Listable site, not listable site, ... that pretty well exhausts the possibilities.
Therefore, no possible site suggestion can have anything whatsoever to do with any imaginable ODP backlog.
Really, this is all very simple. And very obvious. You don't have to assume anything at all about the ODP or its priorities or procedures or its policies -- the logic applies regardless, so long as you assume the ODP has criteria for listing sites.
Eric-the-Bun
Curlie Meta
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
If you keep track of the '5,184,181 sites - 70,251 editors - over 590,000 categories' section at the foot of the main ODP directory page, you can track how many new editors are accepted. Certainly when I looked in July it was below 70,000.