No, you have the wrong idea of what the term "volunteer" means with regards to the ODP. To be a volunteer with the ODP is to set your own hours and work as little or as much as you want. Thems the facts. That's what we're trying to tell you.
I seriously doubt that.
You obviously don't understand how the ODP works. While there are no minimums for how much an editor has to do, there are standards and guidelines to follow that are enforced. Some people would complain (and do) that there are too many guidelines for editors. We just don't force people to do a set amount of work.
So, the senior editors (who put in a lot of time and energy to the Project) aren't pulling their weight either? Er, yeah.
Regarding reporting sites with changed content (dead, redirecting, now porn outside of Adult, etc.), there is a thread in the Abuse Reporting forum for reporting those.
rd400d77
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 170
C
chriskud5
motsa-
You sound quite defensive.............
The point of this whole thread is to explore other things that the ODP could / should / should not do.
"I seriously doubt that."
I don't. Just as i illustrated that i would not volunteer at some hole in the wall place with little guidlines for how things are done, some people (like me) view that the ODP works that way. That is my position, and that is why i have questions about the future of this directory.
"You obviously don't understand how the ODP works"
Thats why i asked. I don't pretend i know it all. If you reviewed past posts i asked many questions about aspects of the directory.
"So, the senior editors (who put in a lot of time and energy to the Project) aren't pulling their weight either? Er, yeah"
What does that mean? Some sites are listed that should not be listed. Other editors then have to spend time editing out sites that should have not been included. If stricter guidlines existed, some of those sites may not have been listed in the first place, preventing the need for removal, but that could mean less sites will be listed.
I think this whole thread was a good fourm for exploring methods and ideas that the ODP could use to make the directory better. If you don't agree with some of them, fine, thats your opinion, it has no more or less importance than anyone elses opinion.
I wonder what the USERS (since the ODP is built for USERS, not editors) think of some of these ideas? I'm sure not many care about a submit status checker, but i bet a lot of them would like to see a more comprehensive directory with sites that contain great content.
How does everyone view the propsed stoppage of Yahoo using Google for search results? We all know google loves to use the ODP for directory and site listings. Maybe Yahoo thinks that users are being disadvantaged because of shortfalls in the ODP? Who knows.
Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread and have explored ideas for the ODP!
You sound quite defensive.............
The point of this whole thread is to explore other things that the ODP could / should / should not do.
"I seriously doubt that."
I don't. Just as i illustrated that i would not volunteer at some hole in the wall place with little guidlines for how things are done, some people (like me) view that the ODP works that way. That is my position, and that is why i have questions about the future of this directory.
"You obviously don't understand how the ODP works"
Thats why i asked. I don't pretend i know it all. If you reviewed past posts i asked many questions about aspects of the directory.
"So, the senior editors (who put in a lot of time and energy to the Project) aren't pulling their weight either? Er, yeah"
What does that mean? Some sites are listed that should not be listed. Other editors then have to spend time editing out sites that should have not been included. If stricter guidlines existed, some of those sites may not have been listed in the first place, preventing the need for removal, but that could mean less sites will be listed.
I think this whole thread was a good fourm for exploring methods and ideas that the ODP could use to make the directory better. If you don't agree with some of them, fine, thats your opinion, it has no more or less importance than anyone elses opinion.
I wonder what the USERS (since the ODP is built for USERS, not editors) think of some of these ideas? I'm sure not many care about a submit status checker, but i bet a lot of them would like to see a more comprehensive directory with sites that contain great content.
How does everyone view the propsed stoppage of Yahoo using Google for search results? We all know google loves to use the ODP for directory and site listings. Maybe Yahoo thinks that users are being disadvantaged because of shortfalls in the ODP? Who knows.
Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread and have explored ideas for the ODP!
If I sound defensive, it is because I see you opining about us needing stricter guidelines without, by your own admission, knowing what our current guidelines are. I would hope you wouldn't walk into any other company or community and without knowing anything about them start telling them what they're doing wrong. That's all.
Who indeed but discussions of what Yahoo and/or Google are up to aren't for this forum. Feel free to discuss that at any of the other webmaster forums that are out there.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Messages
- 18
Interesting discussion.
Maybe, at some point in the future. We aren't closed to the idea. If faced with a choice between building tools for submitters or buildiing tools for editors, we'll build tools for editors first. There are plans to significantly improve tools editors use to manage submissions. It might be possible to leverage some of these tools to provide facilities for checking submission/listing status.
Maybe, at some point in the future. We aren't closed to the idea. If faced with a choice between building tools for submitters or buildiing tools for editors, we'll build tools for editors first. There are plans to significantly improve tools editors use to manage submissions. It might be possible to leverage some of these tools to provide facilities for checking submission/listing status.
C
chriskud5
hi motsa, others-
I certainly do not know all the ways in which the ODP works, but i do see some results that could be improved, and results come from the process by which they are manufactured. I, as a user, see the ODP backed up in SOME catagories, and if made more streamlined (by the addition of some editor tools which the ODP staff was gracious enough to let us know about), the results would improve. I think i know something about it, as i see that the results are not as efficiant as they could be. I am in no way critsizing any of the work the editors do. The web community owes lots to the editors of ODP.
The results of Google are influenced a lot by the ODP. In turn, Yahoo uses resources such as website search results (this is shown by the "search results provided by google" logo on yahoo result pages). If Yahoo is not interested in keeping the results it gets from google, (who gets directory and starts spidering from the DMOZ), it could very well be an indication that Yahoo wants better results, (or doesnt want to dish out cash to Google, the ODP, whoever gets the check??)
A good chart exists someplace with all the major search engines, and where they get results from. I will try to find this and post a link.
A question unrelated, but kind of related into the "status" catagory.......
Does editors.dmoz.org provide the listing that the editors refer to when saying "it is listed on the editors / dev index, but not on the public?
Have a good day all
I certainly do not know all the ways in which the ODP works, but i do see some results that could be improved, and results come from the process by which they are manufactured. I, as a user, see the ODP backed up in SOME catagories, and if made more streamlined (by the addition of some editor tools which the ODP staff was gracious enough to let us know about), the results would improve. I think i know something about it, as i see that the results are not as efficiant as they could be. I am in no way critsizing any of the work the editors do. The web community owes lots to the editors of ODP.
The results of Google are influenced a lot by the ODP. In turn, Yahoo uses resources such as website search results (this is shown by the "search results provided by google" logo on yahoo result pages). If Yahoo is not interested in keeping the results it gets from google, (who gets directory and starts spidering from the DMOZ), it could very well be an indication that Yahoo wants better results, (or doesnt want to dish out cash to Google, the ODP, whoever gets the check??)
A good chart exists someplace with all the major search engines, and where they get results from. I will try to find this and post a link.
A question unrelated, but kind of related into the "status" catagory.......
Does editors.dmoz.org provide the listing that the editors refer to when saying "it is listed on the editors / dev index, but not on the public?
Have a good day all
bobrat
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
- Messages
- 11,061
Don't be offended, but there are three things that I believe are true.
1. Submitters to ODP, submit their site for the most part because Google uses the results.
2. For the most part editors at ODP, don't care whether Google [or Yahoo] uses the ODP data. From a certain view, I'm sure that some editors would wish that Google did not use the data, then there would not be such an incentive for spamming ODP.
3. The ODP data is free for anyone to use if they follow the rules for use. Therefore Yahoo's use of ODP, is nothing to do with money.
Keep posting, this has been a most informative thread.
1. Submitters to ODP, submit their site for the most part because Google uses the results.
2. For the most part editors at ODP, don't care whether Google [or Yahoo] uses the ODP data. From a certain view, I'm sure that some editors would wish that Google did not use the data, then there would not be such an incentive for spamming ODP.
3. The ODP data is free for anyone to use if they follow the rules for use. Therefore Yahoo's use of ODP, is nothing to do with money.
Keep posting, this has been a most informative thread.
C
chriskud5
A ODP listing certainly does mean money to some folks. In my case, i do not sell anything on the sites i develop, so i will not be making any money by having better Google and Yahoo results, but i find the whole process of SEO interesting.
I am certainly surprised to hear the the ODP does not get any funds from the orgs. that use the ODP data. How does the ODP get funded? The hardware upgrades as well as staff salaries sure must add up.
I could certainly imagine that 90% of the people here are worried about getting listed to make $$.
Anyone have any idea how the ODP is funded?
I am certainly surprised to hear the the ODP does not get any funds from the orgs. that use the ODP data. How does the ODP get funded? The hardware upgrades as well as staff salaries sure must add up.
I could certainly imagine that 90% of the people here are worried about getting listed to make $$.
Anyone have any idea how the ODP is funded?
DaveHawley
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2003
- Messages
- 112
I will have one final say then drop this.
))
that sounds like a recipe for disaster!
At the end of the say I fully agree that "Humans do it better" but only in some things. The statement surely cannot be applied as a blanket to the entire of DMOZ. Automation (IMO) would go a long way to leaving humans to do what they do best. After all, even automation and how it works is decided by us not 'the machines'
Perhaps if you told them their submission was viewed as spam they wouldn't keep trying. I feel leaving them not knowing would be viewed by 'spammers' as "I haven't been detected yet, so I'll keep trying".
This one has always intrigued me. How does an editor know for a fact, who is originator and who is the plagiarizer?
Again, perhaps if they were send an email stating that they were 'busted' they would no longer keep trying. let's face it, we all hate spam, but we do not ingore it, we take action to prevent it, e.g spam filters (not human ones
))So, I could become an editor, do next to nothing and hold my position? It sounds very much like luck if a category could be viewed as 'quality' or not? Hence my post last week about the Spreadsheet category.
that sounds like a recipe for disaster!
At the end of the say I fully agree that "Humans do it better" but only in some things. The statement surely cannot be applied as a blanket to the entire of DMOZ. Automation (IMO) would go a long way to leaving humans to do what they do best. After all, even automation and how it works is decided by us not 'the machines'
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Messages
- 18
You're overestimating the degree to which the ODP influences Google results. One can get high ranking in Google without being listed in the ODP. Likewise, one can get low ranking in Google and be listed in the ODP. For editors, the Google effect is not relevant.
In any case, it seems plausible Yahoo would drop Google because they are interested in developing their own search technology ... and they certainly have their pick between Inktomi, Altavista and Fast. It's more than a little far fetched to suggest Google's use of the ODP would somehow factor into their decision. Yahoo's main goals are recirculation, retention and revenue. The aim of Yahoo search is to recirculate traffic to Yahoo's own content (Inside Yahoo); and to drive traffic to links that bring in revenue (i.e. Sponsored Results). Crawled results complete the search experience, but are not the main focus of the experience.
There's a couple of them:
http://www.bruceclay.com/searchenginechart.pdf and
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum5/1234.htm
Yes.
In any case, it seems plausible Yahoo would drop Google because they are interested in developing their own search technology ... and they certainly have their pick between Inktomi, Altavista and Fast. It's more than a little far fetched to suggest Google's use of the ODP would somehow factor into their decision. Yahoo's main goals are recirculation, retention and revenue. The aim of Yahoo search is to recirculate traffic to Yahoo's own content (Inside Yahoo); and to drive traffic to links that bring in revenue (i.e. Sponsored Results). Crawled results complete the search experience, but are not the main focus of the experience.
There's a couple of them:
http://www.bruceclay.com/searchenginechart.pdf and
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum5/1234.htm
Yes.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
- Messages
- 18
Netscape/AOL hosts, administers and funds the ODP.
>> ...and we need NOT to give an automated response -- we want that spammer wondering, worrying, and suffering so much that he'll decide the ODP isn't worth bothering <<
>> Perhaps if you told them their submission was viewed as spam they wouldn't keep trying. <<
Perhaps. But far more likely is that they'll think "Darn, busted. Now what's the best way to disguise my future submissions so that those ODP guys won't spot them?".
>> Regular readers of this forum may notice that when we reject a site for not having unique content, we don't tell where else we found that content, or how we found it <<
>> This one has always intrigued me. How does an editor know for a fact, who is originator and who is the plagiarizer? <<
In some cases it's obvious (like the infamous guy that copied stuff from the BBC website and passed it off as his own work), but in most cases we don't know, and we don't care. We don't reject sites for violating copyright laws, we reject them for not having unique content. If the content exists on a site that is already listed, we won't approve another site with that same content.
It's possible that we may have some sites with stolen content listed in the directory, while the content creator is denied access for being 'non-unique'. This really isn't our problem, we're here to provide links to useful content, and as far as we are concerned it doesn't matter which version of that content we link to. We're not the copyright police, that's what the legal system is there for, so that site owners can force content stealers to remove anything that they don't rightfully own. If you look through these fora you'll find quite a few threads where people have come in and said that someone else is using their content, and asked what we are going to do about it. In each case the answer is 'go contact a lawyer'.
>> Perhaps if you told them their submission was viewed as spam they wouldn't keep trying. <<
Perhaps. But far more likely is that they'll think "Darn, busted. Now what's the best way to disguise my future submissions so that those ODP guys won't spot them?".
>> Regular readers of this forum may notice that when we reject a site for not having unique content, we don't tell where else we found that content, or how we found it <<
>> This one has always intrigued me. How does an editor know for a fact, who is originator and who is the plagiarizer? <<
In some cases it's obvious (like the infamous guy that copied stuff from the BBC website and passed it off as his own work), but in most cases we don't know, and we don't care. We don't reject sites for violating copyright laws, we reject them for not having unique content. If the content exists on a site that is already listed, we won't approve another site with that same content.
It's possible that we may have some sites with stolen content listed in the directory, while the content creator is denied access for being 'non-unique'. This really isn't our problem, we're here to provide links to useful content, and as far as we are concerned it doesn't matter which version of that content we link to. We're not the copyright police, that's what the legal system is there for, so that site owners can force content stealers to remove anything that they don't rightfully own. If you look through these fora you'll find quite a few threads where people have come in and said that someone else is using their content, and asked what we are going to do about it. In each case the answer is 'go contact a lawyer'.
albinfo
Editall/Catmv
- Joined
- May 24, 2002
- Messages
- 130
totalxsive
Member
Just an FYI: I got the statistics for sites added from http://dmoz.theblob.org/dmoz/odpstats.cgi . This took snapshots of the front page every day when the exact numbers of sites and categories were still shown. Various bugs in the system means that no longer happens.
As has been said, this shows how much the directory grows every day, rather than the number of sites added, which will be higher since it is offset by sites that are removed or suspended.
As has been said, this shows how much the directory grows every day, rather than the number of sites added, which will be higher since it is offset by sites that are removed or suspended.
spectregunner
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Messages
- 8,768
Allow me to add a bit of perspective as "just an editor".
I first got involved with ODP because I am an inactive member of the USAF gunship community and was disappointed that there were so few gunship sites listed. So I volunteered to become an editor.
I was accepted and within 24 hours my gunship website was "uncooled" because it is a conflict of interest for an editor to have a cooled site. Oh well, welcome to ODP, small price to pay.
I spent my first two months looking for gunship-related websites and merrily adding them. The category where I worked received about 1 submission a month, which I handled. I was living/working in a state of bliss and didn't undertand what all the other editors were complaining about with regards to bad submissions and spam.
Then I was invited to participate in a project to help cut down on the number of waiting submissions in another area of the directory where my aviation knowledge could prove helpful. Eyes wide open! I kept approving sites and more experience editors were rejecting them, tutoring me in the ways of spammers and dishonest submitters. I can tell you firsthand that it is demoralizing, disheartening and frustrating to spend three hours on an evening working on an unreviewed queue of 25 sites to only be able to approve/publish one of them. Sure, after a while you develop a "nose" for bad sites, but you still spend an enormous amount of time dealing with them.
Yet, fool that I am, I keep asking for additional responsibility and I spend a minimum of three hours a night working on ODP stuff. We won't even get into how much time ODP consumes every weekend.
Yet, in those three hours I may process fewer than 5 submissions, sometimes none at all. Instead, I spend a lot of time doing what I enjoy the most, namely quality control checks on existing sites in the directory. Every night I pick a small category and click through every site that has not been edited in six months. I verify that the site has not been hijacked, that the content has not dramatically changed, that it has not been turned into a link farm or a mass of affiliate pop-ups. I make sure that the site title and description meets current editing guidelines (yes, our guidelines do evolve over time). I also make sure that the site is in the correct category. Often, as categories begin to fill up with website, it may be necessary to create a relevant subcategory and move existing sites into that new subcat. The process may require that site descriptions be changed, so as to not repeat category names in the description.
In my free time, I'm also going through a lot of the categories in one branch of the tree and making sure that they have high-quality category descriptions and submission guidelines, in the hope that submitters will read them, find them useful and submit their sites to the correct category. I can't jsut write these descriptions and guidelines and publish them, a key part of the ODP culture is concensus building, so I internally publish and invite a batch of knowledgeable editors to step away from their editing time and obtain good concensus.
Oh, yes, I also read this forum, the private editors forum and partipate in other forms of editor-to-editor communication. I view these efforts as continuing education, and an essential element in my growth as an editor.
I'm also starting to get involved with the process of how ODP make new editors feel welcome and how we help them become productive. I only have my big toe in the water on this one, but feel it is a good use of my time.
Quotas -- I don't need or want any quotas, thank you very much. I would probably resign if they are imposed. I think my productivity is very good -- and I could care less how many total edits I do. I keep getting asked to do more and take on more responsibility, so I must be doing something right.
I am also in total awe of the quality and quantity of work I see some editors churn out on a daily basis -- and am amazed at their ODP knowledge. Oh, well, in a few more years I will retire and then will be able to really commit myself to ODP.
My satisfaction, when I power off my system at night, comes from knowing that I have made a contribution, no matter how small. No one can take that away from me. No one should try, nor should anyone who is not an editor or staff attempt to tell me where my focus should be or how I should organize my editing time. Sorry if that offends, but that is how this particular editor feels.
Hope this helps add some perspective to this discussion.
I first got involved with ODP because I am an inactive member of the USAF gunship community and was disappointed that there were so few gunship sites listed. So I volunteered to become an editor.
I was accepted and within 24 hours my gunship website was "uncooled" because it is a conflict of interest for an editor to have a cooled site. Oh well, welcome to ODP, small price to pay.
I spent my first two months looking for gunship-related websites and merrily adding them. The category where I worked received about 1 submission a month, which I handled. I was living/working in a state of bliss and didn't undertand what all the other editors were complaining about with regards to bad submissions and spam.
Then I was invited to participate in a project to help cut down on the number of waiting submissions in another area of the directory where my aviation knowledge could prove helpful. Eyes wide open! I kept approving sites and more experience editors were rejecting them, tutoring me in the ways of spammers and dishonest submitters. I can tell you firsthand that it is demoralizing, disheartening and frustrating to spend three hours on an evening working on an unreviewed queue of 25 sites to only be able to approve/publish one of them. Sure, after a while you develop a "nose" for bad sites, but you still spend an enormous amount of time dealing with them.
Yet, fool that I am, I keep asking for additional responsibility and I spend a minimum of three hours a night working on ODP stuff. We won't even get into how much time ODP consumes every weekend.
Yet, in those three hours I may process fewer than 5 submissions, sometimes none at all. Instead, I spend a lot of time doing what I enjoy the most, namely quality control checks on existing sites in the directory. Every night I pick a small category and click through every site that has not been edited in six months. I verify that the site has not been hijacked, that the content has not dramatically changed, that it has not been turned into a link farm or a mass of affiliate pop-ups. I make sure that the site title and description meets current editing guidelines (yes, our guidelines do evolve over time). I also make sure that the site is in the correct category. Often, as categories begin to fill up with website, it may be necessary to create a relevant subcategory and move existing sites into that new subcat. The process may require that site descriptions be changed, so as to not repeat category names in the description.
In my free time, I'm also going through a lot of the categories in one branch of the tree and making sure that they have high-quality category descriptions and submission guidelines, in the hope that submitters will read them, find them useful and submit their sites to the correct category. I can't jsut write these descriptions and guidelines and publish them, a key part of the ODP culture is concensus building, so I internally publish and invite a batch of knowledgeable editors to step away from their editing time and obtain good concensus.
Oh, yes, I also read this forum, the private editors forum and partipate in other forms of editor-to-editor communication. I view these efforts as continuing education, and an essential element in my growth as an editor.
I'm also starting to get involved with the process of how ODP make new editors feel welcome and how we help them become productive. I only have my big toe in the water on this one, but feel it is a good use of my time.
Quotas -- I don't need or want any quotas, thank you very much. I would probably resign if they are imposed. I think my productivity is very good -- and I could care less how many total edits I do. I keep getting asked to do more and take on more responsibility, so I must be doing something right.
I am also in total awe of the quality and quantity of work I see some editors churn out on a daily basis -- and am amazed at their ODP knowledge. Oh, well, in a few more years I will retire and then will be able to really commit myself to ODP.
My satisfaction, when I power off my system at night, comes from knowing that I have made a contribution, no matter how small. No one can take that away from me. No one should try, nor should anyone who is not an editor or staff attempt to tell me where my focus should be or how I should organize my editing time. Sorry if that offends, but that is how this particular editor feels.
Hope this helps add some perspective to this discussion.
Spectre, we love active editors like you. Wanna do more?
Chris and Dave, you've been asking some really great questions, and receiving a number of stimulating responses. Thanks! Have either of you considered becoming an editor? I'll try and respond to some of your earlier questions/comments:
QUOTAS
Like you, I've been volunteering for a number of years (in the US) under guidelines/requirements based on past experiences and knowledge. ODP has strict guidelines too, but they have to take into account that this project is not solely limited to the US. What is common here is not necessarily common in other parts of the world - we've got editors from Nunavut to South Africa to Indonesia and elsewhere. Also, covering how to handle what's done in every teeny tiny or extreme circumstance we'd need to borrow the Library of Congress buildings to hold all the volumes. Considering we already get complaints of the lengthiness of the guidelines, adding significantly more is not necessarily the option we want to go with.
In reviewing a (listable) site, we try to look through a significant portion of what's there, and that can take anywhere from 5-20 minutes *or longer*, and that doesn't necessarily include load times or researching potential abuse. In parts of the world where editors are still paying by the minute to use the internet, we welcome their efforts, however limited they might be. Local and subject knowledge can make a big difference. Truthfully, the only "quota" stipulation ODP editors are given can be found in this paragraph, as summarized by someone else earlier. That "quota" is both a blessing and a curse, depending on the situation and the viewpoint.
"Senior" editors (cateditalls, editalls, catmods, metas, staff) don't like finding abuse - by editor or spammer - but most frequently we're the final stop for dealing with it. We all have our horror stories, but the general common factor is that often our personal add stats decrease once we get promoted due to dealing with other increased responsibilities. Other responsibilities that in effect make things easier/more accessible for the editing populace at large - including shuffling sites incorrectly submitted much, much too high down to where the appropriate editors can reach them.
STATS
- We currently have a total of *2* paid staff members. One is part time, and I'm not completely certain on the other. Like the rest of us editors, they give many hours of their personal time to this project. They do a d*mn fine job in any case.
- The total number of sites (and editors) displayed on the main page is inaccurate. The number of sites used to include a few hidden/semi-hidden cats that have since been dropped from the tally (they're still around, but no longer included). Theseeker wrote of the editor numbers earlier. They've fluctuated between 9500-11000 active logins for awhile now though (more like 500-1000 are actual routinely active editors like spectre).
- I can tell you the combined submissions for Business, Computers, and Shopping presently account for 39% of total unreviewed. Any guesses which 3 of the 17 Top level cats have the highest rate of spam? I've edited in two of those areas, and can tell you we have a *tough* time getting good quality editors - without ulterior motives - to spend time there and stick around for the long haul. Is it any wonder those same trees have higher burnout and abuse rates?
- Since 17 Nov 2002, ODP has a net growth of 11% and we're presently sitting at 3813444 sites. This despite countless server issues causing an increasing number of editors to get fed up and leave. Soon, this too shall pass, and I suspect we'll see a greater jump in numbers once things are up and running the way they used to several years ago.
- In the past month (Jul 1-30) we've grown roughly 75000 sites, despite not having edit-side access _at all_ for a week. The editor forums being down have also had an effect on editing, but not as much.
I can't fully cite my sources for the stats as they are accessible only to editors and/or metas, but they *are* accurate. You're welcome to apply (once that option reopens) and find out what's what on the editor side of the fence. We've heard from several of our RZ recruits how their perspectives altered once they saw what we've been dealing with for so long. I can't guarantee application acceptance, but I think you've got a decent chance.
Marissa
Wanna do more? Chris and Dave, you've been asking some really great questions, and receiving a number of stimulating responses. Thanks! Have either of you considered becoming an editor? I'll try and respond to some of your earlier questions/comments:
QUOTAS
Like you, I've been volunteering for a number of years (in the US) under guidelines/requirements based on past experiences and knowledge. ODP has strict guidelines too, but they have to take into account that this project is not solely limited to the US. What is common here is not necessarily common in other parts of the world - we've got editors from Nunavut to South Africa to Indonesia and elsewhere. Also, covering how to handle what's done in every teeny tiny or extreme circumstance we'd need to borrow the Library of Congress buildings to hold all the volumes. Considering we already get complaints of the lengthiness of the guidelines, adding significantly more is not necessarily the option we want to go with.
In reviewing a (listable) site, we try to look through a significant portion of what's there, and that can take anywhere from 5-20 minutes *or longer*, and that doesn't necessarily include load times or researching potential abuse. In parts of the world where editors are still paying by the minute to use the internet, we welcome their efforts, however limited they might be. Local and subject knowledge can make a big difference. Truthfully, the only "quota" stipulation ODP editors are given can be found in this paragraph, as summarized by someone else earlier. That "quota" is both a blessing and a curse, depending on the situation and the viewpoint.
"Senior" editors (cateditalls, editalls, catmods, metas, staff) don't like finding abuse - by editor or spammer - but most frequently we're the final stop for dealing with it. We all have our horror stories, but the general common factor is that often our personal add stats decrease once we get promoted due to dealing with other increased responsibilities. Other responsibilities that in effect make things easier/more accessible for the editing populace at large - including shuffling sites incorrectly submitted much, much too high down to where the appropriate editors can reach them.
STATS
- We currently have a total of *2* paid staff members. One is part time, and I'm not completely certain on the other. Like the rest of us editors, they give many hours of their personal time to this project. They do a d*mn fine job in any case.
- The total number of sites (and editors) displayed on the main page is inaccurate. The number of sites used to include a few hidden/semi-hidden cats that have since been dropped from the tally (they're still around, but no longer included). Theseeker wrote of the editor numbers earlier. They've fluctuated between 9500-11000 active logins for awhile now though (more like 500-1000 are actual routinely active editors like spectre).
- I can tell you the combined submissions for Business, Computers, and Shopping presently account for 39% of total unreviewed. Any guesses which 3 of the 17 Top level cats have the highest rate of spam? I've edited in two of those areas, and can tell you we have a *tough* time getting good quality editors - without ulterior motives - to spend time there and stick around for the long haul. Is it any wonder those same trees have higher burnout and abuse rates?
- Since 17 Nov 2002, ODP has a net growth of 11% and we're presently sitting at 3813444 sites. This despite countless server issues causing an increasing number of editors to get fed up and leave. Soon, this too shall pass, and I suspect we'll see a greater jump in numbers once things are up and running the way they used to several years ago.
- In the past month (Jul 1-30) we've grown roughly 75000 sites, despite not having edit-side access _at all_ for a week. The editor forums being down have also had an effect on editing, but not as much.
I can't fully cite my sources for the stats as they are accessible only to editors and/or metas, but they *are* accurate. You're welcome to apply (once that option reopens) and find out what's what on the editor side of the fence. We've heard from several of our RZ recruits how their perspectives altered once they saw what we've been dealing with for so long. I can't guarantee application acceptance, but I think you've got a decent chance.
Marissa
DaveHawley
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2003
- Messages
- 112
Hi Marissa
I actually applied about 6 months ago and was rejected. It was probably best as I would no longer have the time. To be honest, I have been (still waiting) trying (for nearly 5 years) to get my listing URL changed. After no reply from emailing the editor, at least 5 times, and a paid staff member at least 3 times, I thought the ONLY way I this was going to happen was to become an editor.
I have be told (on this forum) by an editor that the changes would occur as of about Friday last week. Guess what.......still no change
I actually applied about 6 months ago and was rejected. It was probably best as I would no longer have the time. To be honest, I have been (still waiting) trying (for nearly 5 years) to get my listing URL changed. After no reply from emailing the editor, at least 5 times, and a paid staff member at least 3 times, I thought the ONLY way I this was going to happen was to become an editor.
I have be told (on this forum) by an editor that the changes would occur as of about Friday last week. Guess what.......still no change