Control on innactive editors?

[barcelona2004]

For months I have had several sites awaiting review at several categories run by [a particular editor]. Is there a control on editors that have stopped doing anything?

When was the last time she published something under category xxxx or its descendants?

 

I know you don't guarantee any volunteer's performance, but maybe you could name someone else...

 

Thank you

[spectregunner]

1. Information on editors is not public and we do not share. Frankly, it is none of your business. Think about it for a second, would you like us to petition your employer to get copies of your time sheets and for us to demand your removal if you don't meet our standards?

 

2. We don't "name" editors to categories and we certainly don't replace editors because a member of the public thinks that the volunteer is not devoting enough of their personal time and effort to the project.

 

3. Are you aware that there arre several hundred editors who can edit in any given category, and that no editor "owns" a category?

 

Hope this clairifes the matter for you.

[idleplay]

No need to give him a bollocking mate...

 

Surely there should be something that kicks out editors if no modifications/additions had been made within a set period of time - there may be several hundred editors who can edit all categories - but what if the majority of them are sat under the stairs with the lights off?

 

Paul

[nareau]

I believe that an editor can be removed if they do not perform at least one edit every four months. I'm not sure on that, and I can't check the guidelines now. I'm pretty sure it's something like that.

 

And yeah, I know, that's not a whole lot of editing. But from their perspective, DMOZ is way more interested in quality than quantity. IE, maybe this editor spends a lot of time on each suggestion, or maybe she doesn't review suggestions much (instead doing her own research). I think the philosophy here is, "one accurate and useful edit is better than 1000 bad ones."

 

It seems to be an ongoing struggle at DMOZ, though. About half of the complaints I see about DMOZ are, "You don't have strict enough controls on your volunteers!" And the other half are, "You need more volunteers, so lower your standards!"

 

Nareau

[idleplay]

Yeah I guess - it's just frustrating from the webmasters point of view when you view a category full of absolute rubbish and it isn't updated for long periods of time. I know that the sites I am trying to get submitted have much more, relevant content than the majority of the sites listed and it just annoys me that so many other people use the ODP results as a standard when some, not all editors just add crap as and when they feel like it.

[motsa]

Surely there should be something that kicks out editors if no modifications/additions had been made within a set period of time - there may be several hundred editors who can edit all categories - but what if the majority of them are sat under the stairs with the lights off?

Keep in mind that the originator of this thread is complaining about a particular editor's edits in a particular category. Most editors editing at anything but the leaf level in a category have a number of subcategories to look after and may also have privs in a number of different categories as well. The fact that any one category may have had no sites added in x amount of time doesn't mean that (a) the editor hasn't been active behind the scenes in that category or (b) the editor hasn't been active in a different category. But ultimately that really doesn't matter because even if she was sitting on her butt, twiddling her thumbs and making 1 edit every 4 months, it's really no one's business.

[idleplay]

Surely that's no way to run the directory? If all editors are allowed to do that and they all did? where would we be? The ODP would die, very quickly - Who would want to syndicate stagnant listings?

 

I hope it doesn't go this way and the handful of active editors boot out the rubbish and make dmoz.org the standard it once was. If they don't, it will die and the majority of editors will need to get their ego trip from somewhere else.

 

Paul

[motsa]

Surely that's no way to run the directory? If all editors are allowed to do that and they all did? where would we be? The ODP would die, very quickly - Who would want to syndicate stagnant listings?

As had been noted in many threads here ad nauseum, editors are not required to put in a minimum amount of effort beyond that required to not time out. And even then they can be reinstated. So aren't we all lucky that not everyone puts in just the bare minimum.

 

And, no, we're not going to suddenly go and boot out the editors with low activity (again, we've all gone over this many times before). Thanks for the rude little dig that you just had to include, though.

[Guest wrathchild]

Surely that's no way to run the directory?

This is how the directory has been run for five years.

[idleplay]

Sorry, the dig wasn't at you motsa - I just know several editors personally, I hear their comments on their submissions, I know what they do with their competition and I know how many sites they add for personal gain. That coupled with some of the editor responses here doesn't paint a very good picture... but they're just human, every editor I know applied in order to get their own sites listed... I don't agree with it, but still have a drink with them.

 

There may have been many threads here regarding this subject but I only joined this forum about an hour ago after an editor on my ICQ list told me about it... Sorry for not searching prior to posting...

 

I guess it's just the select few who've kept this directory alive for the past years as the impression I get of it today is very poor.

 

I'm not having a dig at anyone personally - sorry if it seemed that way.

[motsa]

Sorry, the dig wasn't at you motsa - I just know several editors personally, I hear their comments on their submissions, I know what they do with their competition and I know how many sites they add for personal gain.

I didn't take it as a dig at me specifically but a dig at editors in general is a dig at each editor individually, e.g. if you say editors are scum then that means that I'm scum, you see my point? If you really are concerned about the quality of the directory, you'll report the abuse that you know about through our abuse reporting system. Lots of people say they personally know editors abusing the directory but very few of them step up to the plate and actually help us clean them out. Kind of makes them a part of the problem, doesn't it. Your "I don't agree with it, but still have a drink with them." comment sounds familiar -- have you and I had this conversation before or are there just a lot of people on drinking terms with abusers who aren't up to turning them in?

[miromulus]

I just know several editors personally, I hear their comments on their submissions, I know what they do with their competition and I know how many sites they add for personal gain.

 

I don't understand how so many people knows editors personaly. Do you have an official ODP tag on you so everybody can know what you are?

[idleplay]

ha ha no, but people like to brag!

 

I've been to a lot of conferences and people are sometimes a bit too quick to tell you how they've done this and done that. There are also a few editors up North who I know from years back also... some good, some bad and 1 guy who is so devious it's laughable.

 

Motsa - I don't think editors are scum, at all... I just think that there are more than a few bad apples in the dmoz tree... and yeah, people probably won't turn their friends in because at the end of the day, it's handy to know a dmoz editor sometimes! - but don't worry, if I hear of anything else bad, i'll be sure to poison their lager.

 

Anyway, can't stay chatting to all you great people all day - better go and earn some money, with or without dmoz :moz:

[motsa]

I just think that there are more than a few bad apples in the dmoz tree... and yeah, people probably won't turn their friends in because at the end of the day, it's handy to know a dmoz editor sometimes!

And that, at the end of the day, would be why we get impatient with people who complain about corruption and abuse but stand by and let it continue unchecked.

don't worry, if I hear of anything else bad, i'll be sure to poison their lager.

LOL

[idleplay]

Do you fancy coming out for a drink sometime motsa?

[miromulus]

Do you fancy coming out for a drink sometime motsa?

 

Enough with the small editors, he's going straight to admins now.

[idleplay]

ha ha only joking.... although I imagine motsa is a very attractive woman :o , i'd love to take her out for a beer

[dogbows]

I see that motsa has you fooled very well. Actually, she is a mean, ugly witch that would drink your beer, then have you for dinner.

[miromulus]

I see that motsa has you fooled very well. Actually, she is a mean, ugly witch that would drink your beer, then have you for dinner.

 

I can't believe motsa is ugly or mean Dogbows, here is my glove.

[idleplay]

What a nice looking dog avatar,

[dogbows]

It was a joke of course, but even still, she will probably have me for dinner.

 

Well, idleplay, you have complimented my website and my avartar, and I thank you, but flattery will get you nowhere. :tongue:

[idleplay]

Not trying to get anywhere - motsa is the only one for me - your avatar is very cute though... you should put a pic of you on there then we can all see how cute you are.... my jokes site is hosted in Fort Payne.... so erm....

[VegasMack]

Inactive Editor Policy

 

I believe that an editor can be removed if they do not perform at least one edit every four months. I'm not sure on that, and I can't check the guidelines now. I'm pretty sure it's something like that.

 

Nareau

In a former life I was an editall. After recovering from being partially paralyzed from a broken neck, I found that I was locked out of my login screen and categories. I assume it was due to my lack of activity, however, I can not say for sure how long that was. It does seem like it was longer than 4 months though.

 

Hope that helps.

[miromulus]

Your account will remain active as long as you make an edit within a four month timeframe. Accounts expire if an edit has not been made in four months, even if you have logged in during that time period.

 

This is a quote from editorial guidelines.

[hutcheson]

If an account times out, you can request reinstatement, which is "virtually automatic" if there weren't major editing problems. Reinstatement of an editall is trickier -- metas don't create editalls, and so can't reinstate them. Root/admins will have to do that. But try to log in, and follow the "reinstatement" links.