Where are the editors?

[crowbar]

If an editor does no editing within a 4 month period, they automatically time out, simonjq. Removing them sooner would give you the same end result, no resident editor in that category. Keeping them there might spark an interest in editing for them.

 

No editor owns a category, they just have permission to edit there. Many other editors can and do edit in that category, whether it has a named resident editor or not.

 

In other words, just because there is a named resident editor in a category, it doesn't block other editors, with higher editing permissions, from editing in that category also.

 

I have permission to edit in thousands of categories, as many other editors do.

[simonjq]

I have permission to edit in thousands of categories, as many other editors do.

Maybe thousands of editors like you, but there are millions of sites to be reviewed. The key question is really how to find mooooore editors with the right spirit. Wish you guys get the editor application back up again soon.

Salute for taking dmoz odp to where it is right now.

Good luck in facing mountains of challenges!

[crowbar]

Thank you, simonjq, we would like more honest editors, too, but, we also need to keep any of the wolves out there from coming in and trashing the hard work that has been done.

[Tanoro]

Simon does has one good point that I share in my original suggestion. ODP's mission is to create a human-edited directory of quality websites. This is an excellent mission. Unfortunately, any online system with much human interference is going to be of higher quality, but lower productivity, than one that is dynamically moderated.

 

Offering an incentive program of some kind was merely a suggestion. The landscape of this suggestion is HOW to get more editors and motivate editors to be more active. Editor count and activity is an issue because, like Simon said, webmasters (like he and I) are waiting for well over a year and never getting listed. I can imagine many of those websites that wait and wait and never get listed are quality websites that simply didn't get reviewed.

 

Anyway, it's the landscape we should focus on. How does ODP get more editors and in what ways can they be motivated to be more active?

[pvgool]

More quality editors are always welcome but an incentive program would not be a solution as this will attract the wrong kind of people.

 

Editor count and activity is an issue because, like Simon said, webmasters (like he and I) are waiting for well over a year and never getting listed.

If editor count and activity is an issue it certainly is not related to the time webmasters are waiting on a service DMOZ does not provide.

[crowbar]

Anyway, it's the landscape we should focus on. How does ODP get more editors and in what ways can they be motivated to be more active?

 

That's a perfectly legitimate question, Tanoro. Part of the answer is to make normal websurfers more aware of this particular site, more aware of what the ODP is and what it's real goal is, and being more proactive in recruiting honest people to join us.

 

One of the biggest problems is determining who the honest, unbiased applicants are, and who are trying to join for their own self interest reasons.

 

I'm sure you wouldn't want us to bring in a dishonest competitor of yours who then proceeded to start deleting all of the sites you've created and gotten listed in the Directory, so, protecting your interests, as well as our own interests is important.

 

We're really choosing quality over speed. Yes, an automated system would be perhaps faster (if that's what we wanted), but then the Directory would look like your mailbox, without spam protection, hundreds of garbage sites to wade through.

 

Machines are made to order, for finding ways to get around them, because they can't think, reason, or judge what they're seeing, the way a human editor can, and a human editor is unpredictable, unlike an automated system.

 

In my opinion, the hatred we get from SEOs and webmasters stems from the fact that there are no set rules or conditions that they can work to their advantage and it frustrates them to no end that they don't have a solid framework to work within, no way to predict results, or control things.

 

Human editing is all so very haphazard and unpredictable. They cannot control the freedoms that we have as editors, that's not power trips, it's freedoms.

 

The freedom to work when and wherever we have the editing permissions to work, freedom to make judgements and ask other editors for advice, freedom to discuss ODP issues and come to an agreement, freedom to choose the type of jobs we want to concentrate on, freedom to disagree with each other and correct each other, many freedoms.

 

The reason we have these freedoms is based on trust, and our willingness to give without expecting any kind of payment in return, not even a thank you.

 

An editor has to find his own reward within himself, payment of any kind, whether in the form of money or incentives is a slap in the face to that personal reward within us, .

[hutcheson]

>Unfortunately, any online system with much human interference is going to be of higher quality, but lower productivity, than one that is dynamically moderated.

 

True. I should think it was obvious also, but I'm always amazed how many people miss it. So the usual run of suggestions from webmasters goes like "appoint me Commissar and I'll spend at least four hours a day dreaming up idiotic rules having nothing to do with directory quality or usefulness, to reduce editor productivity and increase editor frustration. This will cause all volunteers everywhere to quit their jobs, abandon their families, drop their hobbies, and spend 24 hours a day assiduously reviewing websites containing Artikuls on How YOU can Use VIAGRA to Improve Your Social Life, or How Many Cities You can Travel To, that Have Everything -- specifically Shopping And A Major-League Pro Sports Venue."

 

>Editor count and activity is an issue because, like Simon said, webmasters (like he and I) are waiting for well over a year and never getting listed.

 

Well, remember, keep this in context. Millions of sites have been waiting well over a year (millions of which never WILL be listed, and millions of which ARE listable). The trick is, as always, focusing on the latter category.

 

So it's not just editor number. It's finding people with the right attitude, who aren't already focusing on some of the many OTHER opportunities to do some kind of public service.

[simonjq]

Can you ODP team toy with this idea:

How about make it possible for an editor (or even compulsory) to recruit another editor in order to retain the editor status over period of time, say every year? The selection criteria should still be in place, the target is to recruit a qualified editor, not just any editor.

An editor that is recruited by another qualified editor is more likely to have right attitude. Why? If it is merely for listing his/her own site, he could have asked his/her contact who's already an editor, to add his/her site into odp. If this new editor (recruited by another editor) is willing to become an editor, then most likely he has the right reason to become one.

[jimnoble]

Some editors already do this.

 

As has already been explained, this is a voluntary organisation. Beyond making at least one edit every 120 days, there is no compulsion to do anything. Nor is there ever likely to be .

[Eric-the-Bun]

or even compulsory

So if an editor fails to recruit, he is dismissed?

 

How does ODP get more editors

Everyone would like there to be more editors but getting more editors will not solve the problem of an individual webmaster hoping to get their site listed in something less than geological time.

 

Our main problem is reaching the thousands of people in the 'communities' from whom we would like to draw editors. A case in point is me - a folk-dancer who joined to improve the folk-dancing area. I stumbled across the ODP through this forum and decided to sign up. I could limit myself to just folk-dancing, and thus any incentives etc would only serve to benefit 'my' community.

 

As a folk-dancer, I might feel that if there are no (say) pagans interested in developing 'pagan' cats, then the 'pagan' cats are adequately looked after. Rather harsh but the way of the world.

 

However there is nothing to stop a 'pagan' webmaster telling their community all about us in the hope of generating some interest and improving the number of 'pagan' editors. There is nothing to stop them from keeping an eye on 'pagan' categories once every few months to give updates on bad or hijacked links. And this applies to any area of the directory where someone feels that the ODP could be improved but have not the time or inclination to do so themselves.

 

This is perhaps a more realistic suggestion than trying to squeeze more edits out of existing editors or us merely telling you to become an editor.

 

regards

 

PS Become an editor!

[Tanoro]

Alright, suggestions have been made to help improve the speed and quality of ODP by increasing the number of editors and providing some sort of incentive for current editors to be more active.

 

You guys don't seem to like these ideas. Therefore, you tell us what you think would help improve ODP's ability to process websites in what could be considered "timely." By making these suggestions, even the bad ones, we are exploring ideas to improve ODP. Even a bad idea may inspire a good one. Let us all make such suggestions and see what we can come up with.

 

We are all aware that editors are voluntary and don't have to do anything if they so choose. Therefore, how does one improve the speed and quality of a website that is operated by volunteers?

[crowbar]

That's easy, Tanoro.

 

Submit site suggestions with a proper, ODP Guidelines compliant Title and Description.

 

Don't submit mirrors and redirects in order to get the same site listed multiple times.

 

Don't send site suggestions stuffed full of keyword lists, and sales hype.

 

Don't submit site suggestions multiple times to the same or different categories.

 

Don't try to hide your real location, put the business address on the site.

 

Don't submit to the wrong category, because that's where you want to be.

 

Don't ask for a site update that doesn't comply with our Guidelines.

 

Those will do as starters, . If we don't have to do unnecessary detective work, we can spend more time clicking the ADD button. The public has access to all of the editing Guidelines that we edit by.

[lmocr]

And ..... develop an understanding of timeliness from the editors point of view.

 

If I want to work in Manhattan, Kansas, then a timely suggestion would be one that is there before I want to work on that category. Otherwise I go looking elsewhere for listings to build up the Manhattan categories - like Chamber members, billboard listings, flyers, Google, etc. Any listings that I add to the directory are timely, because they were done when I decided they needed to be done and not a moment later. (Unless someone else decided to work in Manhattan before I got there - then they'd be listed earlier).

[gloria]

I'll add another one:

 

Don't expect us to be a listing service. We're a group of volunteers building a directory. While we do accept suggestions, we've never claimed to act as a listing service, free or otherwise.

 

Oh, and if you could eliminate all the spammers who try to overwhelm categories with useless junk, I'd be thrilled!

[spectregunner]

How about make it possible for an editor (or even compulsory) to recruit another editor in order to retain the editor status over period of time, say every year?

 

Oh, great, turn the ODP into Amway.

 

Thanks but no thanks.

[spectregunner]

I understand that editors are volunteers, but perhaps ODP should arrange some sort of incentive program (monetary or not) for active editors.

 

Please see http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/showpost.php?p=234667&postcount=16

[MPH]

Can I apply to be an editor on as many subjects/topics that I choose? Will this improve my chances of becoming an editor? If there is an area that is sorely in need of an editor, then heck, put me on it. I'll gladly donate some of my time, but asking the fox to choose which hen house he wishes to guard is a bit ridiculous.

 

I'm reasonably well-educated and pushing 50, so I know how to go about researching a subject before proclaiming to be an expert on it. If it's way over my head or of absolutely no interest to me, I can always ask for a different assignment. Just sign me up and you've got yourself another editor.

[gimmster]

Can I apply to be an editor on as many subjects/topics that I choose?

Initially, no. You can only apply for 1 category as a new editor. That said, once you are an editor you can apply to edit other categories unrelated to the first.

 

From a practical point of view 2nd and subsequent permissions would be approved based on how well you edit in the initial category.

 

HTH

[MPH]

Fair enough. But why would the good folks want somebody to apply for a certain topic if they cannot be certain of the applicant's intent?

[jimnoble]

if they cannot be certain of the applicant's intent

We aren't perfect, but we're pretty good at weeding out applicants who lack integrity. Please don't ask for detail on this because we won't provide it.

[Tanoro]

Can I apply to be an editor on as many subjects/topics that I choose?

 

And most importantly (because everyone else seems to be avoiding this topic), you'll have to wait until ODP get's their editor application working again. They apparently suffered a massive data crash within the past few months and it has taken some time getting it back up.

 

That's easy, Tanoro.

Submit site suggestions with a proper, ODP Guidelines compliant Title and Description.

Don't submit mirrors and redirects in order to get the same site listed multiple times.

Don't send site suggestions stuffed full of keyword lists, and sales hype.

Don't submit site suggestions multiple times to the same or different categories.

Don't try to hide your real location, put the business address on the site.

Don't submit to the wrong category, because that's where you want to be.

Don't ask for a site update that doesn't comply with our Guidelines.

Those will do as starters, . If we don't have to do unnecessary detective work, we can spend more time clicking the ADD button. The public has access to all of the editing Guidelines that we edit by.

 

Been there, done that, didn't help at all. I am very familiar with the editing guidelines. I've read them at least 3 times and my site complies. You guys seem to think the only way to make ODP better is NOT by improving editors' experience or routines. Rather, you all seem to think that its the webmasters' fault that ODP is so untimely. I have no doubts that a lot of junk gets submitted to the system, but this is something that no one can change.

 

You can't educate the public on how the site is suppose to work. Believe me, I've tried it. They are still going to submit junk despite the rules. There are no suggestions that I can think of that will improve this without adding some kind of automated system (which is against ODP procedures). The only such improvements that can be made, as far as I can tell, lies in the editors.

[crowbar]

Have you ever seen somebody throw grain on the ground for a bunch of chickens? As hard as you might like to get them all lined up in a neat row, and get them to eat the seed in a systematic fashion, it ain't going to happen, they're all going to scatter and peck away wherever they want to, but the job gets done, the seed will soon be gone. (and they like it that way)

[lmocr]

Oh I see - now I'm a chicken?

[hutcheson]

Not "chicken", please: "organic harvesting unit designed for autonomous efficient comprehensive regional search algorithms in a topological structure too complex to be comprehensible by any single organism."

[crowbar]

Running to get my dictionary, .