Forum Moderators: open
The other thread started by pearl ( [webmasterworld.com...] ) who said quite unabashedly that she wouldn't do anything to help her competitors as editor sparked an idea.
Given that there is a significant population of potential editors who want sites listed, but who might be biased editors in specific categories (or who work with many sites in disparate categories), why not give them an incentive to edit a category that needs help? Specifically, let them edit a category that they have no commercial interest in, but (one hopes) they like, or at least understand. As an incentive, give them several review credits - say, after a month of being an editor in good standing, they can submit three sites for review by a high-level editor (guaranteed turnaround, say, of 5 days). Thereafter, every three months, or every twenty edits, etc., they would get another credit or two. I don't know what the right measure are, but I'm sure those with access to typical editing stats could come up with something appropriate.
Will this pose an even greater burden on overworked high-level editors? Perhaps not, if they are leveraging every "review credit" into dozens of reviews, adds, changes, etc. by the new editors.
The benefits would be simple: the (potentially) selfish interests of the new editors would be redirected to orphan or non-commercial categories that need help most. Instead of burning keystrokes at WebmasterWorld complaining about the site they submitted two years ago that's still unreviewed, the new editors could be cutting the DMOZ backlog and know that, for a limited number of sites, they would not have to worry about getting caught in an abandoned queue.
If some of the new editors are SEO pros, so much the better - they are far more likely to keep affiliate spam and bogus deep links out of DMOZ.
I've advocated a paid review option in the past, but I think this approach would expand the editing corps while minimizing conflicts of interest and keeping the 100% volunteer structure.
Would there be problems? Sure. Some new editors would bail out after their first listing or do a slapdash job to build credits, but with a bit of quality control I don't think it would be any worse than what exists now. Within the ranks of the new editors, it's likely some really good ones would emerge to start the next generation of high-level DMOZ devotees.
Very much true. Travel is one of those areas of the directory that tends to attract a lot of spam submissions. In the case of categories that get very little spam, having a high level of knowledge on the topic may be enough. In such categories, what spam tends to be easy to spot because it blatantly doesn't fit the cat. However, with a spam magnet category the ideal editor is more one that can spot spam sites that try to pretend to be something else.
Travel is one of those areas of the directory that tends to attract a lot of spam submissions
Don't think you are quite exact there. Many areas of travel are spam free. Its directories that in particular attract spam. And particularly high level categories. Travel to small towns tends not to attract spam!
click-through editor
Click through editors, DMOZ's gift to submitters ;)
DMOZ's gift to submitters
A REAL gift would be a list of these editors and their categories - can you work one up, Cornwall? ;)
I occasionally see garbage listings included - just a glance at the URL sets off big warning bells - and have concluded that some editors must be completely oblivious. There's no real reason for this, either - DMOZ doesn't have a rigid point system (like the old GoGuides, where editors engaged in a frenzy of submittals, approvals, etc., to move up the ladder).
I have applied to edit a small cat three times and haven't even been given the courtesy of a "yes" or a "no". Are there really humans there?
The cat I apply for is the My Little Town / Business and Economy. There are only 8 sites listed.
True, the idea to edit a cat came about because I can't get in... or even a reply. But that's only what made it apparent that they sure need volunteers, really badly and right now.
I have no competition in my little town and almost certainly never will (town is too small for two of us, and I'm already established), so no evil motives!
If I had a selfish reason to become an editor, it is just so I could brag that I am part of something neato. But, it's really not so neato anymore, is it?
we only filter the dirtiest of dirty words
Your application must have provoked a rather extreme response, Kimberly... ;)
But seriously, I have this figured out:
All you need in order to become an editor is
1. Altruistic "interest" in the category
and
2. Experience in spotting spam and affiliates
1. Altruistic "interest" in the category
and
2. Experience in spotting spam and affiliates
3. The luck that the meta looking at your application believes 1 & 2, in spite of the fact that the last 50 applicants they viewed were self interested spammers, while at the same time swearing to 1 & 2.
These guys do get jaundiced vetting applications.
We (those who review applications) have been urged by staff to try not to get supercautious about letting Joe/Jane Awful in since it really isn't hard to remove folks who have proven they don't care about the guidelines. We _are_ letting a lot of folks in, though too many never edit and too many others edit only for a little bit and then disappear :(
The problem is that the application is such while it is easy to determine if the editor understands the scope of the category, and are literate from the submitted sites listed, how can it be determined if they really have impure intent? Obviously no dishonst editor is going to announce they plan only on adding their spam, and deleting submissions from competitors. My guess is that the metas have more luck spotting the bad apples after they get in rather than before. They may be able to lie on the application, but they can't fake the logs.
I would concede that this lack of application is probably the greatest problem.
Back in the days when Go editor stats were publically available (and Go was an easy directory in which to get basic editing privileges) only about 1 in 100 signed up editors did any editing on more than 5 sites!
The altruist is the exception rather than the rule :(
If I'm in the widget business I want people around the world interested in widgets, not blodgetts. If I'm in the Martian travel business I want everybody to see the zillions of reasons to go to Mars, not a bunch of crap that motivates them to go to Venus.
And even more than that, I like DMOZ in general because it values quality (the big majority of the time) all around the Internet. I like quality being valued because I deliver good quality. Only people who can't compete quality-wise don't like to see quality rewarded.
Selfish people with junky quality stuff to offer will never "get" DMOZ (nor Google for that matter).
