Why would someone want to become a DMOZ editor?

Congratulations

 

I'm hoping that you mean me and if you do, many thanks.

 

Kiss the wife and kids goodbye, Snooks, .

 

A truer word was never spoken.
Congratulations on joining, snooks. Great to see another Australian on board, and I hope you really enjoy the experience.

(My first post here, so greetings to a lot of familiar names! )

 

Hi Makrhod.

Thanks for the welcome. Im having a great time looking and learning So much to absorb....wow.

Cheers.

 

At least I'm not the only one with a lot to learn in the near future. It can be fun at times, but also, not so much stressful, just irritating when idiots post expecting their site to be listed. We list useful sites, and are open to suggestions. We don't need to list sites that are suggested. That's two different stories. It's just getting that point across that I'm sure you'll find the most stressful Other than that, welcome aboard (from another ODP n00b)

 

Hi Spiderman.

Being involved gives you a whole new perspective, I must admit that. I have a small cat but I can now understand the time and work involved, simply in organizing and moving sites incorrectly submitted, incorrect descriptions and other such problems.

I can certainly understand when people come here and demand inclusion, why it gets peoples' backs up. They just dont understand the mamoth tasks involved when submissions are not 100% spot on and how much time it takes to correct them, even to consider them for inclusion.

Although I visit here often, I rarely post here, I find it one of the less plesant parts of the forum. There is always an air of friction.......I would rather avoid the stress........I can get that from the kids at home

CHeers Guys.

 

If you were a DMOZ editor,you can list your own sites on DMOZ.

 

That's very true and is fine so long as they aren't treated more favourably than others.

However, new editors start out in quite small categories. It would be unlikely that anybody would own several completely unrelated websites eligible to be listed in the same starter category. (I suppose that it could be a little more likely in small locality categories).

Generally, if websites in common ownership would fit in the same cat, they are related.

We have a publicly stated policy against listing more than one related websites. New editors found contravening it tend to be taken to task rather quickly.

<waves to makrhod >

 

Actually, I agree with the "why would anyone want to become an editor" sentiment. You can make a good contribution merely by using the "suggest url" and "update listing" forms in the way they were intended.

A lot of people complain about junk listings, but how many people actually use the update form to suggest changes?

 

Judging from the area where I edit (UK), very few. My subjective impression is that their number is only a few percent of the new URL suggestions. Most update requests are from website owners/promoters asking that we KW stuff the title/description. The ones from third parties pointing out ones that are broken or have changed focus are pretty rare. Our robots do rather better than that .

Let me stress that anybody can raise an update request, whether or not they have an interest in the website concerned. Update requests show up prominently and most editors give them priority. Feel free to contribute.

(Before anybody has the bright idea of asking us to delist their competitors or redirect them to elsewhere, don't - just don't OK?)

 

Absolutely!
Many people feel they don't have the time to become a regular volunteer (although remember that once you get started, an account remains active with as little as one edit every 4 months), but they still care enough about a particular topic to want to improve that category. It can indeed be frustrating to see that dead or hijacked sites remain listed, or that the category contains sites which obviously belong somewhere else.
Use of the Update feature to identify such problems is greatly appreciated by volunteers, and a valuable contribution to quality control, because although there are a number of automated link checkers, there's just no question that ...

"Humans Do It Better". ​

Note: many people mistakenly use the Abuse Reporting form for these quality issues, but this method should be reserved for cases where there is a specific reason to suspect a particular editor of abusing their position. Link rot and hijacks are hugely unlikely to be the result of a volunteer's deliberate actions, so the correct way of bringing quality control issues to attention is the Update URL feature, or posting in the Resource-Zone thread with this precise purpose: http://www.resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5453

 

Do you mean A** kissing?

 

Er no, I was referring to non-editors helping with quality control in an area they care about, so I can't quite follow the logic of your question. But perhaps it was just a reflexive and rhetorical one.

 

hi mak
enjoying the vacation ?

 

Further proof that there is no evidence of corruption? If a non-editor were to see a sign of abuse, would it not make sense to use the abuse report, rather then update an url that is not theirs? For all an outsider knows it was the editor that added the site, not just time that changed it.

As for pointing people to RZ, that's not sound advice is it? After all, it's no more official then Digital Point. I used to point there and would seemingly always have editors follow my posts telling about the disclaimer at the bottom of the page over there... not to mention, that webmasters are treated like trash there.

 

Yes indeed. That's what it's there for. Which is precisely why I mentioned it.

 

damn I submitted my application as DMOZ editor last week and in three days I got a rejection mail lol...

Ajith

 

Try again Dollarshower. Being an Editor can be a lot of fun.

 

I would become one because then I could charge people to get their sites added as some people are pretty desperate to have their sites on DMOZ