Webwork - 2:18 pm on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

4,000,000 divided by 74,719 = 53.53.

DMOZ has been around since when? 1998? Nine years?

I want to be supportive of the project. I think it's great to have an alternative search source. I think it's great that such a project might be operated on a volunteer basis.

That said, something is broken, badly.

74,719 people counted as editors? That "fact", being so material and significant, is posted on the homepage. There's a reason for featuring it. However, when I paused to "do the math" - to understand why there are recurring issues about the vitality of DMOZ - it occured to me that something MUST be broken somewhere.

Tens of thousands of volunteers. Almost 10 years. And 55 websites per volunteer?

Now, I know the volunteer editors didn't all sign up today. However, I also know that the notice about tens of thousands of volunteers has been in place, on the homepage, for years.

So, we're talking a directory that offers approximately 6 total new website entries, per year, for 9 years. I'll cut that number in half, to say that for the total of 9 years there were an average of 37,000 editors. That works out to 12 new websites per editor per year added to the directory. Alright, I'll cut that down to an average of 17,000 editors/year - averaged out of the 9 years - producing an average of 24 websites added per editor, per year.

That's 2 a month.

What's my point?

Either:

• The figure for the number of editors is grossly inflated; or,
  
• The expectations of productivity - for maintaining "editor status" are extremely low; or
  
• There is a systemic problem whereby websites are added, by the editorial pool, at an absurdly slow and unproductive rate; or
  
• There is a gaping void between the number of websites that exist and the number of websites that are worth a damn;