ODP Report for February 2006

It doesn't actually help anything, either, does it?

You guys have a huge PR problem. Do you think that helps?

 

But that's not true. For example there is an editor in a lower category, who makes maybe one edit every couple of months - sometimes a little more. Those couple of edits that he makes are edits that I don't have to make. If I want to, I can go into the category he edits and edit there also. If someone else wants to, they can apply for the same category that he edits.

Even tho the bottom of the page doesn't say "volunteer" - the top still has the "become an editor" link. If the applicant shows that he/she can contribute to that particular category, the fact that there is already an editor isn't stopping them from being approved.

 

Are you sincerely trying to defend the policy? Are you really impressed with an editor who has so little interest that that's all they can muster for the task? Do you really find that acceptable?

Or are you just doing the usual knee-jerk defend DMOZ policy no matter what thing?

 

I believe it does - take for example a normally active editor, one who has thousands upon thousands of edits, and real life intrudes. For some reason - extended vacation, huge field problem (military), illness, etc - they couldn't edit for a month (assuming that would be the "new improved" time out time) and timed out - a meta would have to approve their reinstatement. Which would take time away from everything else they do - like new editor apps, editing, projects, etc.

Sometimes even four months isn't enough time - I know of one editor who had this very thing happen, a normally super active editor who had real life intrude and had to be reinstated.

 

I am seriously defending the policy - notice every time I say "one edit every four months" I insert the word "meaningful."

I'm not overly "impressed" with an editor who only edits three times in a year, but as long as those edits are meaningful, I'm not going to say anything bad about it. But I am concerned with the fact that an active editor who is unable to edit for a specific amount of time, be allowed the opportunity to do so, without having to jump through hoops to start editing again after a short period of inactivity. What level of editing impresses me? Any level of editing that accomplishes something.

 

You're obviously easily impressed.

 

minstrel - What do you think the minimum should be and why?

 

Something a lot more frequent than 3 times per year. I expect moderators in forums to sign in and have some activity a minimum of once a week (on average over time). Otherwise, their not participating enough to be useful to the forum.

I would think something along those lines would be appropriate for a directory editor. if you can't manage that, it doesn't make you a bad person. it just makes you a poor editor or moderator.

And as I said earlier, I think you'll find that real world volunteer organizations generally have similar expectations. Indeed, i can't think of any other volunteer activity that accepts a level of activity equivalent to 3 edits a year.

 

I think once a week would be way too much to require.

I could agree to someone averaging one edit a week - but to time out after not editing for a week would be insane. I have 10s of thousands of edits and there are many times that I get busy and cannot sign on for over a week (finals come to mind, as does going on vacation). Metas would have time to do nothing more than reinstate people...

I think a more reasonable requirement would be that you have to do a certain amount of edits in a certain amount of time. For example, 4 edits every 2 months. This would allow for people to take extended time off, but still require them to make some actual contributions.

The only problem would be people that edit very small categories (and have no desire to edit larger categories). It might be nearly impossible for them to edit an average of once every other week as there just wouldn't be anything to edit. I'm sure a work-around could be found though.

 

The better question is, why not let anyone who wants to volunteer to be an editor?
Why try to make DMOZ like a secret society?

 

While we're at it, maybe stores should quit hiring cashiers and just trust people to leave the correct amount of money in a basket by the front door as they walk out...

And the bank should just leave a huge barrel of money at the front door and trust people to pay back what they take...

 

Is this an admittance that there is money to be made from DMOZ and may be some editors already making money out of it?
This is exactly the problem. DMOZ is not about volunteer work anymore and trying to do something good, the only people who seems to be interested to volunteer are the people who are trying to get their own site listed or have some other motivation. Why not the take the element of corruption out of the equation by having a reasonable and clear submission process, so people do not need to become an editor to list their sites and also have procedures in place that editors can not abuse their position. If there is nothing to steal, there will be no thieves and DMOZ can become a REAL volunteer organization.

 

I think if you reread my post I wasn't suggesting otherwise (I said "on average"). I have moderators who need to take time off for personal or professional reasons - I don't dump them immediately. I also don't understand this insistence that reinstatement is so time-consuming for metas - keep a log - if someone "times out" and then returns, just flip the switch to reactivate. I've also done that with moderators.

 

Exactly!

 

That is absurd! Especially if that editor is in a category that is fast paced with many new and useful sites popping up. 3 times a year is pathetic

 

I agree Bama...Roll Tide, but this is the way Dmoz can justify some categories not being updated often, their same line of BS, we are way to busy and it takes 3 years to get a site listed. The real estate category I watch has had 15 changes to it made in the last 8 months, most of those changes were from dead links I reported to Dmoz.

I think it is becoming clearer why sites take so long to get listed and Dmoz is nothing but a directory for editors and editors only. To only be required to list 3 sites a year is a joke. Hell if I was an editors I could list all my sites the first night and then wouldnt have to worry about listing anything else for another year, but by then hell I might retire as an editor...

True Gworld, I think this is one reason Dmoz has the guideline of only 3 sites a year, cause they knew that this would be the objective for most who apply to become editors. Its like any other type of business, its a matter of numbers.

 

Heh, too bad they have so many inactive categories - especially the virtual pets one.

 

How long have you been trying to get into that?

 

Since last year.

 

Wow. That speaks for itself there