Volunteers Need Not Apply

A very nice directory too smindsrt. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen your site-sift script on other site directories now - well done.

 

Yep there is no point to apply to DMOZ - they wont accept you.

 

Yeah. So in 50 years or so dmoz will sure be dead as all the editors are dead and no new ones are ever accepted

You might consider thinking before posting. I'm sure there are a lot of unfair things happening and I'm sorry it happened to you.

 

According to the recently released annual report, 4,776 new editors were accepted in 2005.

That's almost 400 new editors every month so there appears to be enough opportunity.

 

Did you not read the same report everyone else read?

According to that there are less DMOZ editors now that at the beginning of last year. So don't try and twist that 4,776 new editors number into something that is great. It clearly is not enough.

 

Impressive numbers, I assume that not all those new editors are busy with QC

 

Number of editors who gave up on DMOZ: 5032 .

That's 420 editors leaving every month.

 

This thread is discussing the fact that new editors are not accepted and need not apply. Clearly, the fact that 4,776 new editors were accepted last year is evidence that new editors are being accepted.

Yes the total number of editors did decrease in 2005, but there was opportunity for 4,776 new editors who were accepted after they applied. Editors will continue to be accepted in 2006, but they will need to apply.

No twisting of the numbers or the facts.

 

In the context of this thread that is certainly true. Even so, it is a huge turnover. And the loss of 5000 out of 8000 in a single year is a dreadful state of affairs. Plus the raw figures don't reflect the breakdown - the loss of a number of senior editors, those who clock up thousands of edits. Looking at the current meta list I notice there are a reasonable handful who haven't logged in so far in 2006 as well plus some more missing names of significance since I departed.

The problem is simple mathematics. The listings have increased by 5% and the editors have decreased by 3%. More and more resources have to be devoted to maintenance rather than building. Alternatively the quality starts to slide dramatically. The last two categories I went to purely at random were in a dreadful state, it almost tempted me back to fix them - thankfully jeanmanco is still there to deal with QC reports.

The project should be increasing in editor numbers but an average of 10,000 new editors have been accepted annually since it was conceived. In 2005 that increase was less than half the annual average and significantly less than a half of recruitment at its peak.

You can also see that average annual growth in numbers of sites is 670,000 yet in 2005 it was less than a third of that average. That isn't to say productivity is declining but it would indicate the increasing amount of time devoted to maintenance.

IMO the Admins have some very serious nettles to grasp to turn things around. I just hope that trend starts to reverse and soon.

 

It is very easy to turn things around, start to put procedures in place that makes corruption very difficult and you can increase the number of editors very rapidly without any risk to decrease quality or accepting people who are only interested in their own agenda.
Unfortunately we all know that stopping corruption does not serve the goals of those who have the real power in DMOZ.

 

Not sure how many times it has been explained that corruption is serious but not the major problem that so many believe it is, and that there are some excellent controls in place that balance the need for zero tolerance of abuse with the editing model as it is. The suggestions you have previously made would alter the entire nature of the project and be impractical to implement, not to say whollly disproportionate to the scale of the problem. I don't think that would address editor retention issues.

 

In all fairness, as I love to play devil's advocate, it could be just as easy to say that a chunk of those 5000+ that left DMOZ during the year were shown the door and didn't resign. Another possibility is that some may have been inactive and hence removed. OPD would never disclose either fact, nor would I expect them to, but the possibility remains.

Now, even having said all of that, it's just as likely a possibility that of the 4776+ accepted, that they came on board under a false premise, because an editor or catall brought them in, etc.

The number of in / out does not change my position that DMOZ turns away willful, capable and ethical editors; again, just playing fair on the numbers mentioned.

 

If the corruption is not a problem then why DMOZ does not accept all the editors applications and get enough people to fix this mess?
Why should any volunteer be denied? Who can be worse than present people who are editors?

 

That "annual report" is anything but a glowing report of DMOZ accomplishments, any way you slice it.

See http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=52879 .

 

If there are safeguards in place as some dmoz editors have said to prevent corruption than why should anyone worry about hiring on new editors to handle categories they have an interest in? Is there a system in place or not?

 

I was bombed with red rep from editors for just suggesting to establish procedures that can stop corruption, it is quite easy. One of the editors was honest (I don't remember who) and posted that such suggestions are not acceptable to editors.

 

You know I just came up with a great idea or at least I think it is good. Why not have dmoz hire on assistance volunteers to editors. These people would be hired on to assist a editor in a category that they are familar with. I wont go into long detail just just but to throw this around a little.

Just like in real estate, you get an agent who is brand new and doesnt know the ropes. These people sometimes are hired on as assistances. They spend time doing the experienced agents dirty work and learning the ropes.

These assistances can not list sites without the approval of the assistances description and editorial review by that primary editor for the category. Once the assistant does all this it is placed in a folder for the primary editor to approve. Once these assistance have spent time being mentored by the experienced editor they get their own category related to their area of experience. Just food for thought.

 

We do have that - it's called "Greenbuster" - http://www.dmoz.com/guidelines/greenbuster/ - it works pretty much like your assistant position, but you have to be an editor in order to apply for the position.

 

That was me and it had nothing to do with it being unacceptable because it would eliminate corruption but unacceptable because it would change the entire concept and culture plus the problem of corruption is not widespread so why should the vast majority of editors suffer draconian curbs on their volunteer activities because a tiny minority are abusing the system. They wouldn't suffer, they would leave in droves. And retaining editors is already a much bigger issue facing the project. Abusive editors are the terrorists of the project. You don't respond to terrorism by removing the freedoms of the innocent majority - that path leads to tyranny.

New editors can handle categories they have an interest in provided they appear objective in how they do so. However, there are categories that are patently unsuitable for new editors as they are ridden with particularly clever spam or have a history of abuse or are simply too large or complex for a new editor, editor skills being more important in most cases than subject knowledge. Real estate categories for example are not good places to start as they are known to be spam magnets and a real estate agent should start elsewhere to prove their editor capabilities and gain trust of other editors that they will not abuse their editing rights.

It is being selective in accepting editor applications that is the initial containment in the anti-corruption effort.

 

With so much corruption and incompetence, DMOZ has obviously failed in this regard.