Forum Moderators: open
I'm just posting this because I'd like to see ODP continue to succeed, even though I only get minimal traffic from it.
1. A general rule...Respond to submission-related emails or DMOZ reputation suffers.
2. If a submission does not fit your criteria send an email that says why. Simple courtesy. This could be automated.
3. If you have certain special criteria you favor then post it on your profile page, don't expect people to guess it. For example, if you accept only sites that lose money, not sites making money, please say that.
4. Be nice and don't have an attitude because you are a "senior editor". We are both volunteering for this Open Directory--you are volunteering your time as editor, submitters are volunteering their time to submit their site to be listed as part of your directory.
5. If you are unable to approve sites promptly please post this in your profile page. Prompt is less than 2 weeks.
6. Do not pass around a site that does not appear to be in the correct category. Instead, it is courteous to email the contributor and tell them to submit it to the appropriate category.
7. If somebody wants to change their link description then help them unless you have a really good reason to say no to their request.
Most editors edit as a hobby. Editing most certainly is not a job, and cannot be treated as such.
Aaaaah ... and therein lies the rub! As webmasters, we are (rightly or wrongly) expecting professionalism when dealing with such a highly respected organization.
My point was that in deciding whether to accept an editor or not, the amount of time s/he can dedicate to the project is immaterial.
I tend to agree with NickW. I see your points Rafalk, and they are slowly sinking in. I just find it difficult to conceive in my mind that an organization of the magnitude of the Open Directory, and all the implied and/or real importance it bears on the www, could be left in the hands of hobbiests? It just seems very odd to me.
I realize now that the DMOZ is what it is and (rightly or wrongly) is not likely to change anytime soon ... so I think I will try to focus on areas where I might actually be able to make a difference! :)
Thanks for all the info and for clarifying some questions which I have never really been able to sort out in my own mind in regards to DMOZ!
God bless anyone who actually volunteers to edit! I know I couldn't take the heat, so I will opt to stay out of the kitchen. ;)
PS. I much prefer the tone of this thread to the other!
8) Assess editors for higher cats based on the quality of their work... not quantity of sites added.
Way back when, I did some editing in a topic that needed quite a bit of remedial work. I probably spent just as much time fixing up the cat as adding new sites.
When I realised that by being at a slightly higher level of cat I would be able to improve a much bigger group of cats which were also in need of attention.
Sadly, that never happened as it seems I had not entered the requisite number of new sites. The value of the remedial work did not seem to count for very much and yet it is supposedly the quality of the index that makes DMOZ such a valuable resource.
I never did manage to reconcile that concept with the reality.
Heres one example, a site which i felt had potential submitted while in 'development stages' I put a note for myself and other editors im watching it. weeks go by i keep checking it and finally the site is coming up to par. Should I send the person a note, do they care? don't know they didnt send me a note, id probably even reply but im not going to babysit people why their site got moved or isnt there, or was deleted when its obvious in my eyes :P 'sites not ready' , 'site was submitted to wrong cat' or 'site is a fly by night affiliate program and nothing more' :)
I'm biased couz im an editor but I dont speak for the rest of dmoz or the other editors :P
However I would welcome radio buttons that cover the main reasons for a non listing that we could click and an automated response could go to the submitter along with an explanation of the relevant rules.
Yes, there are areas of the ODP which have large numbers of unreviewed sites. Whenever I go in there with the intention of helping to reduce this number, I find that most of the sites that are sitting there waiting for action are ones that are wholly inappropriate.
They are sites that ...
- are already listed elsewhere and more appropriately in another part of the directory; or
- have been resubmitted only in an attempt by the webmaster or SEO to pack some more keywords in the description; or
- consist almost entirely of affiliate links, with little or no useful content; or
- are doorway pages to other sites already listed in the directory; or
- are mirrors of other sites already listed in the directory.
Of those that are appropriate for listing within the directory, I find that they ...
- have been submitted to the wrong category; or
- have inappropriate titles and descriptions.
The ones in the first list are not always obvious on first glance, taking up some of my editor time, time that could be used to locate the appropriate category for misdirected submissions, to review and to write titles and descriptions for those sites that will be listed.
In some of these categories, the task is neither easy or fun, and there seems to be no end to it. Sites that are submitted to appropriate categories, with appropriate titles and descriptions, will probably be acted upon earlier.
In other categories, which I believe to be the majority, sites are reviewed and acted upon promptly. Many of us still go out looking for sites that would enhance the categories that we have taken an interest in.
Looking through some of the suggestions that have been made here, perhaps there are some things that could be done with automation that would meet some of your needs, but of course I have no control over that.
Of those that I do have control over, you won't be getting email from me when I reject your site, nor will I promise to reply to feedback. I have had too many bad experiences with that sort of thing, and to no good end. Generally, I send feedback only when I have reason to believe that it will do some good.
I usually check in several times a day, and in my specific categories, sites seldom wait more than a day before they are acted upon. But things occasionally come up in real life that take priority over my editing responsibilities. When that happens, I usually find that other editors have taken up the slack. The person who is listed as the editor for a category is probably not the only person who edits there.
If you believe that your site has been treated unfairly, a letter to a senior editor will be more likely to get your site listed than a post on an outside forum. If you are convinced of corruption within the ranks of the ODP, a detailed letter to a meta editor will do more to clean up the situation than a dozen cryptic complaints on an outside forum.
