What to do as DMOZ editor

[toxic]

I was an editor at DMOZ and when I logged in today I saw my account was inactivated. It said the reason was I had not made an edit in four months. My cat was Baseball>Players>Jeff Bagwell. I never got any submits, and I added everything I found. There just were not alot of unique Jeff Bagwell sites out there. Most were just stats. I requested more cats and was rejected because I did not have enough edits, yet I could not get enough edits because I was trapped in a slow and narrow cat. Kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Do any other editors have any suggestions?

I would list this in the DMOZ forum, but I can no longer access it.

Thanks

[mack]

Sounds as if they are being very harsh. You can only do the best with what you have and it sounds as if there realy wasnt a lot you could do. Have you dmoz contaced or replied to you in any way?

[coconutz]

Fill out the form for reinstatement.

Request Reinstatement of Editor Account [dmoz.org]

[choster]

An editor in a low-submission volume category has recourse to researching new sites to add independently (the way much of the directory was in fact built), creating a new category [inelegant.org], or becoming a greenbuster [inelegant.org], among other group projects. I regret that you were not made aware of these opportunities, toxic, but if you are reinstated, I hope you can take advantage of them. Also note [dmoz.org...] .

[cornwall]

DMOZ can be a bit "funny" and/or "unfair" with new editors like this.

The small cat you have cannot be (substantially) added to so you cannot get edits, so you cannot get a larger cat.

If they reinstate you, try asking for another small cat that you feel could have more sites added.

They do have over 1 million unreviewed sites, so in theory they do need you!

[kfander]

The deactivation of inactive editors is (usually) an automatic function, and not to be taken personally.

Many people apply to become an editor only so that they can add their own site, or modify the listing for their own site, apparently, as they never make another edit. Still others, after editing objectively and well for a period of time, lose interest and go on to other things.

Apply for reinstatement and, if there are no major problems in your edit history, you can regain access to your account. If so, then take choster's suggestions, which should do well to keep your account alive and running.

If there are sites that could be listed to "your" category, don't wait for them to be submitted, but add them yourself. I still believe that the better part of the directory was never submitted.

If, as you say, there are no more Jeff Bagwell sites to be found, once you get back in apply to edit the category of another interest that you might have.

You might also periodically check up on the sites that are listed in the category, as some of them may have changed to a point where a modification of a description might be in order. This sort of routine housecleaning also counts as an edit, and will prevent your account from timing out again.

[rfgdxm1]

>The deactivation of inactive editors is (usually) an automatic function, and not to be taken personally.

Right. There is 2 ways an editor of a really low activity cat to avoid this. The first is once every few months make a bull**** trivial edit, like add or delete a comma, to keep the software happy. The other is to go to the public form and make an inappropriate submission to your cat, such as an inavlid URL. Reject that app, and again it keeps the software happy.

[rafalk]

There is 2 ways an editor of a really low activity cat to avoid this.

Or an editor can go out and find sites on his or her own. There's no subject obscure enough to have every single site about it catalogued in the ODP. Being an editor is not about sitting back and waiting for submissions to roll in.

[rfgdxm1]

In general, I'd tend to agree rafalk. Almost any cat an editor could find yet one more site with worthwhile content. I was assuming that this Jeff Bagwell was the rare exception. The poster did write "I never got any submits, and I added everything I found. There just were not alot of unique Jeff Bagwell sites out there." Perhaps he did search high and low for every Jeff Bagwell site worth mentioning, added them, and no new ones have come online in 4 months.

[cornwall]

There just were not a lot of unique Jeff Bagwell sites out there

Toxic

If you have a look at Yahoo, 2 of the 5 of Mr Bagwells sites listed there are not in DMOZ

If you have a look at Looksmart you can get a lot of suggestions. and Google lists well over 100 (OK many are duplicates or unsuitable) but you need to plough through them all to get some good ones

[ettore]

I still have to find a single category in ODP where I couldn't find at least a couple sites which are not yet listed, just digging around a bit.

[g1smd]

Or.... you can add new sites about other completely different topics in your bookmarks, then move them to the unreviewed queue of the appropriate category. If you find enough sites about a new topic, then you will probably be listed as the resident editor for the category at the time it is moved over to the main directory listings.

[rfgdxm1]

Good point g1smd. That would be enough to keep your login from expiring. And ettore, I suspect there are cats out there where while their are other sites on the topic, none worth adding could be found. For example, lets say this editor searches high and low in the next week and finds every Jeff Bagwell worth mentioning, and adds them. Are you sure in the next 4 months a new Jeff Bagwell page worth adding will come online?