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.
Just like communism - a noble idea, but is overly corrupted, due to human nature.
I think what the poster of this thought was saying, was not equating DMOZ with communism, but saying that ideals could become devalued.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." is fine in theory, but falls down in practice. All pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others tends to be the Orwellian outcome.
Perhaps many of the posters here do not remember the problems that occured in DMOZ in its younger days - when a WebmasterWorld moderater was the self styled "most hated woman on the web" and "The Lord of the Flies" culture ran rampant at DMOZ. (interestingly, when checking my facts I saw that the book is out in May ""The Rise and Fall of the Mythical Open Directory Project," - looking forward to reading it)
I am afraid you guys that portray altruism as paramount at DMOZ are just wrong.
Like communism the theory is fine. The idea is you get "expert" editors to cover their bit of expertise. But in practice, "management" is done by a group that are not necessarily qualified for managing an enterprise as large as DMOZ.
I do not wish to attack current metas at DMOZ (could have fooled me, they say), but am pointing out that it's not all is as hunky dory as some posters would make out
Surely you jest? JoeAnt at the moment is so small that it is really too early to comment. Zeal is OK, but their biggest problem is that they have too many deeplinks, and really minor sites listed.
Perhaps you should clarify what you mean here. Although, in a Google search indeed someone is releasing such an anti-ODP book. I am unaware of the details you refer to.
>I am afraid you guys that portray altruism as paramount at DMOZ are just wrong.
I disagree. At least in the sense that motivations tend not to be altruistic. The reverse would be implying corruption is rampant. Contrary to myth that many believe, the road to riches ain't being a corrupt ODP editor. The truth is as a whole we ain't that important.
>Like communism the theory is fine. The idea is you get "expert" editors to cover their bit of expertise. But in practice, "management" is done by a group that are not necessarily qualified for managing an enterprise as large as DMOZ.
Such may happen with volunteer organizations. Wanna pony up the cash for a lot of expert, paid managers?
It looks as if I am not the only person that believes that. The cavalry may arrive soon, or I may have to wait till May ;)
The ODP may not be perfect, but I don't feel that things are that seriously bad. And, with some searching I did confirm that such a book will be published, and apparently by a WebmasterWorld moderator. Looks like WebmasterWorld may become hostile territory for an ODP editor to post at.
ODP bashing seems to be a perpetual sport. Don't let it get to you. You know the quality of what you and the editors around you are doing. I wouldn't worry about anything else.
With the exception of keeping to the topic of the thread, please.
I don't know where mister dxm gets his facts. I believe he is either speculating or synthesizing various statements and bits of "advice" he may have read all over the net. There is no trend towards accepting folks for small, low-spam areas that I am aware of. Those who review applications tend to be extra-cautious about applications to spammy areas, but I don't think you can say that standards are lower for non-spammy areas.
you guys that portray altruism as paramount at DMOZ are just wrong.
Actually altruism is quite common at the lower levels. Unfortunately it seldom lasts long.
"The Lord of the Flies" culture ran rampant at DMOZ..
It may not be as rampant, but it is still there.
Looks like WebmasterWorld may become hostile territory for an ODP editor to post at...
Uhm, don't look now, but nearly any webmaster forum you go to has a lot of anti-ODP threads.
Which in itself brings up a question - How did ODP single handedly manage to make so many long term enemies and detractors? Why does ODP get more flak than all other search engines and directories combined?
... The Shadow knows...
Because ODP rejects spammy crapola vomitous dreck (and also more benign non-original content). Search engines don't, and neither do PFI directories.
<You can wait weeks before getting such a softball...>
DMOZ: Getting More Editors
A modest proposal to cut the backlog
Pretty please.
DMOZ: Getting More Editors
A modest proposal to cut the backlog
Pretty please.
OK. In spite of its wanderings, the thread has explored some good ideas.
Personally, I think the best one was to explicitly add a messaage to the bottom of categories that would accept editors applying for the first time.
Perhaps someone else could summarise other points in conclusion.
How did ODP single handedly manage to make so many long term enemies and detractors? Why does ODP get more flak than all other search engines and directories combined?
As a webmaster of a german SEO forum, I have to follow Anti-ODP-Threads all day and I really don't like that.
There are of course several editors who discriminate their competitors. Given the enormous amount of editors this is hardly surprising. But here comes the real problem: The ODP is really bad in handling complaints about such editors. One editor told me that they will not talk to anyone out there about decisions they made (or didn't made). This kind of "communication" must lead to trouble.
BTW: My reason for leaving the ODP as an editor was that a "higher" editor twice changed a lot of listings in my category without even telling me what he did and why he did this. (No, there were no backlogs in my category.) And of course he had just a little understanding (if any) of the category, because the changes he made were obviously wrong. The editor did not answer my mails and my complaint about this editor was also never answered.
If the ODP has since (this happened two years ago) continued to treat their "staff" like this, I'm not surprised they have problems to find new people doing work for them.
It seems like there is no really visible honcho responsible for the ODP - maybe that's part of the problem. If someone's butt was on the line when things went poorly, perhaps actions might be taken sooner. Even charities have management - the manager(s) must be responsible to a board, and to the public/press. The presence of such an individual might help the hard-working editors, too, who bear the brunt of the criticism rightly directed elsewhere.
If you're talking about a business category, and you have an applicant who is involved in that business, the assumption at DMOZ seems to be that there's automatically a conflict of interest.
So, a lot of categories are left without editors. How are they going to find an editor who knows the subject, when anyone who knows the subject probably has some of their knowledge on a website somewhere?
I would say that there are a lot of folks in that category of "gave up out of frustration." The process seems to be the problem here, but unless DMOZ's leadership is willing to address that, the problem will continue.
Um...kcipton. Like, have you ever heard of a website called dmoz.org before?:
[dmoz.org...]
"Do you have any tips on filling out the "become and editor" application?
"There is no magic formula for creating the perfect application. Your application will be reviewed on a number of unique factors relative to the category in which you applied. In general, applicants should take care to apply to a small, underdeveloped category at first. Generally, applicants who apply for too broad of a category are asked to narrow their focus, and apply for a lower level category."
This bit of "advice" comes direct from the ODP itself.
How did ODP single handedly manage to make so many long term enemies and detractors? Why does ODP get more flak than all other search engines and directories combined?
It's arguably the most important place to get listed, it takes a while to get in, money doesn't move a site to the front of the queue, and people have trouble filling out the app and getting accepted so it can be frustrating when it's about the only online directory/organization that works that way.
We're all used to being able to break out the credit card and get what we want.
Identifying good categories for new editors might dramatically increase the number of editors getting accepted, eliminate apps to categories where they won't be accepted anyway, and speed the review process for everyone.
Um...kcipton. Like, have you ever heard of a website called dmoz.org before?
I'll try to be polite and point out that as a meta editor, kctipton has a far better idea of what's going on with applications than you do.
Just because we advise applicants to apply to small, undeveloped categories doesn't mean we accept a disproportionate amount of applicants to those types of categories as opposed to others.
As a meta editor myself I can tell you most assuredly that Keith is 100% right.
1) New editor applications are relatively unlikely to be accepted for categories where significant prior experience is required to deal with regular spam submissions or affiliate links. Hence new editors are advised to apply for small categories in less spam-prone areas of the directory - a regional locality is an excellent example of a good starting point but not the only option.
2) However, the same stringent guidelines are adhered to in accepting new editor applications regardless of which cat is being applied to.
I think rfgdxm1 was alluding to 1) whereas kctipton and rafalk were mainly referring to 2). I'm not convinced that you're entirely at odds with one another.
However, as I've mentioned on this forum before, junior ODP editors should be careful not to speak for the ODP - that generates this kind of awkwardness. Equally, non-editors should be wary of what advice they take to be 'gospel truth' about the ODP and what is a relatively less informed opinion (perfectly valid, but just an opinion, not necessarily backed up by hard facts) from a regular board poster with access to the internal ODP editor forums. Meta editors have access to every area of the ODP both in editing and administration, hence usually provide the most balanced and informed view. If you're not a meta editor then you don't have any access to any hard facts about acceptance of new editor applications. rfgdxm1 is a fairly new editor in a pretty limited area of the ODP although sometimes he gives the impression of being more important than that, partly due to his impressive number of posts here.
Hope that makes things a bit clearer. :)
You wrote:
. . . most who apply to small, non-spammy cats get approved as editors.
Which is neither true, nor is it a reflection of the advice given on the DMOZ website. Applicants are encouraged to apply to small, non-spammy categories, however saying that most applicants who apply to such a category are accepted is simply not true.
regarding the idea of taking off the 'Volunteer to be an editor' link. I'm sure it doesn't take that much time to deny an application, and the important thing to remember is that wannabe editors have to submit three appropriate links for the category they are applying to edit. *This is an excellent source of quality links.* The primary purpose of the ODP isn't to assist fledgling editors or get your pet category in line, it's to build the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web, quality links from aspiring editors are a big asset in this regard and they will stay in the Unreviewed pile until someone granted the authority to make them live or delete them comes along.
One of the things I notice about DMOZ criticism is that it always wants to complicate the simple principles of the ODP. As an ODP editor in a category where I have a conflict of interest, I solve most of the dilemmas that preoccupy others in fora across the globe simply by asking myself "Is the Directory well-served by the action I'm about to take?" i.e. does it further the progress of the largest, most comprehensive human-edited directory of the Web? If the answer is yes, I do it, if it's no, I go complain about how we should raze the ODP and make it anew in the image of JoeAnt...just kidding, if it's bad for the Directory I DON'T DO IT, and I get on with my life.
How difficult is this really?
Exactly. I never meant to suggest that applications for small, non-spammy categories that were barely literate, and the submitted sites were inappropriate, would be accepted.
>However, as I've mentioned on this forum before, junior ODP editors should be careful not to speak for the ODP - that generates this kind of awkwardness.
No editor is allowed to speak for the ODP itself. Only the ODP staff can do that. As for ODP policies, anything that any editor states about them can only be their own interpretation. The only official sources for ODP policy is that which is posted on the site, or that stated by the paid staffers.
>If you're not a meta editor then you don't have any access to any hard facts about acceptance of new editor applications.
I did qualify that with the preface "from what I have read...", which is different from stating "I have reviewed the actual statistics, and those are...". I was barely paying attention when I wrote and edited that because I consider this such an irrelevant point. I was merely trying to emphasize that applications to small, non-spammy categories have a better chance of approval, which is consistent with what is on the ODP website. As for someone who applies and gets turned down, it really would make little difference to them if approval rate for a category like they applied for was 51.72% or 36.85%. As for whether any specific application gets approved, presumably factors such as the exact meta who reviews it, etc. likely is relevant. And, it ain't like anyone is making book here on the chances of a specific ODP editor application being approved. ;)
The guidelines, from the editors' guidelines that describe how sites should be classified and described ( dmoz.org/guidelines ) to the meta-editors' guidelines describing how applications should be reviewed ( dmoz.org/metas.html ), are all publicly available. (I'm presently logged on as an editor, but I believe these are the publicly accessable URLs. Let me know if they're not.)
Now, it could be the second applicant had other flaws, and it was simply easier to point out the flawed listings than to say, "Your writing was terrible, you had four spelling errors, and I could detect no evidence of brain activity in your submittals." Or, maybe not - maybe a busy meta glanced at the sites, saw that two of the sites didn't technically fit, and hit the "reject" button.
Having managed volunteers in the past, I know getting them to change behavior and do things the way YOU want them done can be like herding cats, but I think DMOZ needs to get its metas thinking more like mentors and less like quality control inspectors when reviewing editor apps.
That is, if an applicant looks like he or she has potential, i.e., good grammar and spelling, evidence of thought process, etc., it would be well worth the meta's time to coach the applicant around whatever stumbling block prevents immediate acceptance. In the case cited above, for example, a message that said, "Sorry, two of the sites you submitted didn't fit the category because ____, please submit two more," might well result in a new editor. Ditto for applicants who have picked the wrong category to start with - a few seconds spent guiding them to a more likely spot might pay big dividends for the ODP.
Would a bit of mentorship take time? Probably, but if qualified new editors could be added at a faster pace, it would reduce the overall work level and backlog.
I'm sure there are already metas who work exactly this way, but from the comments we hear from applicants, there are clearly some who view themselves more as gatekeepers than mentors. Many unsuccessful applicants seem to have only the vaguest clue as to why they were rejected. Personally, I'm quite certain that my first rejection (probably a couple of years ago) was category related and NOT due to the quality of my submissions, but I received no encouragement, no suggested alternative, etc. At the time, it all seemed very arbitrary, because the category had the infamous "needs editor" message and I was quite certain my submissions were good. I know more about the system now, but it took me a long time before I tried again. Had I received a note saying, "Nice job, but you applied to a category that won't work for you because..." I might have reapplied in a day or two. Mentorship...
