Catagory heirarchy

[Guest]

If you compare ODP to other directories such as Yahoo, you'll see that there are disagreements here and there. Who's right?

 

I've been an editor for about 2.5 years, and I have seen the argument come up several times that Education should be moved out from under Reference at ODP. It's not going to happen, even with all the logic in the world. We're stuck with it, but it's not something worth some extended histrionics.

[Guest]

>thanks for all the flames<

 

Gee... I thought I was on my best behavior. Hmmm... Oh! I get it! You were trying to get my goat. Well, nice try, but it didn't work. If you could just point out the flames I scorched you with I would be glad to apologize for them. After all, I'm not here to pick a fight, but to resolve a problem.

 

Oh! (again). Maybe you were referring to the little tit-for-tat that I had with gimmster over which planet he lived on. I didn't take any offense, and it didn't seem like he did either, but I'll apologize if it will make you feel better.

 

 

>We CAN change the hierarchy<

 

>...I have seen the argument come up several times that Education should be moved out from under Reference at ODP. It's not going to happen...<

 

So who is right? Can you or can you not change the hierarchy?

[Guest]

kctipton,

 

Thanks for the smiley face - for what's worth, it's been a tough forum.

[cjtripnewton]

>>No, it would be the same as putting Alternative Medicine on a tier with Medicine, which is the case. The only difference would be to rename Religion to Alternate Religions.<<

 

Axacta, is this what you are suggesting? That DMOZ restructure the categories so that instead of Religion, they have Christianity and Alternative Religions?

[Guest]

Yes

[lissa]

Perhaps a new voice in this discussion may help explain better how the category heirarchy works.

 

Regarding the 1st tier categories:

When DMOZ was started, there were 0 sites. There are many ways to organize this type of data. Staff came up with an initial structure to begin with. I do not know what it was based on, but you've got to start somewhere. The only addition from the initial list that I am aware of is Kids_and_Teens. I do not know if World was there to begin with. However, at this point in time, staff has said that the 1st tier categories are fixed and will not change. Basically, they don't want us wasting our time discussing and arguing about what should or should not be 1st tier catagories. We have more productive things to focus on than changing the fundamental structure which works fine the way it is. (Please note, I agree that there could be different ways to arrange the top level. Some may be better and some may be worse than what is being used now, but it doesn't matter because what is there now works.)

 

My authority for making this statement is as an editor who has read many past and recent internal discussions where staff has clearly made the statement that the top level is not going to change. (Someone has to run the place, after all...)

 

Regarding the classification system used and how the category heirarchy is determined:

Let me first clearly state that in DMOZ, category structure is NOT determined by quantity of sites in a sub-category. We group sites based on similar characteristics of the topic the category is about. Deciding on the sub-structure for a given category (at ANY level in the tree structure) is an evolving process, and there are several factors:

 

1. The number of sites in the category, as the topic of the category is defined. As the quantity of sites grow, it is desirable to group them into smaller categories with a refinement of the original topic. (Long lists are hard for the user to process the information, and for an editor to get the editing software to load it all.) For example, say I originally created Recreation/Pets/Dogs and was filling it with sites and had several hundred. I might go through and say, hmmm I have 20 for Dalmations and 30 for Poodles, I'll make 2 sub-categories for these dog breeds and move those sites there. This makes it easier to both find all the sites about one sub-topic, and to also see that each site remaining at the higher level is unique in that it is only one of maybe a few on a unique topic.

 

2. The number of sub-categories in the category. As the number of sub-categories directly beneath a category grows, it becomes desirable to group similar sub-categories together. (Again, because of the too much info at one time factor.) For example, say I've been a diligent editor in Recreation/Pets/Dogs and now have 10,000 sites in 20 general dog-related subcategories and 150 breed specific categories, directly under Recreation/Pets/Dogs. 170 sub-categories is just too many, so I decide to create a "Breeds" category and move the 150 breed subcats there. Whew! The 20 remaining + Breeds is much more managable. But hmmm, 150 subcats is still a lot, so I decide to organize the 150 breeds by type of dog group, creating 11 subcats and moving the 150 individual breed subcats into the appropriate Group subcat.

 

3. Parallel things for a given topic or sub-topic. When there is a topic that has defined equivalent topics, we put all equivalent topics at the same level in the heirarchy. Back to my dog example. As a dedicated editor who knows my topic, I notice that I only have subcats for 20 of the 26 recognized breeds in Recreation/Pets/Dogs/Breeds/Toy_Group/. Oops! Somehow I have neglected to find sites about 6 breeds which are probably out there. At this point, I will make the 6 missing sub-categories (for the equivalent dog breeds that I have missed) and go out and hunt a few sites for each. Sure the Pug is popular (and has 169 sites) but it is my job as an editor to realize that the Moscow Longhaired Toy Terrier is a recognized breed and needs equal treatment, even if right now I can find only 3 sites. Even if an editor can't find any sites for an equivalent type, sometimes they will make an empty subcat as a placeholder, hoping to eventually find a site that belongs.

 

A few interesting things occur with the above methodology:

 

1. The more developed a category gets (i.e. the more sites) the LOWER in the category structure the sites move. In the dog example, a site that started out under a third tier category, eventually ended up under a 6th tier category.

 

2. Sometimes a category outgrows the original choice of sub-catting. For example, say I am editing in Widgets, which all come in 50 colors and 3 sizes. I have 100 sites and decide to subcategorize by size, putting 30-35 sites in each of 3 subcategories. If Widgets eventually grows to 5000 sites, I may decide that subcategorizing by color instead of size is better. Time to reorganize!

 

3. As editors in different areas add and refine subcategories, parallel or overlapping subcategories may develop. For example, Sports/Sled_Dog_Racing/ and Recreation/Pets/Dogs/Activities/Dog_Sledding/ seem very similar. When this is discovered, editors work together to either combine the categories, or define them better so that they don't overlap.

 

If anyone has stuck with me this far, you are probably wondering what the heck this has to do with Axacta's suggestions and questions.

 

By the "similar things should stay at the same level" rule, subcategories for individual religions should be at a parallel level. Thus, it would not make sense to move the Christianity subcat somewhere besides residing parallel with other religions like Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. (And I'm sure that the editors of Religion and Spirituality have had discussions of whether or not something is or is not a "religion" for each of the subcats there.)

 

I would agree that the entire topic of Religion and Spirituality is pretty significant, and might be a good candidate as a 1st tier category (moving Christianity to 2nd tier). However, since staff has said that changes to the 1st tier will not occur, it is pointless to discuss it. Thus, 3rd tier is the highest the Christianity subcat will ever be.

 

>>Can you or can you not change the hierarchy? <<

1st level, no. Any level after that, yes. However, the second level is also pretty stable at this point too. I know that Science had a big 2nd level reorganization almost two years ago. Sports is currently considering if they can handle the 100+ 2nd level subcategories differently, or if they need to.

 

>>explain Alternative Medicine<<

From the category description: "Alternative Health is a category made up of topics that explore health related issues using alternatives to the western scientific/medicine remedies." Thus Health/Medicine/ and Health/Alternative/ are two parallel topics, each covering a specific portion of the "fixing the human body when it's broken" field. This would be similar to creating Society/Christianity/ and Society/Non-Christian/. The Health/Medicine/Alternative_Medicine@ link is there, not because "Alternative" was a subcategory that got big enough to be "promoted" but because the phrase "Alternative Medicine" is most commonly used and might cause people to look under medicine to find it. If the category had been Health/Remedies/ I think that all of the thing under Alternative and Medicine could have been grouped together without the distinction of "western" vs. "non-western". However, right now in English there is not a common, un-biased way of expressing "fixing the human body when it's broken" and groupign specific remedies, other than Medicine and Alternative Medicine. Whereas the terms Religion and Spirituality are commonly understood and do not carry the perceived bias that Christianity/Not-Christianity would.

 

Axacta - Your suggestions are a perfectly valid method for organizing a directory. However, I hope that I've clearly explained the underlying rules that ODP currently operates under, and why your suggestions don't work within those rules.

 

Thanks for reading!

-Lissa

[Guest]

lissa,

 

I am most grateful for your very detailed post. I understand that much of it is aimed at others who may read this thread and gain from your insight of the structure detail of ODP. Of course what interests me is what you wrote pertaining to my suggestion of moving Christianity to the second tier. I can fully accept that the first tier is untouchable, if that is what the rule is, and so I drop my first preference of moving Christianity to the first tier. However I am greatly encouraged that, however remote, the second tier is open for discussion of change.

 

>Thus Health/Medicine/ and Health/Alternative/ are two parallel topics, each covering a specific portion of the "fixing the human body when it's broken" field.<

 

It seems to me that if Alternative Medicine was not included in the second tier, someone searching for it would quite logically look in Medicine, so the idea that Alternative Medicine must be listed as parallel to Medicine just does not seem logical. Therefore there must be other reasons for its second tier placement - and I would suggest it is because of its size and perceived popularity compared to other third tier categories under Medicine. I suggest the same is true for Christianity, and more so.

 

>However, right now in English there is not a common, un-biased way of expressing "fixing the human body when it's broken" and groupign specific remedies, other than Medicine and Alternative Medicine.<

 

I would suggest that the vast majority of physicians and medical scientists, and much of the public, would argue a "bias" against such a conclusion - I know my family doctor would. They would not accept that Alternative Medicine is in any way parallel to "western scientific/medicine remedies".

 

>Whereas the terms Religion and Spirituality are commonly understood and do not carry the perceived bias that Christianity/Not-Christianity would.<

 

First, I would suggest Christianity/Alternative Religion and Spirituality. Second I see no more a perceived bias than the bias brought about between Medicine/Alternative Medicine. Therefore perceived bias is not a credible criteria for rejecting placing Christianity in the second tier.

 

>Your suggestions are a perfectly valid method for organizing a directory. However, I hope that I've clearly explained the underlying rules that ODP currently operates under, and why your suggestions don't work within those rules.<

 

This is a very diplomatic statement that you have closed your post with, but nevertheless, I have a little problem with it. The first sentence contradicts the second sentence. If my suggestions are perfectly valid, then they would have to conform to the underlying rules of ODP.

 

========================

 

Based strictly on a method of determining hierarchy that only takes account logical hierarchical category placements, Christianity would definitely not be a candidate for the second tier. But, then again, neither would Alternative Medicine, so the inclusion of Alternative Medicine in the second tier illustrates that there are exceptions based on other criteria. In this case, it seems obvious it is based on the disproportional size and assumed popularity of Alternative Medicine when compared with other third tier categories. Again, Christianity fits this criteria even more so than Alternative Medicine does, so there is no reason not to move Christianity to the second tier and list it on the Home Page.

[dstanovic]

Axacta,

 

I would really like to know what difference this change that you want so badly would make? People searching for christianity on the ODP/DMOZ will surely find the directory/websites. Since you are obviously into the christian faith do you believe it matters if you sit in the front or the back of your church or place of worship? Does it really matter?

My 2-cents

Dave S.

[Guest]

What does it matter what my personal beliefs are? I will reverse your question to you - why should it make a difference to you if Christianity were to be placed on the Home Page in the second tier?

[Guest]

It seems that somehow I have not been able clearly articulate the principle that has been used to move Alternative Medicine to the second tier, even though based strictly on structural logic alone it does not deserve that placement.

 

Picture a category of Widgets, and beneath it in the next tier, Round Widgets and Square Widgets, and under Square Widgets there is Square Gizmos and Square Gadgets.

 

Now, Widgets has 100,000 sites listed. But Round Widgets only contains 1 of those sites, and Square Widgets has 99,999 sites listed. But of the 99,999 sites listed under Square Widgets 99,998 of those sites are listed under Square Gizmos and 1 under Square Gadgets.

 

So, even though Square Gizmos contains 99,998 sites it languishes in the third tier along with the 1 site listed in Square Gadgets. Obviously most of your customers will be looking for Square Gizmos. If you have even the slightest bit of business sense you will find a way to move Square Gizmos up to the first tier, or failing that, at least the second tier on the Home Page. This is the case for Alternative Medicine, and should also be the case for Christianity which is even more deserved.

[hutcheson]

We (both the Christianity editors and the Religion_and_Spirituality editors) are happy with their current placement and name. They were discussed, over a period of almost two years, by editors from many countries and religions, many with practical experience cataloging thousands or myriads of sites, and professional taxonomists with academic and practical experience in other taxonomies involving 50,000 or more categories; they were compared to categories of other major taxonomies (DDS, LOC, Yahoo, etc.) and the community overwhelmingly supported the ODP scheme. (I may say that as one of those who were early suggesting some sort of movement toward the current scheme, I unhesitatingly commend it above any alternative that has been used in ANY major taxonomy.)

 

Since its adoption, the current scheme has grown gracefully to include major categories unsuspected by any of us involved in its design (as indeed was one of our goals in the design). It has since been used to resolve (with at least the appearance of objectivity) various extremely-sensitive and emotion-laden issues, with minimal bloodshed (again, by our intent and effort to that end). Theoretically and practically, it works.

 

I can say that is on those rare occasions when the argument from number of sites arises in any form in the internal editor forums, it is heartily repudiated, just as it has been here. But don't take my word for it: Go tell your librarian that Barbara Cortland deserves a whole Dewey Decimal number, because she's written so many books -- or at least plagiarized the same book so many times). Go tell the Library of Congress that they need a top-level category for "Romances". Go tell Yahoo that there are more affiliate-retail sites on the net than in all their current categories combined. And let us know how they respond. But OUR reaction is that we consider it virtuous not to care, and to the best of our ability we really don't care. And you may rest assured that this reaction is truly representative of the editing community.

[hutcheson]

>>This is the case for Alternative Medicine.

 

No. This is not true. It is not the case for Alternative Medicine.

 

Alternative Medicine is at the level it is, because:

 

1) It is IS considered to be a topic broadly included in "Health" -- if this confuses you, you might consider which other major category it might better be considered to be a part of. (Arguably a placement down in Society/.../Folklore might fit, but that is not the approach that most visitors would take. People are going to those sites because they want to buy patent nostrums to make themselves physically feel better. That's a "Health"-style motive.)

 

2) It is NOT (by experts in Medicine) considered to be a PART or KIND of "Medicine." It is a distinct concept. Even when ingredients are shared, the conceptual frame of reference is completely different. Nor is it so considered by practitioners of "Alternative Medicine." For instance, the Homeopathists introduced the term "Allopathy" to emphasize the fact (acknowledged by all) that they did not consider themselves to be doing the same thing as "physicians" even though the desired goal (better HEALTH) was the same.

 

So: A.M. IS in Health, it is NOT in Medicine (but is taxonomically parallel to it.) Since Health is first level, and Medicine is second, A. M is also second level. There is no other place where it could reasonably go.

 

In this, did you notice any discussion of the number of links involved? Read it again carefully. Did you notice that there really was a total lack of concern for the number of links involved?

[Guest]

>But OUR reaction is that we consider it virtuous not to care, and to the best of our ability we really don't care. And you may rest assured that this reaction is truly representative of the editing community.<

 

I am absolutely delighted to hear this! So you will not mind at all if I lobby for what I believe is a logical structure based on the Alternative Medicine precedent.

 

>So: A.M. IS in Health, it is NOT in Medicine<

 

Sorry to deflate your theory, but unfortunately for you, it IS in Medicine. So this idea that Medicine and Alternative Medicine are not related is a myth. Nice try though...

[Guest]

hutcheson,

 

It just occurred to me that since your argument for exclusion of Christianity is actually 180 degrees from the truth, that would actually put you on my side of the debate - welcome aboard!

[Guest]

>>So who is right? Can you or can you not change the hierarchy? <<

 

I'm late replying. Yes, it could be changed, but not unilaterally. It should be clear to you by now that some things, even those 100% logical, are Not Going To Happen For Various Reasons.

[hutcheson]

Sorry, I thought someone had already explained "@" links to you.

 

You can easily see that Alternative Medicine is "apparently" but not "really" under Medicine by comparing the total number of links under Medicine with the total number of links under each of its subcategories. The discrepancy is due to the fact that the A.M. links are not "really" under Medicine. Or you could simply click on the "Alternative Medicine@" link, and looking at the actual page where you ended up.

 

This is another way in which taxonomy is not always straightforward. While it is true that pharmacists and homeopaths agree that one is not a "subclass" of the other, it is also true that "subclass" and "superclass" are concepts ("ideals") -- mental constructs. Since not everyone constructs the same mental model of the world, we often include these "@-links" to accommodate conceptualizations that don't match the "standard scientific" model.

 

For instance, Archaeology (like other Science categories, but where I happen to edit) has a similar @link to an "Alternative Views" containing sites that Archaeologists would almost universally agree in not calling "Archaeology" ("crackpot" might be the preferred term.) I edit there partly because I have read enough that I can generally distinguish between mainstream and idiosyncratic views. The ODP taxonomy reflects the mainstream view (in most respects this would be as taught in any reputable college or university on any continent) in generally objective terminology, and where possible supports alternate conceptualizations via these "virtual subcategories." (This is of course not the only use for @-links. Sometimes there are several generally-acceptable alternative subcategorizations, and @-links are also needed to support that. But where there is one mainstream and one non-mainstream subcategorization, the @-link will generally be used for the non-mainstream approach.)

[hutcheson]

>>"your argument for exclusion of Christianity"

 

I wouldn't know how to make any such argument. I'm with Jonathan Swift on that issue.

[hutcheson]

>>Can you or can you not change the hierarchy?

 

Here's a pick, shovel, and wheelbarrow. Can you or can you not dig the Nicaragua Canal? Of course you can. If, that is, you can convince the people who are using the land already, that they should give it to you. And if you are willing to invest the sweat.

 

Go ahead. Hire a professional taxonomist -- Library Science major. Better yet, hire three. You'll need them for at least 2-3 years. Find a deficiency in the taxonomy that's recognized by dozens of editors already. Convince the editors in Religion that numbers suddenly matter, bearing in mind that we Christianity editors have been telling them all along that numbers don't matter (and making decisions as if numbers don't matter.) Revisit all those issues based on the assumption that numbers do matter, and show that many old problems won't be revived if we change this fundamental assumption.

 

Learn that "it seems logical to ME" is no argument at all: because we've all known too many insane people. Since the ONLY argument that works is "it is generally recognized, and can be usefully extrapolated," recognize that the current structure was not only successfully defended, but successfully introduced with just this argument; discover the fallacy, and come up with a persuasive way of disabusing the editorial community. Gain several years' experience at dealing with practical and theoretical problems of taxonomy. Prepare a mockup of the new proposal, presenting it not only to ODP staff but also to the management and technical people at our major licensees (Netscape/ODP, Google, etc.)

 

Remember that lobbying in an outside forum -- any outside forum -- is completely ineffective. It takes more than a human "X" chromosome to get a ballot, sweat equity is essential.

 

If after doing all this, you are willing to spend the 2-3 years it will take, then yes, you can submit a proposal to dig your canal to the Republic of Nicaragua's Ministry of the Interior.

[dstanovic]

Axacta,

<<I will reverse your question to you - why should it make a difference to you if Christianity were to be placed on the Home Page in the second tier? >>

 

It does not matter to me. I am saying I do not believe the ODP should base it's structure upon "popularity" or a "user" request based upon their belief that it is of greater importance than other sub-categories in the same classification. The ODP/DMOZ is the most level playing field that I know of.

I still cannot believe you are still pushing this point which does not make any sense at all /images/icons/frown.gif

[Guest]

>Sorry, I thought someone had already explained "@" links to you.<

 

Someone did, and I also already responded to them. These @links are about execution not the appearance of the directory.

 

>It is NOT (by experts in Medicine) considered to be a PART or KIND of "Medicine."<

 

Your argument was based on what you claimed "experts in Medicine" think, but now you argue as though it was about execution of the directory. And for that matter it matters not to me if you use the same execution for Christianity as you do for Alternative Medicine - whatever works - but based on the more than abundant times I have explained my position, Christianity should appear on the Home Page in the second tier.

 

>If after doing all this, you are willing to spend the 2-3 years it will take, then yes, you can submit a proposal to dig your canal to the Republic of Nicaragua's Ministry of the Interior.<

 

Somehow I thought it would come to this. So I am not qualified to suggest an improvement to the directory, therefore my suggestion must be wrong. Well, I've got to admit, that is a pretty hard position to argue against.

 

OK I give up. It would be so easy for you to say, "Well Axacta, you may have a point worth discussing and examining - we'll suggest that those who are responsible for making the decisions on the Home Page take a look at it. But instead I get this 'tude of, "How dare you..."

 

Well this "bud" has had enough. You win - but the directory looses...

[dstanovic]

Axacta,

<< Well this "bud" has had enough. You win - but the directory looses...>>

 

I hope no offence was taken as I certainly did not try to offend anyone /images/icons/wink.gif

I think if you look at all of the major directories and search engines available you cannot help but agree that the ODP/DMOZ directory has the most level playing field for "all" those that submit their sites.

 

Have A Nice Day /images/icons/smile.gif

Dave S.

[Guest]

Re: Catagory hierarchy

 

>>It would be so easy for you to say, "Well Axacta, you may have a point worth discussing and examining - we'll suggest that those who are responsible for making the decisions on the Home Page take a look at it.

 

Yes, that would have been a civil and professional reply, and all that was necessary.

 

However, please give credit to several posters who replied politely and seriously. They represent the standard of courtesy which is required inside the ODP.

[Guest]

>>So I am not qualified to suggest an improvement to the directory<<

I think this is probably the core of the difference You see it as an improvement, but I (and I suspect others) see it merely as a change. It doesn't matter how it's layed out as long as it works. It works as is, and the amount of person hours required to effect such a huge change could be much more productivly used getting sites listed.

 

Sorry, but you are probably beating your head against a brick wall here.

 

I don't think it's a case of 'we win, you lose'. At worst the discussion makes us think about how/why things go where they are. I'm sorry that this has gotten a little out of hand, but I don't see a deal of understanding of each others position from either side.

 

One thing I really don't understand though is why you want to change the look of the directory. Very few people use it as a directory, most people end up coming to the directory via search engines and have no idea what 'level' they are entering, just that it has the site they were looking for.

 

Ciao /images/icons/smile.gif

[rd400d77]

Many times the discussion comes up of hierarchy.

Often the discussion is why a site or subject being listed should be listed

'higher' in the ODP tree...

(actually further down the tree, closer to the root, aka: Top/).

 

I'm a little bit odd in that personally, I believe that a site

is better off being listed 'low' (further from the root).

 

If I were a programmer creating a search engine that used ODP

data from the RDF dump, I would use the full category path...

 

Top/Category1/Category2/Category3/Category4

 

...as a tool to determine more about the site. Webmasters add meta tags to

'help' their listings with search engines. What I'm saying is that

'category1', 'category2', 'category3' and 'category4' would all become part of

the site description. Imagine the full category path as 'meta tags' on steroids.

 

Therefore if my bizarre theory has any merit, I would think that

webmasters should be asking...

"Could you PLEASE move my site to a subcategory?" /images/icons/smile.gif

VJL

[Khym_Chanur]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>Quoth Axacta:

Your argument was based on what you claimed "experts in Medicine" think, but now you argue as though it was about execution of the directory.<p><hr></blockquote>I'm not exactly sure dictinction you're making between what expert claim and "execution". Alternative medicine and normal medicine are at the same level in the heirarchy because (according to experts) alternative medicine is not a sub-category of medicine. However, because many people using the directory might think that it is a sub-category of medicine, we put an @link to it under the medicine category to help them find what they're looking for. If we were to make the real alternative medicine category a sub-category of medicine, and then put the @link in the top level Health category (the opositie of how it is now), we'd be saying that, in our opinion, alternative medicine is a sub-category of medicine. So it's not just mere execution; where the real categories go and where the @links go says something about what we think the logical structure of the topics are.<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>And for that matter it matters not to me if you use the same execution for Christianity as you do for Alternative Medicine - whatever works - but based on the more than abundant times I have explained my position, Christianity should appear on the Home Page in the second tier.<p><hr></blockquote>Your abundant reasons seem to be:

• [*]The Christianity category is much bigger than all the other categories under Society/Religion_and_Spirituality

[*]All of the hard work that the editors of the Christianity categories have gone through.[/list:u]Overwhelmingly, ODP editors have rejected those as good reasons. Having a huge number of sites, or the editors having put in a huge effort, is not a good reason (in our opinion) to move a category up closer to the top of the heirarchy. It's extremely unlikely that you or anyone else will ever convince us otherwise. If you could convince us that directory users are expecting Christianity to appear directly under Society, and are confused by it not being there, then we'd put in an @link to Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Christianity/ from the Society category. However, it's pretty unlikely that you'd convince us of that either, since those users will see the Religion and Spirituality category, think "Oh, it must be under there", and they'll be right.

 

Now, if we put Christianity directly under Society, it might save some people some time, since they wouldn't have to take that extra second or so to see the Religion and Spirituality category and click on it, but that's not enough reason to move the Christianity either.