homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 174.129.76.87
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Directories Forum

This 300 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 300 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 > >     
Problem in Dmoz
Editor Choice !
experienced

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 5:33 am on Jun 10, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi,

I think there is some problem in dmoz. I have seen a number of sites belongs to the same company listed in number of cat in Dmoz. And Also dmoz editors are just submitting their own sites in categories and new submission of the same cat or same industry use to avoid. Even personally i had submitted sites to dmoz those are really having good content & PR and all and did not receive any response since 3 years or so.

I believe existing editors are not following the rules and submiting their own sites and rejecting the others.

Any idea on this.

Experienced

 

flicker

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 1:07 pm on Jun 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Listen you guys and girls nobody is working today
>without money and that is why i strongly believe that
>the only active editors of DMOZ are active webmasters
>that make money out of that job.

What a strange life you must lead.

EVERYBODY I KNOW has MULTIPLE interests they work on without money. I have at least ten. Don't you have hobbies? Don't you go to church? Don't you have children? Don't you do volunteer work? EVERYONE wastes their time on unprofitable pursuits. EVERYONE has a life outside their job.

Everyone I've ever met, at least.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 5:54 pm on Jun 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

Andy, here's an analogy for you.

Try it for yourself. Walk into the nearest office of your local water utility. Start telling them "they must change" because every local university provides better training materials.

Tell them you really don't know about training or utility services either, but you spent a few minutes listening to some of the people walking by on the sidewalk, and they had bad emotional problems -- and since they were using the same sidewalk as the utility company, obviously it was the fault of the utility company.

Would they consider you sane? Would your attention be respected? Or would they have guards to remove people who act like that?

Atticus



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 5:59 pm on Jun 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

Oh, now the original poster understands why his site submission has languished for three years.

Because if he went to a water treatment plant and saw mentally ill people on the sidewalk yada, yada, yada.

Now it's all nice and sparkling clear!

andysmith617

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 10:46 pm on Jun 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

How many of you still within DMOZ never filled in a form or were assessed for 'suitablilty' as an editor by todays standards?

The silence on this is deafening.

Simple answer to a simple question please? I know the previous poster has given you nice 'diversion' to trottle out the same tried and tested answers, but personally, I'd like an answer to the question above too please?

Oh and 'Water Utilties'? Aren't we focusing on DMOZ?

Oh and, If I had a medical problem and wanted local or informational/community support, what good to me as a searcher is a quality website crammed full of useful information, sitting in an unreviewed pool?

This one too. Thanks.

Also forgot this one

Meta editor laisha left the project over three years ago.

Doesn't say so on her editor page? There is nothing to indicate on her profile that she left over 3 years ago. You're not exaggerating the number of editors who volunteer and are actively (and I mean actively) editing today are you?

andysmith617

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 11:26 pm on Jun 20, 2005 (gmt 0)

victor : It should take you no more than a couple of hours to provide evidence for that, or otherwise.

All editors' profiles are public, eg:
h**p://dmoz.org/profiles/editor-name.html

From that you can get the cats they edit.

Not if they left 3 years ago.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 12:41 am on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

>How many of you still within DMOZ never filled in a form or were assessed for 'suitablilty' as an editor by todays standards?

The forms (as they are today) were in universal use by the beginning of 1999. No more than 200 editors signed up (by whatever means were available) in 1998, and many of them are certainly not active now. I do not remember seeing any editor who joined before December 1998 (and is still active) post in this forum. No outside forum gets visits from more than a fraction of a percent of all active editors; so -- do the math -- don't expect many if any responses.

It has always been the intention of the ODP founders and staff to keep the barriers for entry low -- as is the best and recommended practice for any peer-reviewed volunteer organization.

So, from the beginning to now, if you could spell and punctuate and find three related websites and avoid telling stupid lies on the application, the ODP will still pretty much take a chance on you.

The ODP is one of the largest, if not the largest, of all PRVOs working on internet information content generation. (It's hard to directly compare it sizewise with Linux, the largest single PRVO in the programming field.) Most of the other PRVOs still take the "sign up and start building content" approach. Just this month Project Gutenberg Distributed Processors (about 1/5 ODP's size) added a test, but for access to "advanced rounds" only. Entry to PDGP or CCEL proofreading still doesn't require any kind of certification. And, of coures, experts attribute the size of Linux (relative to FSF or BSD projects) to its lower barrier for entry.

I may have mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating. PRVOs aren't much at all like corporations, and asking questions like "what's the PRVO equivalent of corporate [whatever]?" can hardly be more than an exercise in deliberate self-delusion. It's like looking for phylotogenetic

>Oh and, If I had a medical problem and wanted local or informational/community support, what good to me as a searcher is a quality website crammed full of useful information, sitting in an unreviewed pool?

Just exactly as much use as the same site NOT sitting in the unreviewed pool. A site doesn't suddenly become more useful by showing up in the pool. It doesn't even become more likely to be useful.

That's why editors keeps adding sites, and that's why they add sites from many sources: always looking for the "most productive" sources of sites.

>Doesn't say so on her editor page? There is nothing to indicate on her profile that she left over 3 years ago.

That is true, the profile pages aren't updated when an editor ceases to be active. If you think about it, you'll realize that's not always a well-defined event: also, that not marking it at all and allowing people to understand it is obviously an archive, is less misleading than marking it "some of the time" and leaving the misleading impression that it is a "current state." (This is my recollection of what staff said when this issue was last raised in the internal forums.)

>You're not exaggerating the number of editors who volunteer and are actively (and I mean actively) editing today are you?

Nobody's given you an estimate, high or low, on that matter. And I can't imagine anyone being so stupid as to try to count editors, let alone "active" editors, by generating all possible editor names and pinging dmoz.org to see which ones don't return 404. Perhaps the failure was in my imagination.

If anyone was thinking of this -- just don't, OK? It'll take longer than your site review, guaranteed. The best way to get a quick ballpark estimate of the number of "active" editors (for some reasonable definition of "active") is to download the RDF and count the editor names that show up on at least one category.

The second best way is if you can figure out a way to ask editors to give you an actual estimate without simultaneously implying you're not bright enough to recognize when someone is telling the truth.

(The number of editors listed on the main page is, of course, the total accumulated number of editors who have contributed something: which is a significant number, even if it's not the only number about which one might be curious.)

victor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 4:34 am on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

victor
From that you can get the cats they edit.

andysmith617
Not if they left 3 years ago.

The question was about webmasters joining this month:
today June 2005 ,who is going to apply as a DMOZ editor:?
IF HE IS NOT A WEBMASTER AND WANTS TO PUT HIS PAGE IN A CATEGORY.

andysmith617

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 4:13 pm on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

No more than 200 editors signed up (by whatever means were available) in 1998, and many of them are certainly not active now.

The point that I am making, is that of the few (well out of the 200) who are still active, would be pretty high up there overseeing an awful lot of catergories and editor applications? Which makes them 'technically unqualied' by the standards they themselves insist of others?

if you could spell and punctuate and find three related websites and avoid telling stupid lies on the application, the ODP will still pretty much take a chance on you.

90% isn't it? of applications are declined?
One only has to take a brief look at the Resource Zone's ' Editor Status ' section to see how many requesting updates on their status are declined v's accepted. Do the maths there. It's also well known that some apply up to a dozen times following all the rules, hints and tips, spending hours if not days on their application. Again declined. (I have never applied BTW).

While I understand completely about some categories being too big etc, I do rather think you are playing down the application status to 'a walk in the park' as long as you can spell and surf for a few good sites, 'hey well welcome to DMOZ'.

We all know it doesn't happen that way.

>Oh and, If I had a medical problem and wanted local or informational/community support, what good to me as a searcher is a quality website crammed full of useful information, sitting in an unreviewed pool?

Just exactly as much use as the same site NOT sitting in the unreviewed pool. A site doesn't suddenly become more useful by showing up in the pool. It doesn't even become more likely to be useful.

You kind of lost me of this one? I only asked what benefit a site was to a searcher if the best site on the particular topic they're looking for, is still sitting unreviewed. After a year and a half, 2 years perhaps.

And the benefits to the searcher are?

(The number of editors listed on the main page is, of course, the total accumulated number of editors who have contributed something: which is a significant number, even if it's not the only number about which one might be curious.)

Call me old fashioned but when a site boasts on its first page of 68,549 editors of and 4,666,105 sites. I kind of assume the vast majority of editors mentioned are active. It does make the front page quite flattering to the eye those numbers.

Perhaps you should make it a tweeny weeny bit clearer that this covers 'all time', and not perhaps not how many editors are actively involved at this precise moment. It is a bit misleading.

Nobody's given you an estimate, high or low, on that matter

And I can't imagine anyone being so stupid as to try to count editors

Well you indeed did give me an estimate of how many editors there were active in DMOZ when you said (earlier in the thread):

However, with 10 000 active editors, 650 000 categories, and 2000 adds per day --

So If you don't know how many editors precisely are active, can you say that the 2000 sites a day figure is a precise approximation (I know it's only and average figure)? How do you check this also?

You said you have really no way of figuring out the number of active editors, so how does one figure out the amount of websites listed per day by them?

Pick a few categories here and there from the RDF feed and just average it out?

All editors' profiles are public, eg:
h**p://dmoz.org/profiles/editor-name.html

From that you can get the cats they edit.

But they may not actually be editing anymore in those cats anymore, as profiles are not updated, as Hutcheson pointed out, it would take far too long also.

Again thank you gentleman, for taking the time to answer my questions.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 6:27 pm on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

>The point that I am making, is that of the few (well out of the 200) who are still active, would be pretty high up there overseeing an awful lot of catergories and editor applications? Which makes them 'technically unqualied' by the standards they themselves insist of others?

No, that's not the way it works at all.

(1) Peer review is the way technical qualifications are assessed. And this is by far the most effective way of assessing qualifications in any technical field is no secret: from the medieval meistersingers' guilds to modern scientific societies or programming projects, this is the only sane approach. (Stalin's alternative didn't pan out well.)

(2) Editing privileges are not based on seniority. In order to get privileges in additional categories, one has to ask. Everytime one asks, one's work is reviewed again. The higher level permission asked, the stricter the review. This information could have been found by merely reading the editors' guidelines, which are public.

(3) "Reviewing editor applications" is called a "meta-editor" task. Meta-editor privileges are only given by administration, usually after consulting with other meta-editors and a very long review of an editor's overall contribution. This information could have been found by merely reading the meta-editors' guidelines, which are also public.

All the "meta-editors" have, over a period of (usually) about one to three years, demonstrated consistent application of a wide variety of skills across a significant part of the directory. Within the community, they are respected not for longevity but for knowledge and technical expertise. [There are internal "editor awards" that are voted on by active editors, and there has consistently been a high correlation between the editors nominated for awards, and the editors who were already being reviewed by meta-editors with a view toward recommendations on greater privileges. I do not know whether this tidbit has been mentioned before.]

(4) In the ODP, amount of activity and breadth of interest are important, and length of time on the clock simply is not. (You may have noticed this emphasis elsewhere: for instance, we simply don't care how long ago a site was submitted; all that matters is the editor's best judgment on finding good sites for the category he's working on today.)

>90% isn't it? of applications are declined?

>One only has to take a brief look at the Resource Zone's ' Editor Status ' section to see how many requesting updates on their status are declined v's accepted. Do the maths there.

Your instinct is good here: but remember that editors who are accepted quickly won't be posting in the forum. I think 70-80% is a better guess. But it is amazing, not to say scary, how many people cant spell or puctuate. What's most shocking is how many people will tell you the stupidest lies.

>While I understand completely about some categories being too big etc, I do rather think you are playing down the application status to 'a walk in the park' as long as you can spell and surf for a few good sites, 'hey well welcome to DMOZ'.

Those may be big If's to some people, and there are people who shouldn't be doing it, just like there are people who shouldn't be proofreading Shakespeare (to name another typical internet project.)

>Oh and, If I had a medical problem and wanted local or informational/community support, what good to me as a searcher is a quality website crammed full of useful information, sitting in an unreviewed pool?

>Just exactly as much use as the same site NOT sitting in the unreviewed pool. A site doesn't suddenly become more useful by showing up in the pool. It doesn't even become more likely to be useful.

>You kind of lost me of this one? I only asked what benefit a site was to a searcher if the best site on the particular topic they're looking for, is still sitting unreviewed. After a year and a half, 2 years perhaps.

>And the benefits to the searcher are?

The benefits to the searcher are exactly the same whether the site has been online for five seconds or five years. The benefits are exactly the same whether the site has been submitted or not. Its being in the unreviewed pool doesn't make it more or less beneficial. It's seniority in the unreviewed pool doesn't make it more or less beneficial.

In fact, you didn't give any information that would have any bearing at all on the question. Think about it. Even being the "best" site on a subject doesn't mean a site has any benefit at all for the searcher. Or ... what does it mean to be the "best" site?

>Call me old fashioned but when a site boasts on its first page of 68,549 editors of and 4,666,105 sites. I kind of assume the vast majority of editors mentioned are active.

There's nothing either old-fashioned or contemporary about unfounded assumptions. We all make them. Unmaking them efficiently is a "learning" skill. Making fewer of them is not a bad thing to practice either.

>So If you don't know how many editors precisely are active, can you say that the 2000 sites a day figure is a precise approximation (I know it's only and average figure)? How do you check this also?

>You said you have really no way of figuring out the number of active editors, so how does one figure out the amount of websites listed per day by them?

The front page used to be updated more often, and you could easily just check it periodically. You can always download a couple of weekly RDF's and compare them -- not real easy, because at this stage of the project, taking out links is almost as important as putting them in. When we say "1000" or "2000" sites per day, we mean it's "in the close order of magnitude" -- almost certainly between, say, 800 and 4000. Over time, it averages out.

>Pick a few categories here and there from the RDF feed and just average it out?

No, this is one case where sampling won't do the trick. If only 5% of categories are edited in a week, you'd have to look at an avarage of 20 categories to see one that had any changes at all.

>>All editors' profiles are public, eg:
h**p://dmoz.org/profiles/editor-name.html

>>From that you can get the cats they edit.

But they may not actually be editing anymore in those cats anymore, as profiles are not updated, as Hutcheson pointed out, it would take far too long also.

OK, now we get into optimizing database query algorithms, which is by way of being my professional specialty, and it occurs to me that what is as blindingly obvious to me as a third-grade reader is a foreign language to non-computer-science types.

If you want to know what categories I edit, you can look at ALL 600,000 categories to see where my name is shown, or you can look at my profile page. It's obvious which is faster, I think.

If you want to know how many editors are active, there is no better way than looking at all 600000 categories. There are several database approaches you might try, but the others are either (1) based on information not publicly available (like last editor login), or (2) based on database keys not publicly manipulable (like a complete list of all historic editor names).

Precise figures likely wouldn't be of particular use even if we had them (which of course we don't.) That's close enough for any practical purpose, like calling the pizza order in.

I think you can see there's no intent to mislead, because -- people have asked how to interpret the statistics before, and editors will always tell them. But it's much more important to see these as people -- this is not "work unit #12,345" -- each one of these is a person, who offered interests and skills and time to the project in these specific areas."

That will also emphasize how distributed (uncentralized) the project is -- it's not MegaSloth, forcing little competitors off the internet right and left. It is non-interchangeable, unique, individual work units, um, persons, who wanted to contribute their own effort to improve the internet in specific ways by helping people find sites that they can personally recommend based on their own knowledge and the guidance of a very technically competent community.

For instance, I'm listed as Arts/Music editor. Don't every make the mistake of assuming I took the responsibility for reviewing any site submitted to Arts/Music! I didn't, I won't, and you really really don't want me to. I put together a viable Arts/Music/Styles/Classical category -- not through submittals, mind you! Through searching and surfing and personal knowledge of the subject as an enthusiastic listener. In the process I found sites in European languages (and kept sending them to World/Deutch and World/Francais and so on, till several World languages had to create their own Classical categories. And in the process I found sites on Music History and Musical Instruments that I moved over to those categories to review. So an Arts/Music editor said to me "you're finding a lot of stuff to do out here, why not just apply for the whole category and do it yourself?" So I applied for the category, and when I was accepted, I did a lot of work to improve it.

Why? Because sites were submitted? NO! in fact, hardly any were. Because submittals were languishing? Huh, I had to create almost all the categories anew myself. Because those were "common keywords in search engine searches?" NO! Madonna (or whoever the twit du jour is) surely gets more searches than Mozart and Bach put together. Because there was any profit in it? No, I'm a consumer, not a producer.

Why then? Because I thought that was an important part of human culture, and everybody else seemed to be working on something more important (to them.) So I volunteered. And when professional musicians came along (and could do much of that better than me), I moved my primary focus of work somewhere else.

That is the ideal of the ODP. But ... in all that, did you see anywhere anybody suggested that I had "responsibility" for Jazz site submittals? I don't touch the stuff, know next to nothing about it, and couldn't give a sympathetic or informed site review if I had to. And what would happen if you told me I had to review X number of Jazz sites or quit doing the useful, productive reviews I enjoyed?

Telling a volunteer something like that would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it?

And ... one more time, because this is the most important thing you can possibly understand about a site submittal:

An UNSUBMITTED site languishing without an ODP listing is just as big a loss to searchers as a SUBMITTED site languishing without an ODP listing. The act of submitting a site does not change any important aspect of reality -- it is just a memo that will keep us from completely overlooking whatever reality there is. The date on which that informative but (non-performative!) act occurred is irrelevant.

All that matters is: I'm studying Topic YYY today, because somehow (doesn't matter where) I got the idea it was under-represented on the net. What's the most efficient way to find websites containing unique relevant content? Submittals, searches, reviewing link lists at other sites? Advertisements in printed magazines?

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 7:08 pm on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> I do rather think you are playing down the application status to 'a walk in the park' as long as you can spell and surf for a few good sites, 'hey well welcome to DMOZ'. <<

Errrr, I submitted three sites, wrote 2 lines of additional information, and less than two hours later I had an email detailing how to log on, and get started.

Anyone that can do that and show they want to help the directory rather than themselves should get in; and hundreds do, every month.

>> if the best site on the particular topic they're looking for, is still sitting unreviewed. <<

Even if it hasn't been submitted, we still want to list it; so when looking for new sites to add editors will look wherever they feel like looking, and will use the methods they feel are the most efficient to them.

>> Call me old fashioned but when a site boasts on its first page of 68,549 editors of and 4 666 105 sites. <<

Yes, that is the total number of contributors to the project. Just because someone no longer edits now, we do not discount their contribution; and if they want to come back and help some more in the future then they are entitled to do so (unless they were removed, rather than they left of their own accord).

>> kind of assume the vast majority of editors mentioned are active. <<

Your assumption. Your problem.

>> can you say that the 2000 sites a day figure is a precise approximation. <<

Yes. By counting the number of sites in the RDF file [rdf.dmoz.org] (which has a datetime stamp within) and comparing it to an earlier RDF, from last week, last month, or last year.

[edited by: g1smd at 7:18 pm (utc) on June 21, 2005]

flicker

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 7:17 pm on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

>what good to me as a searcher is a quality website crammed full of
>useful information, sitting in an unreviewed pool?

It took me a long time to figure out what you actually meant by this, but I think Hutcheson just deciphered it for me. A quality site crammed full of useful information, that was created five years ago and submitted to the ODP three years ago, is of exactly the same value to us as a quality site crammed full of useful information, that was created five years ago and submitted to the ODP last week, and exactly the same value to us as a quality site crammed full of useful information, that was created five years ago and never submitted to the ODP at all.

I think one thing submitters tend not to understand is how many of the sites that are added to the ODP every day don't come from the site suggestion box at all. I find many of the best ones I add to the directory from search engines and links from other sites.

rfgdxm1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 7:34 pm on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

>Yes, that is the total number of contributors to the project. Just because someone no longer edits now, we do not discount their contribution; and if they want to come back and help some more in the future then they are entitled to do so (unless they were removed, rather than they left of their own accord).

And what real difference is it to the end user how many currently active editors there are? All that really counts are the number of listed sites, and the overall quality of the ODP. I wouldn't be surprised that a large percentage of currently listed, quality sites were added by inactive editors.

cbpayne

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 9:59 pm on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

can you say that the 2000 sites a day figure is a precise approximation

Total sites listed in DMOZ:

1 Jan 2005 = 4 497 073
1 Feb 2005 = 4 509 626
1 Mar 2005 = 4 531 770
1 Apr 2005 = 4 556 169
1 May 2005 = 4 590 961

You do the maths....

rfgdxm1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 10:53 pm on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

>You do the maths....

There's a serious flaw in your maths. The figures you cite are *total* number of sites in the ODP. Sites go offline every day and are deleted. Thus there could be 2000 adds a day. It may be that more sites are deleted than added on average.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 10:58 pm on Jun 21, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ah, yes. But now we have to do a slightly more complicated check. It is set difference, not subtraction. (I think I may have mentioned that earlier.)

Two or three years ago (two or three million sites ago), the number of sites being subtracted was insignificant compared to the ones being added. That is no longer true, but even then the potential was recognized. In fact, an editor plotted the curve and predicted the ODP would "top out" at (IIRC) between 4.5 and 5 million sites.

The variability can be traced back to the periodic deeplink housecleanings or automatic link checks; the number of sites reviewed daily is more stable than these numbers would suggest.

BillyS

WebmasterWorld Senior Member billys us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 1:31 am on Jun 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ah, yes, the standard form letter...

I don't understand why, but it seems like almost everyone who mentions the form letter skips every other possible reason, and even the more likely part of the last reason, to home in unerringly on the most unlikely alternative (and, for that matter, the alternative most easily eliminated by checking publicly visible information.

How large was the category? (That, anyone may see.) You can't see the unreviewed heap: but surely from knowledge of the industry you can know whether some companies offer affiliate programs, and whether there are a plague of affiliate doorways -- and I can assure you that if there is such a plague, they WILL spam the ODP. So that tells you whether the category is too "large". You can also see the number of category editors listed, but it is unusual to have too many category editors, so that is not likely the problem.

Sorry hutcheson, but I had forgotten about this post #32.

I grew up on Links, before the www existed as we know it today. I used a 900 baud modem to connect to a server at Rutgers University and used commands like archie, jughead, veronica and gopher to find information. This was back in 1992 before anyone even heard of Mosaic.

I was a member of AOL when the big decision was between Prodigy, AOL and CompuServe. I remember getting emails from Case talking about passing the 200,000 customer mark. I know of at least three very good ways to spot an affiliate since at one time I was heavy into those programs. I've done massive cleanings of affiliates with other directories I help with.

As far as the electric and gas industry, it is safe to say that the list of IOU (investor owned utilities) is pretty safe from cloaking and other tricks. To me, it would have been a natural. Nearly every description written in that category has some misinformation. Obviously the editors don't know the difference between a holding company, IOU, cooperative and muni. And in case you weren't looking, they have FRANCHISE territories - pretty hard to sneak a new one in there that I never heard of before or couldn't quickly verify.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 7:48 am on Jun 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Billy, that all sounds good.... but in volunteerism what you do counts. (A lot of people polish the self-description to make themselves sound like the love child of Einstein and Mother Teresa -- sometimes with truth, all too often with fantasy. So we discount self-descriptions pretty heavily. Don't obsess on that section. Just tell what you're doing on the web, and how helping the ODP fits into that.)

As for "what you do" -- the three suggested sites provides some scope for showing that. But with a little "thinking outside the box", you might be able to add a great deal. A preliminary report of some of what you think should be done (including the errors in current listings, and telling us how we can tell -- we don't have your industry knowledge, but we do catch on.

Say post it in the ODP "quality feedback forum", and link to it from your editor application, to get credit for a bit more work.

I shouldn't need to say, fully disclose affiliations. (We figure someone who does that isn't starting out planning to cheat, and someone who doesn't, is.)

And general advice -- show us you can use standard formal English spelling and punctuation.

And don't forget the three websites.

I haven't seen your application, so this is of course all "shotgun" advice.

BillyS

WebmasterWorld Senior Member billys us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 10:47 am on Jun 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

hutcheson

Thanks for the advice - maybe I will try one more time...

andysmith617

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 12:10 am on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Sorry for not reading before now but the weather was so glorious today in the UK..

On November 17, 1998, word went out the Netscape had acquired NewHoo for their Netcenter Web Site. The very next day, there were 4,500 editors

(www.laisha.com/zine/odphistory.html)

Hutcheson : The forms (as they are today) were in universal use by the beginning of 1999. No more than 200 editors signed up

Are you telling fibs? Or contradicting this ex-editors history lesson?

The point that I am making, is that of the few (well out of the 200) who are still active, would be pretty high up there overseeing an awful lot of catergories and editor applications? Which makes them 'technically unqualied' by the standards they themselves insist of others?

No, that's not the way it works at all.

So you're telling me that none of the editors who did not do the 'apply to be an editor' form, are there today? Setting rules, regs and things? No Metas or Admin were there in the begining? None at all?

Editing privileges are not based on seniority

What are they based on?

But it is amazing, not to say scary, how many people cant spell or puctuate

Are dyslexics unable to edit due to these circumstances?

Call me old fashioned but when a site boasts on its first page of 68,549 editors of and 4,666,105 sites. I kind of assume the vast majority of editors mentioned are active.

There's nothing either old-fashioned or contemporary about unfounded assumptions. We all make them. Unmaking them efficiently is a "learning" skill. Making fewer of them is not a bad thing to practice either.

Tell me this then, if simple forum software is able to prune 'inactive members' that have not posted ( read edited) within X months then the are deleted.

The resulting 'we have x number of members' is updated accordingly. (and please don't tell me otherwise I do it in my own every 3 months or so).

You are able very nicely to 'prune those editors' who have not edited within 4 months and delete editor privilges. So why not, like in the very simplest forum software, prune the numbers of editors and reflect this on the first page as the amount of 'active editors'?

I assume it makes you look good, tell me if I'm wrong but, well..it's pretty obvious. (I'm pretty reluctant to do it on my own due to this reason, but think I'd rather have X active members in the member list posting, than 100's with 1 or 0 posts next to their name in the last 3 months).

If you can delete an editor for not logging in for 4 months, then the database could be easily updated to reflect this by pruning 'in-actives' off. Anyone who runs a forum will tell you the same. It is misleading to do otherwise.

You can always download a couple of weekly RDF's and compare them -- not real easy

I agree. I have no idea what it is, nevermind download it! (although I understand Google and other search engines use it). Too technical for the average searcher somewhat though.

Errrr, I submitted three sites, wrote 2 lines of additional information, and less than two hours later I had an email detailing how to log on, and get started.

When was that? 2005? or nearer 1999? Honestly now.

I think you'll find most do not have the same experience nowadays. Have a read over at the Resource-Zone. There are exceptions to every rule.

kind of assume the vast majority of editors mentioned are active. <<

Your assumption. Your problem.

>> can you say that the 2000 sites a day figure is a precise approximation. <<

Yes. By counting the number of sites in the RDF file (which has a datetime stamp within) and comparing it to an earlier RDF, from last week, last month, or last year.

My and 1000's of other people's assumption, YOUR problem mate. Thats why people think all they have to do is fill in a form and thats all they have to do to be an editor. There are just soooo many editors out there, it must be easy! Then they get a bit mystified at rejection and ask why not? And sometimes keep asking, YOU have to deal with that, and the flak, not me.

Again RDF feeds, like yes, I'll do that every week (?!). I'va already pointed out that joe average takes the amount of editors on the front page as the number of active editors. You are really kidding yourselves if you don't think this is a huge misrepresentation. All you have to do is add a (this reflects the number of editors of all time, not all who who are active today, blurb).

>what good to me as a searcher is a quality website crammed full of
>useful information, sitting in an unreviewed pool?

It took me a long time to figure out what you actually meant by this

You are joking? Really? It took you a long time to figure out if I had a serious medical condition and the site with the most relevant, unique and helpful information, was still unreviewed?

Well, hate to break the bad news, but, er, it wouldn't really be any good to me at all. There may well be another 5 sites in there, but if they aren't helpful, up-to date, in my locality or informational depending on my needs on the internet. Then as a searcher I miss out on something. And as a searcher, thats not what DMOZ wants.

There's a serious flaw in your maths. The figures you cite are *total* number of sites in the ODP.

I have no information to do the maths, only the figures you guys keep throwing at me. You who ARE in a position to do the maths. So if there is a serious flaw, it's yours and the never ending bloody figures YOU cite. (I only question the figures you put to me). What does the *total* mean with the stars. Total or 'may be or may not be *total*?

And as for this : Ah, yes. But now we have to do a slightly more complicated check. It is set difference, not subtraction. (I think I may have mentioned that earlier.)
Two or three years ago (two or three million sites ago), the number of sites being subtracted was insignificant compared to the ones being added. That is no longer true, but even then the potential was recognized. In fact, an editor plotted the curve and predicted the ODP would "top out" at (IIRC) between 4.5 and 5 million sites.

The variability can be traced back to the periodic deeplink housecleanings or automatic link checks; the number of sites reviewed daily is more stable than these numbers would suggest.

If you could put it more in 'laymans terms' I'd be grateful. I have no idea what the above refers to. Thanks.

One more thing, I stumbled on a DMOZ post today which said there were editors profiting from status checks, I found this hard to fathom and assume it was some kind of joke? I hope you can re-assure me on this.

Thanks once again, I look forward to your answers.

(ps apologies for any typo's but 2 of my kids are down with chickenpox so I an too tired to edit).

rfgdxm1

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 12:26 am on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

>You are able very nicely to 'prune those editors' who have not edited within 4 months and delete editor privilges. So why not, like in the simplest forum software, prune the numbers of editors on the first page reflecting the amount of 'active editors'?

Because the contributions of inactive editors are not pruned when they time out. What is on the front page is accurate. You are just assuming it means something it doesn't.

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 5:20 am on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

On the number of editors in early 1999, my memory has probably failed me. Another off-the cuff sanity check tends to further disconfirm it. There were several hundred thousand sites already listed, and even with a hundred thousand "PCP" (deeplink) listings, 200 editors is an unrealistically low number to have been responsible for the work. 4500 seems too many by my recollection, but it's consistent with the number of sites listed.

Sometimes doing the math involves set theory. It's not that hard -- or at least, I didn't think so when I picked it up in sixth grade, but teaching it in this forum is probably beyone me.

victor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 7:49 am on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Again RDF feeds, like yes, I'll do that every week (?!).

Very glad to hear it!

A lot of wannabe volunteer critics of the ODP are so often just volunteer complainers. Often their compains have no basis in fact at all.

So for someone to state that they will gather evidence before criticising is almost a first for such discussions at WMW.

Three months' of RDFs will give you a good basis for formulating some very good questions. A year's worth will be enough to pull out some very interesting patterns and statistics.

We'll all benefit from your work, so many thanks in advance.

Of course, you don't need to wait a year....Find the past copies (not sure how -- maybe make an appeal for them to be sent to you) and you can start today.

And welcome to the topsy-turvy world of volunteer directory criticising......There will be people who will condemn you for not having performed precisely the analyses they need for their competitative advantage; and they'll say that'll prove just how corrupt you are, and that the ODP should replace all its critics with unnamed others who will do their bidding.

Don't give in to them! Volunteer the time you want to analyse the RDFs the way you want. One publication every four months would be a good minimum.

I look forward to the first results.

andysmith617

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 1:21 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

A lot of wannabe volunteer critics of the ODP are so often just volunteer complainers.

I think it's called freedom of speech, and the right we all have to question in order to understand. I apologise if you do not like my questions or they make you feel uncomfortable. But that doesn't give you the right to call me, or anyone else who questions a 'volunteer complainer'.

Often their compains have no basis in fact at all.

And perhaps just as often the answers given are not based on true fact either? A lot of the answers I've been given are based on how individual editors 'feel' about certain matters, their own personal viewpoints.

Ok, let me ask you another, is there any hope whatsoever that DMOZ will make an efforts to improve and grow given the amount of times you find yourselves defending the current status quo?

Are all the suggestions many good intentioned people make on improving the system as a whole taken into account? (You guys seem to 'jump' on people who do suggest possible improvements as 'volunteer complainers' as a matter of course from what I've seen).

And who in DMOZ actually makes these decisions?

I have it in my head that within DMOZ there MUST be many editors who put forward good ideas and suggestions, are they discouraged from doing so? Do they get the same treatment? Is in-fighting the problem with moving on?

I cannot see any evidence of a willingness to change or improve, based on the responses I have had to my questions and thoughts in this thread. Is it even there?

Or are you still labouring under the impression that DMOZ is so great, it doesn't need to change? No improvements need ever be applied?

If so, how will you keep up with the increasing amount of pressure you are under from ever expanding and increasing internet usage?

lissa89

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 3:55 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ok, let me ask you another, is there any hope whatsoever that DMOZ will make an efforts to improve and grow given the amount of times you find yourselves defending the current status quo?

There is an assumption that we aren't making efforts to improve and grow, which is simply incorrect. Our "status quo" is to constantly improve.

- every day we add new sites, both from searching ourselves and the suggestion pool
- every day we fix non-working urls and delete ones we can't track down
- every day we improve existing listing titles and descriptions
- every day we improve the organization of some categories
- every day we add new editors to the project

In addition to the daily tasks, there are ongoing long term tasks including:
- development of editor produced tools to assist us in various tasks
- mentoring new editors
- working on editor retention
- major reorganization initiatives
- replacing tools/editors who for a long time did certain tasks and are no longer with the project

Do we think the directory is perfect now? No. There are areas with great organization and areas needing a reorg. There are lots of well described sites and lots of really old, poor descriptions. Some topics are extremely well represented, some are poorly represented or missing altogether. Are we working to improve these things? Yes. Could we fix them faster with more editors? Yes. Do we want more qualified editors? Yes. Do we think the ODP is the most comprehensive directory out there? Yes. Do we think it could be more comprehensive than it is now? Yes.

With all of that, I simply do not understand the complaints that we're doing nothing to improve. Maybe we aren't changing the things that SEOs/webmasters would like us to change (but that's already been thoroughly discussed earlier in this thread) but that doesn't mean we aren't changing and improving at all.

andysmith617 - You've asked a lot of specific questions and appear to be well-spoken and thoughtful. You are certainly tenacious :) and these are all good qualities for an editor. Why don't you apply to become an editor and simply find out for yourself? I like to recommend smallish locality subcats (~50 sites) in Regional as a starting point for new editors, simply because it is fairly easy to find sites for localities by searching for name+ZIP.

-Lissa (ODP editor since 2001, and WebmasterWorld lurker since 2002)

hutcheson

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 3:59 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

?is there any hope whatsoever that DMOZ will make an efforts to improve and grow given the amount of times you find yourselves defending the current status quo?

ODP editors are always improving the directory, discussing how their efforts might be made more productive, and trying out different approaches to building the directory.

>Are all the suggestions many good intentioned people make on improving the system as a whole taken into account?

Yes, absolutely. Of course, we measure "good intentions" by understanding and sympathizing with the ODP mission, as measured by the amount of effort put into achieving those.

Of course, you have demonstrated no such intentions, and have supplied no suggestions that I haven't seen in Dilbert cartoons.

>(You guys seem to 'jump' on people who do suggest possible improvements as 'volunteer complainers' as a matter of course from what I've seen).

Well, I grant that that is an assumption, but is it not more creditable to you to assume you're NOT being paid for it?

>And who in DMOZ actually makes these decisions?

Most of the decisions you're having so much trouble comprehending the importance of, are basic design features of the project, established from the beginning.

>I have it in my head that within DMOZ there MUST be many editors who put forward good ideas and suggestions, are they discouraged from doing so? Do they get the same treatment? Is in-fighting the problem with moving on?

Now, THOSE would be people with a track record of (1) demonstrated good intentions, (2) actual demonstrated ability to understand the project, (3) actual demonstrated ability and willingness to improve the project.

In other words, all the things that make it possible to tell the difference between good ideas and unrealistic fantasies, or between good ideas and clever sabotage. But -- even the best informed analysis isn't necessarily right.

So the way you would present ideas for change in a volunteer community is, you start implementing them yourself. If the implementation results in good to the directory, you can tell everyone how well it worked for you, and a few other people may try it out. If they succeed, then people start thinking about tools to make it easier to do -- and then perhaps even more volunteers will do it. Of course, if at any stage your approach actually causes harm, people will talk about that also.

Even corporations do something like this ("pilot projects") before making major changes in their assembly plants -- try things out on a small scale, rather than listening to all the people in the world pontificating about how much better the world would be if everyone goose-stepped to their drummer (and, as you say, there are very many such people).

Because your basic problem, pure and simple, is that what you want some way for you to tell the volunteer editors what you want, and make them do it when you want it.

The reason that is such utter fantasy is == too many other people on the planet want the same thing (as you've pointed out, you're by no means the only person that wants that). And there are not enough slaves to go around. It's too expensive to buy them, and volunteers are no substitute -- as you say (and as the plantation owners in my country used to say, presumably while sipping mint juleps), the slaves are getting so uppity now.

It's not that someone else is hanging onto all that power you want, and won't let you play with it. It is that nobody in the ODP has that power. The ODP has no mechanism for wielding it. Building that mechanism would entail an enormous social and financial cost that the community and its sponsor aren't willing to pay.

andysmith617

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 4:47 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Of course, you have demonstrated no such intentions, and have supplied no suggestions that I haven't seen in Dilbert cartoons.

Hutcheson, your flattery and good manners know no bounds do they, (Who is Dilbert?).

ODP editors are always improving the directory, discussing how their efforts might be made more productive, and trying out different approaches to building the directory.

Why can't we on the outside see evidence of this?

Yes, absolutely. Of course, we measure "good intentions" by understanding and sympathizing with the ODP mission

A lot of 'cults' measure good intentions by those standards too.

I do understand and sympathize with the 'DMOZ mission', however, there are lots of areas and practices within I don't understand amd mabye don't symathise with.

For a start I can see lots of ways to speed up and make the whole organsisation a bit more 'people friendly' and I don't mean webmaster friendly. I'm not going into them again, but I have suggested several ways to improve things for all. Lots of people have. Some ideas may be good, some bad but, from the outside and this is the crux, from the outside it looks as if these are never taken into consideration, much less acted upon.
Furthermore I'd say that those who do try to make suggestions are not treated with courtesy or respect.

Most of the decisions you're having so much trouble comprehending the importance of, are basic design features of the project, established from the beginning.

Aren't design features from 1998 a little out of date in todays internet world? Along with 'hit counters' and 'dancing babies' graphics?

Because your basic problem, pure and simple, is that what you want some way for you to tell the volunteer editors what you want, and make them do it when you want it.

Not really, I only made a few suggestions and asked about things I couldn't understand. If the editors hadn't been so defensive, I'd have probably left it at my first post. That defensiveness got me intrigued!

And BTW you haven't anwered half of the questions I asked in my last few posts. If anyone could possibly find the time? I'd be grateful.

Lissa thank you very much, if all editors took the time to answer questions in such a gracious and uncondescending manner there would be less of these threads.

As for my applying to be an editor, hmmmmm, I must admit to being tempted, if only to see how things work on the inside.
However, I'm not sure some of the editors here would welcome someone such as I. It's been pointed out several times to me in this thread, someone like me is 'obviously not suitable'.
Perhaps indeed all would be revealed if I was to become one, but if I didn't like what was revealed, then I'd be tempted to make it known big time. I may not last 5 mins.

However, it is a consideration. I'm sure there are a few on this thread who would be horrifed at the thought (evil laugh).

Tenacious? Lissa you should know lol, there are only 2 ways to shut a woman up,...
and neither of them work ;-)

victor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 5:21 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think it's called freedom of speech, and the right we all have to question in order to understand. I apologise if you do not like my questions or they make you feel uncomfortable. But that doesn't give you the right to call me, or anyone else who questions a 'volunteer complainer'.

I think it's called freedom of speech.

Revisit the same old tired questions that have been answered many times before, and your research-free complaints will be treated as such.

Do some solid research, as I think you've undertaken to do, prove some interesting questions and insights, and you'll be a star critic.

My apologies for assuming you were a volunteer here. Who's is funding you for this?

lissa89

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 5:31 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

ODP editors are always improving the directory, discussing how their efforts might be made more productive, and trying out different approaches to building the directory.

Why can't we on the outside see evidence of this?

You can, by analyzing the weekly RDF files. There was a suggestion made for someone to develop a tool to do this and publish data about what is changing in the ODP. It was serious, and the editors would use it too.

The ODP is HUGE. Each individual editor knows the state of some small parts of it extremely well, medium parts of it somewhat well, and the majority of it, not-at-all. Clearly, somebody at some time knew each and every part in order to create it. But since it was created? It's hard to know. This is the kind of stuff we spend our time and tools trying to figure out how to manage. Which areas have been overlooked for a long time? Which areas are underdeveloped? Which areas are missing key types of sites? Which areas still have pre-guidelines style descriptions or none at all?

By watching the RDF files, you might notice things like an editor gradually being allowed to edit in more categories. You might notice the overall size of a category growing rapidly - could be an active editor or a group editing project. Maybe you would notice that a bunch of 0-site localities get sites or a category suddenly shrinks or is deleted. There's a lot that could be learned by watching the RDFs - the types of things that get worked on, the areas that are active, and the areas that aren't yet.

However, I'm not sure some of the editors here would welcome someone such as I. It's been pointed out several times to me in this thread, someone like me is 'obviously not suitable'.

We've had other strong questioners join and turn out to become active editors. Just be honest in the application in stating who you are, your affiliations and sites, and why you want to edit. Ultimately the proof of your sincerity is in your editing.

Perhaps indeed all would be revealed if I was to become one, but if I didn't like what was revealed, then I'd be tempted to make it known big time.

We really aren't hiding anything. :) You are free to describe your experiences and opinions externally the same as the other editors posting here. However, be sure to read the guidelines regarding confidentiality. You can't reveal confidential information such as internal forum postings or editing logs, although you can discuss things generically. e.g. "They have a New Editor forum where anyone can ask the most basic question and get a helpful reply, even if it has been asked 100 times before." is OK. "I can't believe this doofus editor xyz asked this boneheaded question abc. Didn't they bother to read the guidelines or the three other forum posts about it?" is not OK. ;)

andysmith617

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 7:53 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

But that doesn't give you the right to call me, or anyone else who questions a 'volunteer complainer'.

I think it's called freedom of speech.

Really? In the Uk we call that sort of derogatory term 'slagging someone off', or 'putting someone down' if you prefer.

Is it really necessary to use such negative terms while debating a subject? It really does not show the organsation you are representing in a good light. Also the compulsion and constant attempts to character assasinate is soooo not wise while at the same time trying to promote the virtues of anything.
It's almost a contradiction.

Of course you have the right to call me what you want.
A volunteer poster on this website sure! But a 'volunteer complainer' I'm not sure I accept that remark just because you deem me worthy of it.
You wouldn't accept my calling you a 'mob-handed discourteous whinging' editor either. And why should you? Even if it does come under the term 'freedom of speech'.

Revisit the same old tired questions that have been answered many times before

I'd be asking myself why the questions keep getting asked so many times they become 'tired'. It's a real shame you can't see that if the same questions are being asked over and over again, then there may just be a problem there?

and your research-free complaints will be treated as such.

Again, 'complaints', not questions, or suggestions, or comments then? Research free, well, Hutcheson has already admitted he was a bit out with the maths earlier, quite happy to quote it as gospel to me though, so I've researched a tad.

prove some interesting questions and insights

I could probably only do that as an editor. The RDF thing sounds to me like a pretty hefty old download. Perhaps a bit more than my dial-up connection could cope with?

Do correct me if I'm wrong.

My apologies for assuming you were a volunteer here

No apology needed, I was a bit miffed by the 'complainer' thing though. I will accept your apology on that.

Lissa I hear what you are saying, but I'm not sure that the other editors who posted here before you are really the kind of people I'd like to work beside on a voluntary basis.
They don't exactly make DMOZ sound a very friendly place to be. I'd be far too scared to approach with a problem or a suggestion for improvement, and god help me if I disagreed with their point of view on a subject. Again, this may or may not be fact, but based on my experiences here the last week or so.

I think some here are a bit jaded by the whole thing, and it seems there is a lot of 'pent up' anger there against those who question. It's almost fanatical.

All this from a girl who had no idea what DMOZ was 6 weeks ago.

g1smd

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 8:27 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

>> Find the past copies[of the RDF](not sure how <<

Look in: [rdf.dmoz.org...]

>> >> But it is amazing, not to say scary, how many people cant spell or puctuate << <<

>> Are dyslexics unable to edit due to these circumstances? <<

What is important is the words that the public will see after the edit button is pressed. If someone has poor spelling, but uses a spell-checker on every edit that they do, and takes the time to correct their mistakes before submitting their work then they can be an editor. If they didn't bother doing that on their application, then they have already demonstrated an unsuitability for the job. Not their dyslexia per se, but their unwillingness to use the available tools to correct errors made.

Let's turn this around. How would you feel if your submitted site eventually turned up in ODP listngs, but the title had a spelling mistake, and the description three more -- I can guarantee there would be a thread in WebmasterWorld calling for the editor to be sacked.

I take a lot of care when I write; even on "throw away" posts in forums. I always go back and edit a post if I make a mistake; and though you might not ever be able to tell - I actually make at least one spelling mistake in every post that I make (I edited six out of this one). However, review the 2500 posts I have made at WebmasterWorld and the 15 000 spread across many other forums, and I will bet you would be hard pressed to find more than a few dozen spelling mistakes in something like the million words that I have written online in the last 4 years (been on the net since 1997 but have posted in forums only since 2001). So, it isn't how good you are in the raw, but whether you clean up properly.

>> You are able very nicely to 'prune those editors' who have not edited within 4 months and delete editor privilges. <<

This isn't quite how it works. The editor figure is the total number of people that have contributed since Day 1. If someone stops editing, then we don't suddenly discount their contributions (people leave for many reasons - some decide to do something else, others take time out because of change of job, travelling the world, childbirth, away studying, long illness, whatever).

>> If you can delete an editor for not logging in for 4 months <<

The sites they added remain. Their editor name remains too. Their editing logs remain, and can be inspected by any editor at any time. The editor can re-apply and re-join the project at any time in the future. So, editors are not deleted. All that happens is that the ability to log-in is deactivated. Everything else about that editor remains in-situ. With forum software the user name is deleted. That does NOT happen with editor names at the ODP.

>> When was that? 2005? or nearer 1999? Honestly now. <<

November 2001, but I don't consider that to be old school at all.

>> I think you'll find most do not have the same experience nowadays. <<

Those are the failed applications. I think you'll find that hundreds are approved every month without problem.

>> Are all the suggestions many good intentioned people make on improving the system as a whole taken into account? <<

The internal forums are huge and a LOT of discussion goes on in them. Hutcheson, would I be correct to say that the ODP forums are sizewise and activity wise running at something like more than half the size of WebmasterWorld?

>> I have it in my head that within DMOZ there MUST be many editors who put forward good ideas and suggestions, are they discouraged from doing so? <<

There are many suggestions, and most of the good ones are used in some way or other; but what happens more often than not, is that someone does not actually start off by making a suggestion at all, they actually get on and do the job "their way", then tell others how that helped their editing experience to improve. Other people may offer refinements, new things get tried out, and then someone writes up an informational page, or builds a new editing tool; and eventually it gets incorporated into the standard feature set by dint that everyone has abandoned the old method or tool and has already swapped to the new one.

Where decisions are made, they are done by editor concensus, which is something a little different to democracy (and there is at least one ODP category that lists sites that can help you to understand the differences between those two approaches).

>> As for my applying to be an editor, ... <<

Can you find a small non-commercial, end-of-branch "leaf", category that you recognise as being deficient; missing some really great sites that you know about, but which don't appear to be already listed? Can you verify that they are not already listed in a related category? Can you look at a web site, and then write a concise description describing what is ON the site (not their mission, or some hype, just what you can SEE on the site). Can you verify your spelling, and use a mouse to click buttons?

Yes? Then that is all that is required to get you started. Why wait? And, your discussion here has no real bearing on your application -- your application shows whether you can edit, and that is what the editors do.

victor

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 2450 posted 9:44 pm on Jun 23, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is it really necessary to use such negative terms while debating a subject? [...] Of course you have the right to call me what you want.

Thanks, I'll bear that in mind.....But it wasn't me who started it....

A volunteer poster on this website sure! But a 'volunteer complainer' I'm not sure I accept that remark just because you deem me worthy of it.

It seems a politer step up from the suggestion that you are a DMOZ basher (but possible not a spammer), as you suggested of all previous volunteer critics here. (Take a trip back to message 23 in the thread).

But then why should a slag like me bother with this thread any longer?

This 300 message thread spans 10 pages: < < 300 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Search Engines / Directories
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved