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.
Utter rubbish. I haven't seen that much evidence of corruption at the ODP at all. And, if you look at most of the cats and sites listed in the ODP are, they are decidedly non-commercial and there would be no incentive for financial corruption. As for ideological bias (not listing sites that you disagree with), only a small percent of ODP cats is that going to be an issue. And, I don't see much evidence of editors who are being this petty when editing. Most ODP editors do it as a hobby, and because it interests them. The only thing I agree with somewhat that has been stated here is I'm not sure how good the ODP model is when it comes to commercial sites. Are there that many people altrusistic enough to edit such cats? The problem here not being so much these will attract corrupt editors, but that won't attract editors at all. There is a reason why the ODP has a large backlog of greens.
I suppose selfish people will never understand people unlike themselves.
Every DMOZ editor with even a middling amount of seniority edits in categories where they have no commercial interest whatsoever, and do it in utter anonymity as their name is nowhere close to publically associated with it.
Reality check to self-centered, selfish, unfair people... not everybody is like you.
Try not to look at everything from a selfish perspective. The entity that many editors have a "personal interest in" is the ODP! Get it? No I guess not, but try real hard and maybe you'll see that a lot of editors work with the ODP because they have a personal interest in making the ODP a great resource.
I was turned down 3 times before I was given my first category. I was was denied twice for my second category. I was turned down 3 times before I got my third category, a shopping category.
I can't speak for the entire DMOZ directory, but I can say a little about my personal experiences. First of all, there are some very dedicated people, who are doing a wonderful job. It seems apparent they are spending a couple of hours everyday improving the DMOZ directory. This includes approving new editors, approving new sites, and carefully editing titles and descriptions.
I have definitely worked in categories that contain websites that I have an interest. But at the same time, this was an area where I had expertise. Did I approve sites of competitors? Absolutely! I also rewrote some titles and descriptions that needed improvement and approved sites waiting for reviews.
I found that once I started doing some editing, I was actually enjoying improving the category. For example, there are certain rules for writing titles and descriptions that, when followed, help to keep a basic level of fairness for all sites. Titles are supposed to reflect the actual title of the site. Unfortunately, there are aome that contain extra keywords. There are descriptions that contain sales hype rather than a simple unbiased description. Or it could be corrections are needed in punctuation, capitalization or grammer. I actually feel good about correcting these things. I believe searchers will find things easier and have a better experience if they visit one of my categories.
Except in the case of my initial application, I have received some excellent evaluations from other editors. Often I was told I needed to improve in certain areas before I could get another category, and I was given specific examples where I needed improvement. In some cases some editors above me spent at least 15 minutes reviewing my work and making recommendations.
I am learning through my experiences with working on DMOZ that:
1) There are categories that need a lot of work, because they weren't done right the first time.
2) It is important to find editors that will do quality work.
3) Granting priveledges too quickly can have less than satisfactory results. It is better to spend the time evaluating people to let them know where improvent is needed before allowing them to progress to the next level or category.
Keep in mind that DMOZ is made up of volunteers. If you want to see improvement, then join!. If you don't make it the first time, keep trying! There are some wonderful people that will be pleased to help you as others helped them.
This probably has been said many times, but I'll say it again. It behooves you to apply to DMOZ by requesting a small category with no subcategories. When I say small, I mean less than 20 listings. Do not apply in a shopping or business category when starting out. Only after you have proved you have good editing skills will you be considered for these areas.
I actually did edit a small category some years ago but my account has surely been nuked for disuse. I tried to get some other categories back then, but none of them were small enough for my limited experience and I just lost interest in trying to find the little cats just to build up my resume.
This is a lengthy way of saying that if they started up a "cleanup squad" I'd apply for that in a heartbeat. This isn't just altruism, though. I'd get a lot of joy out of squishing spammers like aphids.
You don't have to do a ton of editing, just be consistent. If you don't get approved for a category, don't be afraid to ask what you can do to improve. It does sound like you will need to start over or reactivate your account.
>Reality check to self-centered, selfish, unfair people... not everybody is like you.
Right. If one randomly examines cats at the ODP, not many will show signs of obvious abuse or bias. And, if one randomly checks various editors editing logs (this requires being an ODP editor yourself), not many will look suspicious. While there surely are a few bad apples at the ODP, there aren't that many. And, most probably get weeded out quickly.
That could eliminate the guesswork invloved when deciding what category to apply to initially. It could save meta's time by eliminating applications for categories that are too large.
It could either be a list published somewhere (best case) or something on the bottom of appropriate category pages that indicates, this category needs an entry level editor.
Set the threshold at a total of listed + unreviewed >= 75 and eliminate somw of the hotbed shopping/business categories.
If some group took it over, fixed up the content they could charge for submitting sites. If the site is submited for a fee it should have to live up to the rest of the content; still have slower free submittions. Still offer the rdf dump avalible to everyone. Many people would still add it too thier site because its valueable content.
Also, in categories that contain a site that I have an interest, I requested other editors review my work. In both cases, the editors made some suggestions for improvement, but did not mention my site, which incidentally contained the same title and description it did when I became an editor of the category. There are actually more competing sites since I have reviewed the new site requests. But there are far fewer sold domains and spammy sites that don't even belong in the category.
There may be problems, but there is not a larger human edited directory on the internet. Right now DMOZ may be experiencing some growing pains, but there are definitely people working to make it better. Concerning the porn sites, I'm not seeing very many anymore. Maybe you should become part of DMOZ with that respectable purpose in mind.
From what I have read Laisha, most who apply to small, non-spammy cats get approved as editors.
Hmm...that most certainly was not the case for the first 4 years of the directory, though I suppose things could have changed radically these past few months.
Would a meta please comment?
This is like saying they could put an apple on top of a coffee table. They aren't related. ODP lists quality websites on a wide variety of topics. Submissions are just one way sites get listed. A lot people simply can't get their heads around the idea that the ODP is about making a directory of sites, not being a repository of submissions.
The reason why paid submittion would be good because it can bring much needed money to the directory project.
It would also skew it, YAHOO! turned into a pile of junk filled with all the #1! sites, presumably when it became easier to just list them than argue with everyone about their $299.00.
I suspect it would cost ODP a fortune just to begin accepting paid reviews. They'd probably need new lawyers, payment and billing systems, insurance, customer service people, paid editors - cause lots of those who believe in the free model would leave. It then also becomes an ad directory instead of an informational resource.
In addition, if it went to a paid model and became a business, ODP editors would probably not be able to frequent forums (as ODP editors) or even have anything like resouce-zone because the lawyers would want to make sure nobody said anything that would get the editors or the ODP "business" sued.
Some things and projects in life just aren't about the $$$.
@dvduval - I'm sure an ODP editor or two will see that suggestion. If it's technically doable and they think it will save them time and headaches, maybe it'll become reality.
a list published somewhere (best case) or something on the bottom of appropriate category pages that indicates, this category needs an entry level editor.
This is one of the most sensible suggestions that I have seen for a long time on how to get new editors applying to the right places
If all editors with editing privileges in that category could alter that text, then it could easily be done.
No doubt a passing meta can tell us why it is not practical :(
So would knocking over some liquor stores, but the liquor store idea wouldn't be as negative in terms of the Directory's quality.
>> In retrospect it might not have been a bad idea for some modest review fee being charged for commercial sites. <<
Can you imagine the complaints from people who pay, and then aren't listed?
However, the new words only appear after an edit is made to the category, so it will take quite a while for the message to be seen everywhere.
Particularly in small, unimportant categories that don't have editors... Who says DMOZ's techology isn't top of the line? ;) Seriously, I think the idea of identifying specific categories most suitable for a new editor is an excellent idea, either in the category itself or in some kind of central list. Having gone through the editor application process, I know that it can be confusing. You don't really know if a category flagged as needing an editor is languishing or in fact being well-tended by an editor a level or two up. And a newbie applicant may not know whether a particular category is one that senior editors consider to be innocuous or a spam risk (and hence less suitable for untested editors).
Here's another wrinkle on that idea - if there was reluctance to publicly post such a list, what if a "newbie help wanted" list was maintained privately. When an editor applicant was rejected for a particular category (e.g., too big, already being edited, etc.) but looked like a good candidate otherwise, that applicant could be sent the list of possibilities.
Such a list need not be exhaustive, but it would be good if it included representation from a variety of areas.
Flagging individual cats would still be best, though - it would be easier for editors to flag non-edited small cats in their area than to try to maintain an ever-changing list. Still, a small list of some sort might be handy for newbies who just need to be pointed in a direction.
I like this one very much. Sometimes small and innocuous ideas can have an enormous positive effect, and this one should be fairly easy to implement even within the current system and its resource constraints.
Looks like we have actually triggered some useful thought processes with this thread!
It took them 4 years just to change the "this category needs an editor..."
"Oh, gee, I haven't thought about moss-covered, three-handled widgets in years but now that I see it, I realize I have a whole folder of links from that time I had to get mine repaired."
If the powers that be implement the "entry-level editor" tag, that should make it easy to generate lists like this one. I think everybody wins.
It's a lot more efficient than searching the directory for obscure topics with obscure sites that aren't there!
Lots of good ideas here, unfortunately most of them have been proposed both on public forums and inside ODP forums
That in itself is not sufficient reason for them not to be considered again, particularly with some of the fleshing out that has been done here.
AFAIK, nobody pushed for that until recently. Actually, a better idea is not a "this category needs an entry level editor, but to *turn off* the notice that a category needs an editor in those that we don't want newbies in. The ODP already has the technology to disable that notice in specific cats. This way newbies are unlikely to apply to these cats, and only current editors will.
Show me another directory that is doing more, and with higher quality.
The ODP will never be perfect. Think how long it would take to re-review 4 million web sites; even if there were a hundred people doing it, and taking 5 minutes per site.
That varies. Some cats are in pretty good shape, others are a total mess, and the range is all the way in between.
I would say that Zeal and Joeant are higher quality, but with only about 5% of the quantity they don't get much action.
