Why I'm not reviewing your site.

Sometimes people PM me to ask me to review their site. I can understand why they do it. They'd like to be listed. They know we get thousands of submissions. They don't want to wait. Why not ask an editor to review the site and get a quicker listing?

Here are some reasons why we as editors don't like to respond to these requests:

• We are already getting swamped with status check requests, can you imagine how swamped we would be if we honored requests for reviews?
  
  
• We don't want to give priority to people asking for reviews over those who don't. We are looking to list the best sites we can find, not the ones with the most agressive submitters.
  
  
• We aren't a listing service, and our goal isn't to list as many sites as possible. We want to build a useful directory, and that means creating good solid categories, not jumping all over the place all the time.
  
  
• Often times to review a site properly, you need to know what else is listed in the category. This is why we generally work on one category at a time instead of constantly hopping from category to category. For someone familiar with the category the review may take only 10 minutes or so, while for someone unfamiliar with the area it could take hours to get up to speed.
  
  
• Some categories have their own standards, and I may not know them.
  
  
• Some categories require special knowledge which I may not have.

I'm sure this isn't a complete list. Other editors may have even better reasons. This isn't a well thought out essay - only a few thoughts after a couple of requests for site reviews in the past 24 hours.

A word to the wise: If people keep bugging us to actually review their sites after we reply to their status requests, we may just decide to just stick to editing and forget about Resource-Zone and answering any inquiries here.

As a matter of fact, I suspect some of our editors have already made that decision. Maybe more of us should all do that...

Answering status requests certainly doesn't get the directory built any faster.

A word to the wise: If people keep bugging us to actually review their sites after we reply to their status requests, we may just decide to just stick to editing and forget about Resource-Zone and answering any inquiries here.

As a matter of fact, I suspect some of our editors have already made that decision. Maybe more of us should all do that...

Answering status requests certainly doesn't get the directory built any faster.

Click to expand...

I'm a newbie and outsider. In the past I was a moderator (and later admin) of a busy international forum (now defunct, the focus of the forum disappeared in the dotcom bust) and know how time consuming running a forum can be.

The forum serves many useful purposes:
It allows site owners to establish that their submission did in fact arrive and to check status at intervals.
In some cases you might be able to educate people to prevent multiple submissions.
It allows visitors to learn a little more about the ODP and how it works.
It gives an easy way for people to report errors in the directory.
It provides a place for would be editors to make contact.
...and many other functions it would be a pity to lose.

But all this has a price and takes editors away from the task they volunteered for - editing and maintaining the directory.

The biggest problem I see that you face in this forum is the transience of the community. People arrive, register, ask for a status report or complain they have lost their listing - mostly without bothering to read the posting guidelines or even bothering to read any of the other threads.
In six months time they might return, start a new thread instead of finding the old one.... and so on. The same questions have to be answered time and time again.

In many forums probably about 75% of the users are regulars who will often offer help and guidance to newbies and point them in the right direction, thus taking a load away from the moderators.
In this forum I would guess that 75% at least are newbies, so there is a continual forum training exercise going on.
It is hard enough to maintain patience with the umpteenth newbie breaking forum guidelines, it must be nearly impossible when you know they are unlikely to hang around to use their new posting knowledge, it must become a hated chore needing the patience of a saint when this mundane housekeeping task keeps you from the important work you volunteered for.

I can think of a three ideas that might help (probably suggested before, but I am not house-trained enough to look):

The first is a more comprehensive FAQ for the forum built out of links to previous threads on different topics, so that editors can simply point users to the relevant part of the FAQ.

The second is another tier of management of the forum, somehow you need to have the equivalent of the regular users of other forums, call them what you will, non-editing moderators, guides, helpers - the title doesn't matter. Their role should be to meet and greet, reply to the posts that don't follow the guidelines of the forum, point users at the FAQ and maybe, after cutting their teeth, be allowed to move and close threads (and no - I am not volunteering) A possible source for these "helpers" could be wannabe editors who are asked to do the job as part of the qualification process.

The third might be harder to implement, maybe there should be a "price" for a status request. In order to be able to make a status request a user must check one or more directory categories (not the one they have submitted to) and report some broken links.

Just a few thoughts, make of them what you will. At the end of the day the directory is more important than this forum, but the forum is valuable.

The second is another tier of management of the forum, somehow you need to have the equivalent of the regular users of other forums, call them what you will, non-editing moderators, guides, helpers - the title doesn't matter. Their role should be to meet and greet, reply to the posts that don't follow the guidelines of the forum, point users at the FAQ...

Click to expand...

I think I can say quite authoritatively that that isn't going to happen any time soon.

...and maybe, after cutting their teeth, be allowed to move and close threads (and no - I am not volunteering)

Click to expand...

Thread moderation is restricted to meta editors. Not even regular editors or editalls have that ability so we'd certainly never give that ability to non-editors.

ukros: I see where you're coming from with your suggestions - the unfortunate thing is that I see R-Z having nearly everything in place that you suggest. It just a question of how you look at it. To begin with, I think the root of this apparent dichotomy might be that you haven't seen that the moderators group is actually a very big group. I believe any meta at ODP is a moderator here. So that's over 150.

Going on:

But all this has a price and takes editors away from the task they volunteered for - editing and maintaining the directory.

Click to expand...

The flip side is that if anybody got so good at doing the tasks you describe then ODP would want them to become editors? Catch 22?

People arrive, register, ask for a status report or complain they have lost their listing - mostly without bothering to read the posting guidelines or even bothering to read any of the other threads. In six months time they might return, start a new thread instead of...

Click to expand...

I think the R-Z admins are broadly comfortable with this situation.

In many forums probably about 75% of the users are regulars who will often offer help and guidance to newbies and point them in the right direction, thus taking a load away from the moderators.

Click to expand...

You might be on the high side with the 75% figure. But remember what I said above re the number of moderators. Take a look at:
http://resource-zone.com/forum/memberlist.php?&order=DESC&sort=posts&pp=30&ltr=

It is hard enough to maintain patience with the umpteenth newbie breaking forum guidelines, it must be nearly impossible when you know they are unlikely to hang around to use their new posting knowledge,

Click to expand...

On the first page above there is a surprising number of mere editors. On the next few pages you see a fair sprinkling of normal members.

The first is a more comprehensive FAQ for the forum built out of links to previous threads on different topics, so that editors can simply point users to the relevant part of the FAQ.

Click to expand...

Agreed. All would agree that it can be made somewhat better and expanded to some extent. But I think R-Z don't want it to be too comprehensive lest they nail down their position with too much detail. They'd prefer advice given to be tailored to an exact situation. And remember some will just never read the FAQ - even when told exactly which bit to read.

The second is another tier of management of the forum, somehow you need to have the equivalent of the regular users of other forums, call them what you will, non-editing moderators, guides, helpers - the title doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

I think we have this. It's just that they've all been rolled into one and called "moderators". And there are a fair number of guides and helpers - they populate the top page of the above link - who are not yet moderators.

A possible source for these "helpers" could be wannabe editors who are asked to do the job as part of the qualification process.

Click to expand...

No. Some manage to be very helpful and appear very knowledgable on here before becoming editors but I think the "accepted" way is editor first, r-z helper second. Even full editors are dissuaded from participating on R-Z.

In order to be able to make a status request a user must check one or more directory categories (not the one they have submitted to) and report some broken links.

Click to expand...

Very interesting.

I realise that I have only replied to a small part of the Sole's original post and apologise if I have diverted the thread from its original purpose.

The comments and ideas I threw out were just observations from complete outsider looking in with a fresh pair of eyes. Over a ten year period I have "lurked" at many forums and participated in a few. My motive for visiting any forum is to gather information which can usually be done without posting, but I find myself interested in the anthropology of online communities.

I take the point that my percentages were probably way off, but this forum is quite unusual in the number of one-time posters that it attracts (and that is in no way a criticism)

Sole's comments about the demands of the forum (and misuse of forum facilities) taking up time that could be used for editing have been echoed in many other threads by many editors.

With regard to the FAQ:

Agreed. All would agree that it can be made somewhat better and expanded to some extent. But I think R-Z don't want it to be too comprehensive lest they nail down their position with too much detail. They'd prefer advice given to be tailored to an exact situation. And remember some will just never read the FAQ - even when told exactly which bit to read.

Click to expand...

Agreed that you don't want to be "nailed down" too much - it only encourages the "devils" who want to quote the bible for their own ends. I was thinking more of the nitty gritty questions that must get asked over and over eg. "how can I find the google version of the ODP data?" - some of them are already there, but there is room for more. Also agreed is that some will never read, even if given a link to the exact answer.

With regard to another category of member:

Thread moderation is restricted to meta editors. Not even regular editors or editalls have that ability so we'd certainly never give that ability to non-editors.

Click to expand...

Ok, that was too extreme, I hadn't studied the hierarchy, just looked at the overall mix and behaviour of posters.

I think we have this. It's just that they've all been rolled into one and called "moderators". And there are a fair number of guides and helpers - they populate the top page of the above link - who are not yet moderators.

Click to expand...

I can only see one member on that page who isn't an editor of some sort, there are a few on the second page. The idea was to give a title to a handfull of non-editor, non-moderator members, something like "helpful member" and ask them to do some of the chores - checking and replying to posts that don't comply with guidelines. It seems to be poor use of an editor's time to have to continually post "please provide clickable links to your site and the category you submitted to" "please wait six months between requests for submission status"

Aspiring editors was a bad suggestion for the source of such members (I have hardly looked at that part of the forum) but there must be quite a few members who just enjoy being part of the community who would be glad to take on a few specific tasks?

With regard to a "price" for status checking:

This would be incredibly difficult to enforce and spawn its own set of "please read the guidelines and come back when you have complied" posts, so would probably be counter-productive.

Perhaps it could be encouraged on a voluntary basis? I did some broken link checking (and enjoyed doing it) because I happened to see it suggested on another thread. Words like this could be included in the posting guidelines:

"Please consider giving something back for the time taken to answer your status enquiry......(instructions for checking and link to broken url thread)"

Finally, I hope nobody takes any offence from anything I have said, this is your forum and I have no wish to interfere, just doing a little thinking out loud.

Nope, no one's taken offence at anything you've posted.

I can only see one member on that page who isn't an editor of some sort, there are a few on the second page.

Click to expand...

Actually, almost all of the names on the first few pages are current or past editors (very few non-editors have high post counts).

The idea was to give a title to a handfull of non-editor, non-moderator members, something like "helpful member" and ask them to do some of the chores - checking and replying to posts that don't comply with guidelines. It seems to be poor use of an editor's time to have to continually post "please provide clickable links to your site and the category you submitted to" "please wait six months between requests for submission status"

Click to expand...

I really don't see this happening. Some members do similar things already and, in limited amounts, that's OK but I don't see us making a special group out of them with specific tasks. This is a forum for editors to interact with users/submitters. No editor is forced to post here and most don't do it *instead* of editing. There's no need (or, really, desire) to start roping in non-editors to do any of it.

If you really want to help out, why not think about becoming an editor? Your home village by itself has too little scope to be suitable for a trainee but any of your neighbouring towns would make a good nursery (and we could throw in the village as a bonus ).

It's great fun in a great team and very satisfying too. You'd also see the other side of the coin.

You don't have to get hooked and go on to wider permissions, but you just might .

Some members do similar things already and, in limited amounts, that's OK but I don't see us making a special group out of them with specific tasks. This is a forum for editors to interact with users/submitters.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I hope the other two ideas are interesting.

Jimnoble, nice thought but

You don't have to get hooked and go on to wider permissions, but you just might

Click to expand...

that is exactly what would happen. I have already spent time reading and posting here when I should be working or sleeping!

I would much rather do a little bit by checking links, so that if it becomes too time consuming I can just quietly move away without feeling any guilt.

I can just quietly move away without feeling any guilt.

Click to expand...

Uh huh
.

As I see it DMOZ has become a victim of it's own success, every forum on the planet tells its readers and writers to submit a 'good site' to DMOZ, sit back and wait for the listing. I did just that and I was listed within a month and in those days it got me on to Yahoo and then Google, so thank you. With roughly 40% of the planet on the Internet DMOZ will get more and more requests for submissions. So why do you not copy the cinema's and become a multiplex site DMOZ1 for submissions DMOZ2 for promotional guidance, not just for DMOZ but simple idea's on how to use toolbars, how to create a web ranking, what to avoid, such as false promises of Number One placements. Which PPC to use and which to avoid. The list is endless. It would free up your time as you would attract more editors.

The BBC is respected throughout the World as being the 'Wise Old Owl'
I put it to you that you could do exactly the same for the Internet

Note that the ODP's focus is users; not webmasters or SEO-meisters.

So why do you not copy the cinema's and become a multiplex site DMOZ1 for submissions DMOZ2 for promotional guidance, not just for DMOZ but simple idea's on how to use toolbars, how to create a web ranking, what to avoid, such as false promises of Number One placements. Which PPC to use and which to avoid. The list is endless.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about this site? That isn't going to happen. We don't want to provide promotional guidance. That's not why we're here and it's not where we want the scope of this forum to go.

Given the tons of other places where people can go to do just that, why reinvent the wheel just for the sake of reinventing the wheel. You keep trying to make this site into something it isn't and I'm not sure why.

It would free up your time as you would attract more editors.

Click to expand...

I would expect that the people who would be attracted to the ODP because of an SEO forum would be very poor candidates (in general) to become editors.

No not this site, when you are absolutely swamped with (& I expect that it is happening more everyday)new enquiries you will remember my suggestions.

No need to reply, I leave you in peace

If not this site, then you must be talking about the ODP itself and that has an even less chance of ever happening.

The ODP is not always, um, accurately represented in the SERP perp forums. This forum was created more to correct than to fulfil their misrepresentations.

It has not been completely successful. Some editors think that even providing answers to website status contributes to the misrepresentations -- by seeming to offer a service to webmasters and SERP perps, who are not at all our chosen victims, um, beneficiaries, um, audience. And that may be true.

This forum is an experiment. As you point out, it has not developed (and maybe cannot develop) the kind of "interested lurkers" from which most forums draw their community. It has drawn in some new editors; it has uncovered some quality problems and even found a few dropped submittals. Is that enough to make it worth doing? A fair question.