Status of Editor Application - jameskal

[jameskal]

Donaldb, I did not assume that there were no internal discussions on improvement. It is inevitable in any organization, where most people involved would like changes, for the better. I am sure that this forum itself must be the result of such internal deliberations.

 

Donaldb, when I was young, my Mom used to tell me to pray thus: "Lord, give us the courage to change the things we can, serenity to accept those we cannot, and wisdom to know the difference" (of course we prayed in local language). Perhaps repeating this hundreds and hundreds of times has resulted in a mindset always looking for changes that can make things better. Hence these suggestions, which will be backed up by necessary efforts and time, should such an opportunity arise. Please don't feel otherwise.

 

No, the ODP, from the outside, doesn't look like it is broken. Only when we enter inside we realise that there are loose joints here and there. I agree that there are only small glitches in the system. But my observation is that it is those small things that take up most of your and other metas'/editors' time. If these small glitches are dealt with soon, it will ensure much a smoother, streamlined, stressless, fast and high quality production cycle.

 

Resources may be a limiting factor for large scale changes, but intuitive resourcefulness is often the limiting factor in determining the need for a change. This has to originate from within. I am confident that resourcefulness is available within.

[jameskal]

>> >> No dfy, it doesn't require all that massive programming. For several reasons. One, this forum is already working well, and so is the editors' forum. <<

 

True, but irrelevant. This forum is not an official part of the ODP, and is in no way connected to the ODP (ie. there is no data sharing). I believe this forum not only works in a radically different way to the internal forums, but it's written in a different language. I believe that the author of this forum has no knowledge of the coding of the ODP or it's internal forum, and the ODP staff techie has no knowledge or access to this forum's code. No data sharing means that there is no way to tie resource-zone logins with ODP logins. <<

 

No, dfy, if all the parties agree, data sharing is a routine thing.

[hildea]

Thanks for your suggestions, jameskal. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> I'm afraid that I don't see this idea as an improvement, thoguh. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> Some reasons why:

• [*]The titles and descriptions are, to me, the least important part of the application. No, I'm not suggesting applicants should leave them blank or fill them with random text, but a decent attempt at writing an unbiased, informative description without blatant spelinng, and, GraMatikal, erorrs is sufficient. If the application is mostly good, I'll accept it even if the descriptions don't meet the guidelines completely.

[*]The choice of sample URLs is fairly important. I want to see what kind of sites the applicant suggests.

[*]Seeing all the suggested URLs at once can sometimes give important insight. If one site is described as "An incredibly great resource, with lots and lots of fun stuff!!" and the two others are "A lame site" and "Another lame site", this might give me some hints about the applicant's ability and intention to be impartial. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> [/list:u]

(added)

The above is a reply to the suggestions in this post

 

As for the sub-editor idea: The main problems I see are that 1) it would increase the workload of the editors who had to review, in detail, the work of all beginning editors, and 2) just doing clean up, without being allowed to add any sites, sounds incredibly boring to me. If we implemented that, I'm afraid a lot of new editors would lose interest and leave the project. We're volunteers, remember? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> Editing is supposed to be fun.

 

Regards, Hilde

[jameskal]

Hilde,

 

Thanks for the very informative post. Certainly this kind of information will aid the applicants to submit their applications correctly.

 

BTW, if an applicant chooses a lean locality-based sub-category with 10 or less sites, won't it be difficult to find 3 more "quality" sites in the sub-category ? Won't the applicant's choice be very limited, to whatever is available ? In that case, won't he be disqualified if one of these turns out to be a bad choice in your opinion ?

 

IMHO, any person without vested interests and a reasonable command over English should be able to describe a site objectively with good grammar and spelling. It is the vested interests that mostly corrupt the descriptions.

 

Even though there may be some differences from meta to meta, I think I will keep these in mind when I submit my application next time.

 

A suggestion is often just the initiative, and until it is studied and thought about well, will always generate opinions of all kinds. Perhaps one suggestion alone may not bring in the desired improvement, but when combined with others, they could turn out to be a lot better than the original suggestion. Isn't it good that a lot of people are spending their time thinking about ways and means of improving situations ?

 

Regarding sub-editors: Without sub-editors, the editors will have to do all the work themselves. Whereas, if there are sub-editors around, they will do most of the category cleaning re-search to submit an action-to-be-taken report to their editors. Then editors will have to only formally verify the report and take action. The editors can thus save the time they have to otherwise spend on re-search.

 

It is true that the work of a sub-editor, as described above, will be boring to you and many others. That is why you are a meta ! But, there are many people who will be happy to confine themselves to just that activity, even though they may be good enough to be editors. There are all kinds of people in this world, so it should not be difficult to find some in this category also. Those who want to be editors and metas, are likely to gear themselves up in this process and eventually get lifted.

[hutcheson]

>BTW, if an applicant chooses a lean locality-based sub-category with 10 or less sites, won't it be difficult to find 3 more "quality" sites in the sub-category?

 

>Won't the applicant's choice be very limited, to whatever is available?

If there aren't two or three sites out there the ODP doesn't already have, then that category may not need an editor. Check on the next 'burg down the road.

 

>In that case, won't he be disqualified if one of these turns out to be a bad choice in your opinion?

If you suggest three, and you've been slimed by a shotgunning hotel-reservations-affiliate-spammer in one of them, you might well be accepted with a warning, if the other two are good.

 

>IMHO, any person without vested interests and a reasonable command over English should be able to describe a site objectively with good grammar and spelling.

 

Almost right. True, any good editor is a good knowledgeable editor, if they know enough about the subject.

 

Some people can't spell. Some can't gramm. Some can't taxonomize. And some simply don't know enough about the cactacae to know whether stapeliads belong there or not. And some that are good at spells and grammars, and know all about xerophytes, are too busy teaching botany in Botswana to have time to edit.

 

Dishonesty is a problem, true, but it's not what disqualifies most disqualified volunteers.

[jameskal]

>> Dishonesty is a problem, true, but it's not what disqualifies most disqualified. >>

 

The sad part is that others will know if an applicant is dishonest or not, only after he is accepted. At least in most cases. Is it because of this, more weightage is given to other aspects ?

 

Regarding categories:

One doubt. When the category is correctly established for a site, then why do we need the detailed description ? For example, if a car-rental service in included in ....../Travel Services/Car Rentals/ , then why do we have to write "A car rental site, etc." ? Won't the category name itself make it self-explanatory ?

 

In one of the categories I looked into, I could find three sites and all of them are doing the same business. But all of them are relevant and good sites (I mean, sites of genuine businesses). What shall I do ? Leave this category and choose another one ?

 

Regards,

 

 

James.

[windharp]

For example, if a car-rental service in included in ....../Travel Services/Car Rentals/ , then why do we have to write "A car rental site, etc." ? Won't the category name itself make it self-explanatory ?

We dont need that, thats right. As the guidelines state:

 

Good descriptions:

- Do not repeat the title of the site or sections of the category path name.

 

it's all in the guidelines. So a description in a car-rental category containing "A car rental site" would be a bad description per our guidelines. While in a regional categpory (the hometown of that service) this is a quite necessary part.

[jameskal]

windharp,

 

thanks for the info .... I tried to go to the "guidelines" but no access ... asking for authentication. Sure I can go in there ?

 

Even at the regional level, in ..../country/state/city/travel services/car rental/ category won't that description be bad ? Is there any limit to the category levels ? How deep can we go making categories ?

 

Regards,

 

James.

[windharp]

Sorry for the broken link. Forgot to change it from the "editor only" to the public address. Fixed it above.

 

For the regional question: If a category like this exists: Yes of course that would be bad stile. But in most regional categories (since they are splitted on town level) such categories are not existant.

[lissa]

>>why do we need the detailed description ?<<

 

The most important thing in the description is to describe the contents of the site itself. A commonly used format is <describe business> <describe site> but when the category path makes it extremely clear what the business is, you can drop the first part.

 

e.g. in Business/Widgets/Blue/Manufacturers since you know the category is for manufacturers of blue widgets, you would have listings like these:

 

Widget Wonders - Includes product catalog with prices, company history, and description of services.

Wonderful Widgets - Offers online ordering, product specifications, and factory virtual tour.

 

Unfortunately far too many are simply:

Blue Widgets - Company overview, contact details, and photos.

[enarra]

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. Though this information is good for an editor, but metas are not looking for perfect descriptions. We're looking for common sense, and some decent grammar and spelling skills (you don't have to be perfect everywhere (I know I'm not), but consider your application like a résumé, you spell check a résumé, so spell check your application too. Also put a period on the end of sentences [you'd be surprised how many people don't.]). We're looking for honest people who have the ability to learn how to edit well. You don't have to have perfect guideline compliant descriptions to be accepted at all.

[jameskal]

Enarra, this information is encouraging. Glad to realise that we can learn to be good editors and don't have to be born editors !

 

Regards,

 

James.