How I see it, as an outsider, not_an_editor:
My best guess for an answer lies in the fact that it's volunteer-manned. Some probably put in a lot of time; it's not unlikely that most, having little time to spare, just do the best they can.
>often take over a year to get a site reviewed?
That's not the case in all categories. Most likely the ones that sit unreviewed are, from what I can imagine as an outsider, not being an editor, submissions to the types of categories that might need to be reviewed by seasoned, experienced editors with a trained eye. Those would most likely be people with the heaviest demands on their time and any one person just has so much time they can devote.
From what I've seen by looking at some categories, whether at ODP or at search engines, it's my guess that people with little experience most likely aren't up to the task of evaluating the sites that are submitted to those categories. It's only natural that those would take a longer time to be reviewed if they have to wait for specified people to review them.
Just a guess on my part, being familiar, from a lifetime of volunteer work, with how volunteer time has to be allocated and how it's often viewed. I'm not an editor, and though I seriously considered it at one time have since changed my mind, mainly because of what I've read on public boards.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who would volunteer and do very well by ODP and make a valuable contribution to ODP and consequently the public as a whole, who don't volunteer simply because of the attitudes of the public.
Too often people who generously give of their time toward volunteer efforts are either under-appreciated or completely unappreciated. Instead of gratitude or appreciation for what IS done, there are far too many who feel they have something coming, when in fact they have no right to place a claim on the lives and time of others beyond what they're capable of and willing to give. Too many think they have a free lunch coming at the expense of others' time and efforts, and that just isn't so - it's not anyone's privilege to place a claim upon the lives of others.
Unfortunately, the more of a public outcry and complaint there is against ODP's volunteer editors the worse the situation will get, because an untold number of people will be turned away from even applying in the first place.
Don't you guys who like to start rants search the forums for previous rants to which you can just append your statements?
the ODP editors can be rather picky, i spent like an hour filling out a application got rejected... filled out another one for an even underdeveloped cat, 3 profiles and the next editor was 3 cats away, got rejected tried again rejected... i was also a Zealot at zeal with over 120 site profiles added at the time, which is leading to a decrease in editors who are accepted and many other people have had bad expericances like mine and have passed the message to others...
kctipton, I have to say that I personally appreciate this opportunity today, to be perfectly honest.
It gave me a chance to rant against the people who rant. It was perfect timing! ;)
No kidding. I'm chasing around a jerk spamming his crap into nine categories.
Make that ten.
ODP is backlogged in many areas often because of pure inappropriate garbage that gets submitted. A deliberate tactic of some webmasters is just to hope to get a mis-click from somebody and get an accidental listing.
The deadlegs are people who make pointless complaints and don't do anything. If you aren't locked in a closest then complain about yourself. Why should anybody else do work that you want to see done?
>>>The deadlegs are people who make pointless complaints and don't do anything. If you aren't locked in a closest then complain about yourself. Why should anybody else do work that you want to see done?<<<
Steve, I'm not following what you're saying there.
Anyone can volunteer. That's about the only way to speed up the pace at which ODP lists sites. I think it was posted somewhere that 55k editors includes everyone who have ever been an editor, not 55k active editors.
|I think it was posted somewhere that 55k editors includes everyone who have ever been an editor, not 55k active editors. |
Thats right. You maybe could consider about 6k Editors (maybe more or less at the moment, thats a very old figure) counted as active, consider about 1k Editors (wild guess) as doing 95% of the work.
"Steve, I'm not following what you're saying there."
All the original post was, was some guy complaining that somebody else do work that he wants to see done. It's like somebody whining that I don't come over and mow his grass.
Even the least productive ODP editor contributes more than him. he's not helping out at all, he should complain about himself.
Honestly, how can a person make a post crying about other people not volunteering (more) to do a task he wants to see done? It's mind-boggling.
>>consider about 1k Editors (wild guess) as doing 95% of the work.
I think most people would go along with that (those that don't will no doubt voice another thought)
It highlights the problem with ODP and indeed any volunteer directory, that there are very few volunteers available.
Most people involved in the web like, indeed welcome, the idea of a human powered directory. The problem is how to make it "work" in practical terms.
To make any business work, both the management structure and the financing have to be right. Google appears to have both management and financing right, ODP has some way to go!.
|windharp: 1k Editors (wild guess) as doing 95% of the work. |
Actually, my best guess is 500 editors doing 90% of the work, but the point is the same, most of the editing is done by a small proportion of middle- to senior-level editors.
Put it another way, the ODP will guarantee you a five working day review of your site the same day it starts charging your $299 for the privilege.
Steveb: You are absolutely correct. I suspect that you said exactly what very many people thought when they saw this thread.
I tire of those who rant against the ODP and just don't want to see the bigger picture. Facts (eg: it is the biggest and best directory on the net; it is free; etc) simply escape them. They don't want to know, and can't be bothered doing anything pro-active. Much easier to moan, even when it is totally unreasonable to do so.
I suspect though that more and more people are coming around to reality, as indicated by some of the other good contributions above.
I did apply to edit but was refused exclusively on the fatuous grounds that I had a number of websites that were not already in the odp.
You were denied because your sites were not in the ODP?
That's right, JudgeJeffries.
Leave the problem be. Make one comments and get pound on by some of the more aggressive ODP editors for ranting.
Get a tinge of fustration of not being able to get into ODP only after trying about a year not more. To get hysterical, you'll need to wait about 2 years. Yeah, they are volunteers, what do you expect, you want more pounding?
Try submitting to Yahoo of various language, Yahoo and the ODP then check your server logs. I have manage to get afew sites into Yahoo Taiwan after seeing the editors reviewing the sites. ODP, I did get one very badly done site for another client in one of the same category, but submitted later. Why? I don't know and I will never know.
Craig, strange as it may seem the answer is yes.
They thought I would use my editorship as a vehicle to get all of my sites listed, but then that's what I thought editors were supposed to do ....get sites listed. However that hadn't been my intention at all. I presume they would have preferred me to apply to edit a category that I had no knowledge of?
Many people (myself included) edit categories where we have sites listed.
Judge, was that the reason they gave you for rejecting your application?
Also, do you know for a fact that your submissions have been in unreviewed for over year? Perhaps they have been rejected and you haven't been informed?
Head over to resource-zone and ask in the site submission forum, they will be able to tell you what (if any) problems there are.
I also edit a category where my site is listed.
Maybe the three URLs you supplied with your application were all your own? It's advisable not to use your own URLs with your initial application and it's extremely unusual to have more than one listing from the same source in the same category. It's also extremely unusual to have a deeplink of a site in a subcategory of a category where the root URL is listed.
My experience (in the music bit of the ODP) has been very good. My most original sites were added within days - other pages (not original but of some value) have been added - and plenty rejected.
I guess it's easy to get good, enthusiastic volunteers to edit a cat for a rock band - but more difficult when it's for car rentals in an area of Spain. I've heard people say 'I have every album and bootleg for Led Zeppelin' but never 'I have driven hire cars from every dealer in Andalucia'.
At the time I had 14 sites none of which were in ODP.
The strangest thing is that whilst I did use one (only one) in my application, it did show up in the ODP shortly after I was given the bums rush. I just cannot imagine why they would throw away a lawyer with 30 years experience who wanted to edit a legal category that has had no editor for a long time, on the basis that I may slip a few of my own in. So what if I did, whats the problem?
I've heard from others on this forum that they have been refused on the same grounds.
Next time I'll apply to edit brain surgery and I'll probably be accepted.
Submitted URLs from rejected editors are usually still added to the unreviewed queue of the category in question.
As you correctly surmise, you stand just as good a chance of gaining a brain surgery category as a law category - editing the ODP is about assessing content of websites and writing appropriate titles and descriptions for the ones eligible for listing. It's not about whether or not you have 30 years' experience in the field. Most experienced editors edit in many areas that they don't have personal knowledge of - you don't need to understand quantum physics to see whether a site has got content and no affiliate links. The ODP guidelines do not include the phrase:
"A site's content must be reviewed for correctness and accuracy."
as it would be virtually impossible to get sites listed in any niche category.
Do you know why you were rejected (because you received a specific feedback e-mail) or are you just assuming that it was because you had other sites? Did you receive the standard e-mail saying "common reasons for rejection include..."?
<edit> Oh, every category has an editor, although not all of them have their own specific named editor, so the fact that there has been no listed editor for a long time is no reason to relax the high standards on accepting an application. </edit>
|Next time I'll apply to edit brain surgery and I'll probably be accepted. |
Actually most of the time, the suggestions seem to be regional categories for new editors.
|Next time I'll apply to edit brain surgery and I'll probably be accepted. |
[Added - Aww heck this is what happens when you go to get a cup of coffee!]
That's not too far from the truth.. for an unproven editor to be given access to a category in which they have a commercial interest is something that the ODP tries to avoid. The best way into the ODP tends to be a smaller category of (say) 100 sites. Editing your home town is a good way to get a foothold in the ODP, plus that's of enormous benefit to the ODP too.
In addition to the possible commercial interest, many commercial categories are too large and require too much work for a beginner.
It's not that the ODP doesn't want more editors, because it does, but it needs more GOOD editors who won't put their own interests above that of the directory. I'm NOT accusing you, JudgeJeffries, of this, but in my book the people who process editor applications like to play safe.
Every category I edit is one I have a site in except for one, which is a location I took fond interest in.
I agree with the statement of the lawn mowing +coming over. Even after I submited my sites, I was tired of waiting for it to be accepted, a few trys i got excepted as a editor. Truthfully my categories dont get a lot of submissions, one a month for all of them together? :)
...so you spend your time hunting for eligible sites for your categories rather than waiting for other people to submit them. ;)
Lots of webmasters don't realise that a site doesn't have to be submitted by the owner to be listed - the editor could find it themselves or an altruistic member of the public could submit it.
|Lots of webmasters don't realise that a site doesn't have to be submitted by the owner to be listed - the editor could find it themselves or an altruistic member of the public could submit it. |
With home town editing, this is essential, and fairly easy. It's also nice because you're collecting sites and giving them more prominence for your local community, which hopefully should help organisations and businesses in the area you live in.
I'm an editor, have been for years. Spend far more time then I sensibly should doing it, too.
What I find so frustratingly paradoxical is the fact that here we are, all pitching in with viewpoints on what is clearly a very valuable resource. Only a fool would negate the importance of an ODP listing. And this vital resource is pretty much lurching along on some lord-knows-how-naff equipment and some doubtlessly capable but clearly drowning-not-waving staff.
So there's this valuable resource, deemed important by Google, and it was down all weekend. Still is for a lot of the time. Disk failure(s), RAID failure, days, not hours of down-time. And that's not to mention that it had been flaky for months, disasters aside.
Now I love it, but this imbalance is just plain ridiculous. We really need that Knight In Shining Armour to enter stage-left pretty much anytime now.
Erm the Gates Open Directory ;)
| This 50 message thread spans 2 pages: 50 (  2 ) > > |