. . .
Well said. If I recall rightly there have been a number of directories set up alomg models suggested by the 'internet community' - there is a wiki-directory and also hedir. These were set up precisely in response to the carping as the instigators felt that there would be a demand for that type of directory. Yet the same 'internet community' instead of rushing to support these projects are embarking on yet another round of telling other people what to do.
spectregunner said:
. Hang out at digital point for a few days, and you'll see what I'm talking about, if you don't already.If you know of any editor who is taking money to list sites and you have proof, then by all means report them using our public abuse reporting system. We take abuse very seriously.
If your site is designed in such a way that editors have trouble finding what content is there, then your visitors probably will, too. And keep in mind that directory sites, especially broad ones, require a significant amount of content in the form of listings in order to be listable.
There are clearly-defined criteria.
One shouldn't demand something one can't provide oneself.
Well, if you hang out in places where negativity reigns, you shouldn't be surprised that you hear a lot of negativity.
Judging by your examples, you seem to think that an editor should only be exempt from being fluent in English if their language uses its own alphabet. Why? Why should someone editing in World/Deutch, for example, be required to be fluent in English? That's a very anglo-centric point of view.
editor discrection
Only sites with "unique content" in English get listed in the English part of ODP, and that's the only place where there should be English descriptions. Those descriptions should be describing the English content of the site. Therefore even if there are Dutch sites with English descriptions in the English part of the ODP, there's no reason for the editor to know any Dutch. The same applies in reverse to English sites (with content in Dutch) that get listed in the Dutch part of the ODP.
Is there anything that leads you to think that public site suggestions should be handled within a year? As motsa has alread said, we take abuse by editors very seriously. The main reason that cases in the public abuse system can be acted upon more quickly than site suggestions is largely that we get far fewer of them to look at. However, please bear in mind that we need firm evidence in order to be able to take anyaction. Just seeing an editor listed in a category with no, or few, site additions in a particular time period is not enough. An editor being affiliated to a site that listed in their category is not in itself a sign of abuse.
That thread still gets replies. He'll probably get caught, but on his own. So I pretty much gave you a hint where to look. Can't point at any names.Well, if you know that abuse is happening and you don't report the specifics of it, then you yourself are a part of the problem.
I'm not implicitly implying anything. I'm saying it outright: the discussions regarding the ODP at Digital Point are almost uniformly negative (and frequently completely and utterly out in left field). But, hey, that works for the people who like to hang out there.
That's been suggested many, many times over but we do not and will not force editors to edit on an enforced FIFO basis.
One site maybe, but how many site suggestions do you think we receive each week? How many volunteered editors do we have to deal with them? (Besides which, the mission of the ODP, and hence the job of the editors, is to to build a directory, not specifically to review suggested sites. There is much more to building and maintaining a directory this than just adding new sites, and there other ways to find new sites than just looking at the public suggestions.)
Unfortunately that just wouldn't work for us. First of all, editors typically need some knowledge / experience about (or at least an interest in) the area editing in to be able to review and list sites effectively. A single queue would mean that all editors would have to be experts (or at least prepared to work) in everything. Secondly, with large differentials in the quality of suggestions between different categories, a queue would mean that potentially much more useful suggestions in, say http://dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Psychology/Social/Persuasion_and_Social_Influence/ or http://dmoz.org/Reference/Education...ted_Kingdom/England/University_of_Nottingham/ would get stuck behind piles of junk suggested to say http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Florida/Business_and_Economy/Real_Estate/ or http:///dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Web_Design_and_Development/Promotion/ . Would this help us build a good directory more efficiently?
The social contract and guidelines are followed, when someone deviates from them the appropriate action is taken. If you know of something we have missed please report it.andyboy said:
What was being said was that anyone who is interested and has looked should know how seriously we take allegations of abuse. If you have evidence indicating such, file a report outlining the evidence and it WILL be investigated. A site not being listed or a category not being edited is not abuse. Someone crying about abuse, provided an easy avenue to report that abuse to the proper people (Meta's), then failing to do so on the grounds that they figure it wouldn't be investigated anyway has no reason to be crying IMO.andyboy said:What? u mean to tell me i'm ranting about money, or are you just implying I pay the $500
Many editors, my self included are or have been editors at JoeAnt and other directories. There are vast differences from an editor standpoint in the two you mention. There are things with both (all) directories that could be changed. That is why there is room out there for so many different directories. Some editors actually prefer joeant to the ODP and spend quite a lot of time there (at least one comes to mind right awayandyboy said:
). Frankly I had a good time editing at joeant and always received decent feedback. It was a good change of pace particularly when dmoz was done recently, but I haven't done much lately there. My experience was that I prefer dmoz editing and find it more enjoyable and satisfying personally. 