Catagories that are way behind....

[TonyG5003]

Is there a way to check how long it has been since a catagory has been updated by an editor, or to check when the last time was that they logged in?

 

I have searched for a particular editor, but can't find them in the member list. Is it possible they are not a member of the forum?

 

My point, is that if I am going to wait a year to be included because the editor has not logged in, I would like to know, so I won't worry about it.

 

Help ease my mind please.....

[paulknight]

Indeed, check the footer of any category page to see when it was last generated. We're not gonna give status reports on editor log-ins however.

[TonyG5003]

Thanks for the response....

[shadow575]

I see paulknight has taken care of part of your question.

 

As far as the rest goes:

There are many editors that do not frequent this forum, on the other hand there are a great many who do. It really is not important however if a specific editor is on the forum or not because any editor of a higher category can check status for you in the Submission Status Forum. As far as

if I am going to wait a year to be included because the editor has not logged in, I would like to know, so I won't worry about it.

Do not worry about it. Any editor with permissions for that category or higher categories can review it. Someone will get to it, but there is no way to predict how long that it will take however. Be patient, then read the Guidelines to request a status of the submission and someone can help you.

[nea]

I have searched for a particular editor, but can't find them in the member list. Is it possible they are not a member of the forum?

 

Supposing that you are talking about Resource-Zone: Extremely possible. Only a small fraction of the ODP editors are members of this forum.

 

if I am going to wait a year to be included because the editor has not logged in, I would like to know

 

In any given category, the people who can edit there are

1) the editor (if any) who is named at the bottom of the category page

2) the editors named for any category higher up in the category tree

3) a couple of hundred editall and meta editors, who have editing rights in the entire directory.

 

Nobody can know where any of these people is going to edit tomorrow, or next week. It might be that the named editor has been editing every day in that particular category, but has just been granted additional categories and is editing there instead. Or maybe nobody has edited in a category for six months but next week somebody will drop by and say "My, this is a mess - I'd better clean this up", and work there for three weeks.

 

Not worrying about it is excellent advice; once you have suggested your site to DMOZ and been told it is waiting for review it's probably more productive to forget it since you can't hurry the process up anyway. :moz:

[paulknight]

I see paulknight has taken care of part of your question.

 

Sorry, I do tend to keep my responses brief.

[shadow575]

No problem. You probably would have typed faster than I did anyway. Besides Nea clearly explained it better than me anyway.

[bobrat]

It would be inconceivably bad for you to avoid submitting a site to a category based on that kind of information.

 

Assuming I could tell you without hesitation, and fully guaranteed that a category had no editing done in it for tha last two years. You would of course [based on your post] not submit your site.

 

But tomorrow, an editor starts editing there, and starts dealing with the two year old pileup of sites. Not only that, he does not always review sites in date order. You missed yout chance to get your site listed. Too bad.

 

This is not a hypothetical situation, it's something I'm doing right now in a category. In the same day, I might review and publish sites from 2002, and submiited this week.

[tome2]

My point, is that if I am going to wait a year to be included because the editor has not logged in, I would like to know, so I won't worry about it.

 

Help ease my mind please.....

I don't think Tony said he wasn't going to Suggest the Site. He's simply not going to worry about it. Right? That's always a good idea. Don't worry. Be happy.

[TonyG5003]

I don't think Tony said he wasn't going to Suggest the Site. He's simply not going to worry about it. Right? That's always a good idea. Don't worry. Be happy.

 

 

That's correct. I had no intention of never submitting. It has been about 6 weeks since I submitted. I did check the last time this person's catagories were updated, and it appears they take an active role, so that helped.

 

Although I didn't mention it in this thread, I still feel however, that DMOZ should take a more active role in determining what is, and is not appropriate for how often an editor actually tends to their catagories; there should be a clear expectation for anyone who volunteers. Not that it is the case for me (yet), but I feel it is entirely unfair to have well deserving and honest people wait forever, simply because someone is not doing what they signed up to do. If you can't commit to doing the work, then let someone else in to handle it. I think this is quite reasonable.

 

Are there currently any "policies" in place for replacing editors who have not signed in over a certain time period?

[dogbows]

No, there is no such thing as replacing an editor, however we must make at least one edit in every four months or we are beaten with a rubber duckie and sent on our merry way.

[pvgool]

Although I didn't mention it in this thread, I still feel however, that DMOZ should take a more active role in determining what is, and is not appropriate for how often an editor actually tends to their catagories; there should be a clear expectation for anyone who volunteers. Not that it is the case for me (yet), but I feel it is entirely unfair to have well deserving and honest people wait forever, simply because someone is not doing what they signed up to do. If you can't commit to doing the work, then let someone else in to handle it. I think this is quite reasonable.

 

Are there currently any "policies" in place for replacing editors who have not signed in over a certain time period?

 

Ahh, some of the big misunderstandings about ODP.

- all editors are volunteers, and as so can not be told how much work they should do

- when an editor hasn't done any editong in 4 months (s)he is deactivated until (s)he decides to join again

- if a category already has an editor listed it is still posisble for new editors to apply for this category

- even if an editor is very active in a category this doenst't mean any of the suggested sites will be processed, reviewing suggestions is only a small part of our 'work'

- when an editor signes up there is no contract so it is impossible that "someone is not doing what they signed up to do"

[TonyG5003]

Yes' date=' we must make at least one edit in every four months.[/b"']

 

Wow... that is much worse than I thought it would be. I think one edit every 2 weeks is more appropriate. At least one per month should be the minimum.

[shadow575]

The Guide to Becoming an Editor explains in general terms exactly what is required of a volunteer wishing to help out. I encourage everyone to read it thoroughly, even those not wishing to become an editor. It gives a little insight into what we do.

 

Just because a specific editor has not edited in one particular category does not mean that they have not been editing somewhere. The best editors have a wide range of categories to work on, so just because they have not edited in one category for a while doesn't mean they haven't been busy somewhere else.

 

Hope that helps some.

[shadow575]

Wow... that is much worse than I thought it would be. I think one edit every 2 weeks is more appropriate. At least one per month should be the minimum.

 

The majority of editors are working several times a week. However, you have to realize that we have lives outside of editing as well. Full-time or part-time jobs, family/children to be with and take care of, illnesses, vacations and other hobbies that also take up our free time. We volunteer to edit, because we are willing to donate a part of our free time (not all-just part) to try and make the internet better. Most of us would not have volunteered if we didn't think we could at least set aside a good bit of our time to do the job at hand. Some of those editors that are only able to log in every couple of months are very good editors who just do not have the extra time (right now-could have changed or might still change) to do anymore at this time. We are not going to prevent someone who is good from volunteering to help no matter how much time they have to give.

[sole]

At least one per month should be the minimum.

 

But people don't always work that way. People don't ususally come in and just do one edit.

 

They may not check in for 2 months and then do a dozen. That would be an average of one a month for a year, but they still have to do another edit within 4 months or they'll time out.

 

Also not all "editing" counts. I can reject a dozen sites from the unreviewed queue and it doesn't count. Although we get a lot of spam, dealing with it doean't count as doing an edit. When we say one edit in 4 months, minimum we are looking at adding a site, correcting a listing, adding a link, or a few other concrete things.

 

Answering questions here and dealing with spam are just two of the things that don't count as editing, but do take our time.

 

Plus, we do appreciate the efforts of those who have limited time to offer the project. Every little bit helps. And some of us start out doing a dozen edits every 2 or three months and then get into it and start doing more.

[TonyG5003]

Ahh, some of the big misunderstandings about ODP.

- all editors are volunteers, and as so can not be told how much work they should do

- when an editor signes up there is no contract so it is impossible that "someone is not doing what they signed up to do"

 

Herein lies the problem.....

 

Imagine where the Red Cross would be if they operated in the same fashion with their volunteers. If they couldn't depend on the volunteers to some degree, they would be in shambles.

 

There doesn't need to be a contract... just courtesy. I personally would never volunteer if I thought I could not meet expectations. I think there is a bit of a contradiction here - it appears to be quite a challenge to even become an editor - but once you are in.. you can come and go as you please. That does not make sense.

 

Most volunteer organizations that I'm aware of do have guidelines in place regarding the minimum that they are expected to participate. I think one edit in four months is simply ridiculous. Now I know why there are so many catagories that have obsolete links.

 

I think these are perfectly valid points.

[Guest wrathchild]

Yeah, but you're under the mistaken impression that an "idle" editor is somehow preventing other work from being done. Any of a couple of hundred editors can edit in any part of the directory. No editor "owns" a category; an editor listed on a category does not prevent other editors from being listed there. So, removing an editor doesn't "make room" for someone else, since they weren't taking up space.

 

Say you have an editor that makes 1 quality edit a month. That's one more edit that month--one more incremental improvement to the directory--that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Now say you tighten the requirements to be 1 edit per week. This editor, and other like him/her, are unable or unwilling to make that commitment and are dropped. Now you don't get those 12 good edits a year...from every editor dropped. And for what? He/she wasn't holding a more "ambitious" editor back. He/She wasn't taking up space while we have a long queue of qualified editors waiting for an opening. You've just thrown away a good editor for no reason.

 

We always need good editors. Always. This project is huge. We need many more people than we have. However, the people that are declined an editor position aren't turned away because the fire marshal says we can have only so many people in the building in one time, but because the reviewing meta didn't feel their application showed enough promise. Better for us to run perpetually understaffed than to lower our standards and let in poor editors who will simply make more work for the rest of us.

 

What is "lacking" in those obsolete categories is someone with a passion for the topic (and decent editor skills). Are you one of those people?

 

This project is built on the good graces of its volunteers. Start saying "you must make X edits per week to stay active" and "you must edit in this category now" and editors will be resigning in droves. I can think of no more efficient way of killing the ODP.

[bobrat]

From my point of view comparing ODP to the Red Cross, is dubious at best, and is not fair to ODP. That organization that is supposedly so well run, managed in Canada, to issued tainted blood and ruin peoples lives. So its not a role model that I feel we should follow. And they are in a shambles.

[Guest wrathchild]

I think there is a bit of a contradiction here - it appears to be quite a challenge to even become an editor - but once you are in.. you can come and go as you please. That does not make sense.

Not at all. There are plenty of cases of editors being shown the door.

 

When you apply to be an editor, the only thing the reviewer has to go on is your application. You have no edit history. As such, the metas will often accept a borderline application if they think the person can become a good editor with some guidance and practice.

 

Once an editor, you can apply for permissions to edit new categories. However, now the reviewer of your application can see the entire history of your work. If your work isn't up-to-snuff, your request will be declined. (Every editor posting on these forums probably has at least one newperm rejection.) In egregious cases you'll be bounced out, but usually you're given an opportunity to improve and can then re-apply. (Other factors come into play, like experience in relation to the size of the category.) Nobody can "come and go as [they] please" since every request for more permissions requires review of past work. Existing editors are held to a higher standard than new applicants because they are expected to understand the guidelines and work to improve on any shortcomings. Those that don't, at best, simply don't get new editing permissions. The ones who refuse to improve and continue to edit poorly are removed.

[hutcheson]

Funny you should mention the Red Cross. My wife volunteers for them. Sometimes she goes a year without doing anything, sometimes there's a flurry of emergency activity. And yet they're still in business, and she's still on their rolls.

 

Who'd a thought it? (Only someone who'd actually participated in volunteer activity, perhaps?)

 

But the ODP isn't an emergency service. It's more like an internet project. And all the people that I've ever heard discuss their EXPERIENCE with such projects emphasize that it's worth a great deal of effort to remove artificial barriers.

 

The misapprehension that an editor can be "replaced" has already been mentioned. (You're still thinking slaves in the pit gang. No volunteer effort is like that.) The only "place" an editor has is the work they do. So long as there's more work to do, anyone can make a place for themselves, regardless of how many workers there already are.

 

I should also correct something that has been mentioned. The fact is, there is no requirement to do one edit every four months!

 

That's right. There is no such requirement.

 

An editor's userid times out if there is no activity in four months. But that is a server security issue, and has nothing to do with our expectations from editors. Metas have received very explicit instructions on this subject: editors who formerly were active (by the most liberal definition) are invited to return -- there is a simple reinstatement request, and unless there are really good reasons that we don't want an editor back, that request is to be granted.

 

So the ODP management is even further from your vision of the well-ordered society than you had supposed.

 

Now, I obviously don't have your experience -- less than 6 years at the ODP, less than 4 as a meta-editor; less than a hundred thousand ODP edits and less than 20000 pages of content contributed to other volunteer projects. But from that little experience, I have gotten the impression that many volunteer-built sites really value those sporadic contributions, far more highly than you think they ought. It's been about a year since I contributed to the CCEL: and you should already have written the webmaster to get me stricken from the rolls, since my potential as a future contributor is worth much less than the value of showing the power of the boss! -- clearly you are unreliable and worthless as a project manager. (And since you didn't know, you won't be telling him I've got almost 2000 pages more that will be ready real soon now.)

 

Project Gutenberg "suggests" proofreading a page a day. I've hardly done a thing since Wednesday. Clearly they should cut me off for being unreliable. The fact that I've spent my volunteer time scanning and OCRing 500 pages instead -- to fulfil a gap mentioned by another volunteer -- would be irrelevant even if they knew it. The only important thing is to wield the whip and terrorize the slaves into being more productive. You need to explain to tell them how they can get rid of volunteers before they slip up and get engrossed in their volunteer activites there.

 

But as for the ODP, you'll have to send your suggestions to Time Warner. The editors have no power to implement them; the meta-editors have specifically been forbidden to implement them.

[TonyG5003]

Existing editors are held to a higher standard than new applicants because they are expected to understand the guidelines and work to improve on any shortcomings. Those that don't, at best, simply don't get new editing permissions. The ones who refuse to improve and continue to edit poorly are removed.

 

That is very good to know.

 

However, I think most people would agree that being a good editor, or being good at anything for that matter, requires some degree of regular participation. The fact that an editor is only required to provide three edits over a 12 month period in order to stay, does not do anything to promote quality editing. I personally feel that it promotes mediocrity. What would happen if we all did the bare minimum just to "stay in." Although a huge, global statement, I feel that idea is part of the problem with our society.

 

I'm confident (or hopeful at least) that most of the editors actually "edit" more often than the bare minimum. However, suggesting that editors will suddenly flee in droves if they are required to perform 6 or 9 edits per year, perfectly validates my point. (Heaven forbid that we have any expectations thrust upon us.) If that is accurate, then that indicates a problem, to me anyway.

[hutcheson]

Oh, the ODP has expectations, major ones. We just define expectations that are required to meet our goals. A regular pattern of editing is NOT required, as several people have mentioned. It is NOT necessarily characteristic of even some of the most productive editors -- as has been mentioned. All feelings aside -- save them for group therapy, please -- simple logic dictates that an arbitrary restriction that eliminates productive editors is counterproductive. And the experience cited above further demonstrates that simple logic is simply correct.

 

But -- I'll say it again. This is a problem you MUST take to Time-Warner, because (1) editors can't control it, and (2) it has absolutely no negative impact on how we do our work, so it cannot rationally be our concern.

 

But the fundamental issue is, you don't have a problem with the ODP. You have a problem with your own irrationality. You want a service, and rather than going to any of the thousands of people that will provide it, you harangue the ODP for not providing it. We don't need to provide that service, because THOUSANDS OF OTHER PEOPLE ARE ALREADY DOING IT! We're working on a different mission, one that (even with what you regard as our insufficiently flogged slaves) we do better than anyone else.

[nea]

Meanwhile, yes, we do discuss how to make editors continue editing. Good, experienced editors frequently mentor newer ones, and there is a lot of peer review of each other's editing going on all the time (since most of us think that doing something well makes it more fun). We are constantly talking about how to improve the editing process, how to improve the editor community, how to make sure editors in smaller languages or less-popular corners of the directory are not left unniticed, etc, etc. It is a concern for us, but it is not related to the number of unreviewed sites, and we are pretty certain that increasing the demands on editors' time would not address any of the concerns we see.

[hutcheson]

>What would happen if we all did the bare minimum just to "stay in." Although a huge, global statement, I feel that idea is part of the problem with our society.

 

Ah, a "big picture" man, I see. Perhaps you should focus on fixing society's problems, and leave the ODP for more detail-oriented people.

 

A few simple calculations, which anyone can do from publicly available numbers:

 

1000-3000 sites added daily. About 10000 active editors. 3000 spam sited deleted daily, and a few hundred changes -- say 5000-10000 edits. So the "average editor" does 60-120 edits in four months.

 

Of course, there are no average editors. Here's one editor who, rumor says, has cloned herself twice and knocks out 100 edits a day, in addition to a great deal of behind-the-scenes work. There's another editor who heats up the keyboard on semester breaks, but hardly touches it during the semester. Here's yet another, who's doing the bare minimum. Here's one that often does over 100 edits a day, but also has dropped out for several months, several times. Why? Who knows unless he tells us; who cares unless he wants us to; but welcome back every time! Procrustes would have his work cut out for him. And we aren't going to take it on: we've got more important things to do: sites to review, books to scan, classes to teach.

 

If you want to think about the big picture, think about this: a fundamental problem with the industrial society was that it encouraged the dehumanization of persons by treating them as identical "replaceable" cogs in a wheel, or gears forced to be a certain size to fit the machine.

 

The information society frees us from that particular diabolical myth, which is recurrent in much outside criticism of the ODP.

 

For instance, people talk about "replacing" an editor -- it can't be done. None of us are essential, but all of us are irreplaceable. Much that I do could be done better by someone else, but I bring a set of skills and a knowledge base that no other editor has. And every single editor can make that same statement!

 

There is that fetish about the "average" editor -- haven't met him yet, and don't want to. (I can't stand hearing him talk about his 2.3 children anyway.) And we only accept as editors people we think are above average. (We're not always right.)

 

And the "average" queue processed (in an order to be determined and imposed by those same outside critics) by golems under strict control (which control apparently ought to be exercised only by people who have demonstrated no knowledge or sympathy or the ODP mission -- sort of like Moscow agricultural commissars defining land use in the Caucasus.)

 

Auden had a bit to say about this particular diabolical myth: read http://poetry.poetryx.com/poems/58/ .

 

The information age requires us to abandon that, and encourages everyone to add to the common store of knowledge. If we all knew exactly the same thing, it would be ... a pretty stupid world.

 

The existance of the ODP is in its own way a manifesto for the new age. And thinking like an automaton in a Soviet gulag won't work. Thinking like a Soviet commissar won't be tolerated. "The workers really DO control the means of production" -- and the commissars are running scared, as they ought to be.

 

This is a crucial point, and you won't begin to understand the ODP until you grasp this. We aren't staffing galley slaves, and we don't have wait till the whole fleet is fully manned. It's more like -- here's the ocean, bring your own surfboard and grab a wave. The "you have to attend at least x meetings of our surfing club to use our ocean" bit goes over like a lead surfboard. After all, there are other beaches.

 

The big picture is simple. We assume whoever's doing the work knows best how it ought to be done, any unsupported assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. So it's totally pointless to complain about the big picture. There is no big picture. You think part of the work can be done better? Show us, by doing it. Or be a peevish commissar in a post-communist world. (I understand some of the British colonial officers never quite came to grips with their post-colonial world either. But the world changed anyway.)

 

"The weather forecast tomorrow is more snow. Cycad-eaters will do well to store some forage against the possibility of continued frost. There is a possibility of greatly increased death rates among small-brained reptilian cycad-eaters. Small furry animals -- unlikeable, intractable, undomesticable -- may nevertheless escape extinction by learning to eat new foods and cooperate with swarm-mates."