Can DMOZ editors edit other catagories?

Just wondering if DMOZ editors can edit other catagories.

 

From what I've read, you can only edit your own categories. As you gain more trust and respect, you expand into more categories. Also, it should also be much easier to get a site accepted if you're an editor, even if it's not your category. You network with other editors, post on the boards. It's all about who you know, in dmoz, just like anything else.

 

Most of them can't. Meta editors, for example, can edit in any category.

 

Like Sharpseo said, as an editor gains trust, he/she can move up the ranks.

http://dmoz.org/erz/editors/editor-types.html

* Category Editors
* Greenbusters
* Meta Editors
* Editall/Catmv Editors
* Editall Editors
* Category Moderators
* Category Editalls

 

That ought to read

 

Me and a few guys I know got our sites deleted from DMOZ by an editor that had nothing at all to do with our category.

Guess he wanted to make space for his sites

 

If you have any prove for your ridiculous accusation just file an abuse-report.

Or maybe these sites were just not worth listing or they were breaking the DMOZ guidelines.

 

Nah, I am happy as can be without DMOZ, only newbies think DMOZ is so important and that a listing there is a matter of life or death

 

I have reported years of abuse before and nothing got done. I posted a public message and someone helped me out. Not an accusation. A fact.

 

I dunno where the idea comes from that editors are tolerant of abuse. It is the most dispicable thing an editor can do, like someone you thought of as a friend thieving from you.

What appears to be abuse, even to me and I have reported suspicions with the benefit of access to internal logs, sometimes isn't what it appears. Disappearance of existing listings can be down to quality control activities; the Guidelines have changed and tightened up over the years. Or it may have been done under a reorganisation - sites reallocated elsewhere but not yet relisted. And so on. You also sometimes get zealous new editors who will mistakenly remove sites for ugly design or a single broken link - they will get picked up fairly quickly and re-educated. Rarely, because the hurdles to become an editor are that high, an abusive editor gets through and does damage. We want to know about them. In the trawl half a dozen innocent editors may get reported for things that are merely suspicions and will be exonerated or sometimes given some advice on errors. No-one but meta editors know who has been reported for what, what was found in the investigation, and why the decision was taken. The result is always available - the editor is purged or isn't.

It is frustrating when you are convinced you have found a wrongdoer and the report comes back resolved and the editor is still there. It means the evidence was not there to summarily execute the editor's account. Reasons why editors are removed are confidential because if you tell 'em how they got caught then if they manage to get back in they will be more careful next time. It gives clues to the abusers who have not been caught how to cover their tracks. If you take a borderline case where the evidence isn't conclusive enough to justify a guilty verdict you can bet your life every move the editor makes will be carefully watched for a very long time. If you told them they had been accused and found not guilty then you are giving them clues that they have to be more careful which makes it more difficult to trap them. And why would you tell the accuser and not the accused?

DMOZ can't win on this one really. The systems are confidential to protect the innocent and to defend the directory against abusers by giving them information they can use to better hide their tracks. I would guess there are legal considerations there too. You can't remove editors on flimsy or non-existent evidence, or circumstantial assumptions, or because someone thinks the editor is their competitor.

Abuse reports can only be dealt with by meta editors. Unless the report reveals actual abusive editing they cannot remove the editor. A public report of a quality control issue in a category can be dealt with by anyone with the rights and be fixed even if no editor abuse is involved.

Naming editors on categories causes people to think that named editor is responsible for whatever happens in that category and often nothing can be further from the truth. I have tracked abuse within categories I am named on. By previous editors, by editors beneath me on the tree, in one case by a removed meta editor.

One case that disappointed me was that one editor I was convinced was corrupt survived without any apparent consequences. 18 months later a lot of new evidence came to light and this time he was removed. Very very quickly. I have to accept that first time around the evidence simply was not strong enough to take the ultimate action. We got him in the end though. If you are going to make a report you must be very thorough and precise in the evidence offered and accept that behind the scenes the evidence may show the editor you suspect may have been nowhere near the evidence you are citing.

Sorry pagode but I wish you had left out "ridiculous". Someone has spotted something potentially suspicious. They should be thanked for spotting it and encouraged to report it. As you say there may be legitimate reasons for the site removals and a meta editor should go check. If the removals were legitimate the case will show as resolved and closed. If not someone will get re-educated or removed.

Please do report quality control issues in a category in the Resource Zone - this does not constitute an accusation of abuse against an editor though that could be an outcome in a few cases. But please do realise that this is what most real problems actually are - quality control not abuse. Jumping to conclusions that it is evidence of corruption is something that really winds editors up but we should just ignore that bit.

 

I put in this word for very good reasons.
I'm sick of all these people calling "abuse" just because their site isn't listed or is removed. Certainly if you know that these people themself know very well why the sites are removed. They are just angry that we caugth them cheating DMOZ guidelines.

 

Do you know for certain why the sites were removed? Quality control 99% probability, editor error maybe, abuse possibly. We don't know where this problem, if it is a problem, lies and that doesn't help us. Speculation that abuse is always involved is something editors have lived with for years. We know that in the vast majority of cases it is untrue but because of the need for confidentiality we are restricted in how we can prove that. The important thing is we know.

And yes webmasters get angry when their site is removed and, you know, sometimes they have been caught cheating. But other times it is simply that the Guidelines have changed, that standards for inclusion have risen and the site hasn't kept up, or something else that relates to policy within DMOZ. They do not understand why their site has been removed - it has been listed for 4 years, why is it removed now? Because 4 years ago your site was the most informative on the subject. Today your site has very little content relative to others and it no longer qualifies to keep a listing. Much of what we do in terms of rejecting sites is not to do with clear breaches of guidelines but in making a judgement whether the site contains sufficient quality original information relative to others on the same subject.

My opinion only but the effect of putting in "ridiculous" is to imply we dismiss abuse. Four sites were removed and the questioner may not know why. It is not ridiculous for the questioner to suggest abuse may have happened. It is for us to check that out. If you investigate and find it was simple quality control and no abuse apparent then you can say so and if the questioner carries on with the accusation then it becomes "ridiculous".

As is every editor. The answer is to educate as to why they might be mistaken by explaining the processes. As an editor of some experience I have seen things I would swear blind were abuse and reported them and I turned out to be mistaken. My belief wasn't ridiculous, I just didn't have access to all the facts. If you are on the outside you have zero in the way of facts and it is not surprising if some draw incorrect conclusions.

 

Editors really get zero preferrential treatment from their fellows (ignoring abusive cases)? I always assumed that because you volunteered for the organization, you would at least get expedited reviews.

How to editors go about submitting their own new sites (into a category other than their own)? Is it done through the regular submit link?

From what you and SarahK say, it sounds like editors are instructed to treat other editors' site submissions exactly the same as others. If that's actually how it happens, I'm impressed. I would think private messaging to fellow editors would be common, ie "Hi Barry, would you mind taking a look at my new battle insects site? I think it would go well in the category you edit, nature/animals/insects/war."

 

No preferential treatment, and asking for an expedited review will get you flamed so bad you will need a hospital with a burns unit. Persist and get reported for abuse.

They can use the external link or an internal move from their personal category (called Bookmarks). Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Most editors would not use the external link to move sites around regardless of whose it is so it is not conferring any advantage. If anything suggesting a site using the internal move method would make it look like it was mis-submitted elsewhere.

We don't have any PM system such as you see here on our internal forums. There is the feedback system available via our profiles that are open to allcomers. An editor making such a request is risking flame/abuse report by the recipient. An editor complying with such a request is also risking flame/abuse report by a meta editor. In 3 years I have received only a couple such requests and didn't comply. Plus kept a very close eye on the sender.

 

Your assumption would not be correct. All sites are reviewed on their own merit, no matter who suggested it. Every editor follows the editorial guidelines, available online for all to read.

Yes, it can be done that way. Editors can submit internally too, which absolutely does not entitle any preferential treatment.

This would be the correct assumption.

 

Your previous message does not reflect this sentiment favorably. Why would you bring forth an allegation without any substantiation?

 

My assumption was related more to the speed of the review, than the merit and quality of the site. "at least an expedited review" is how I phrased the statement to which you responded. I don't think most editors put sub-par sites in dmoz, but I could certainly imagine a lot of them wanting their sites to at least be reviewed in a timely fashion.

For standard editors with a few categories: Assuming that it's not your category, is there no way to expedite the process other than applying to edit the category you want to submit to? You just wait in line with everyone else? I'm somewhat cynical by nature, forgive me.

Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions, seriously. I just find it hard to imagine being a volunteer for an organization, yet having to wait a year or longer sometimes to get a review of one of your sites. The checks and balances explained here by Brizzie were very informative.

 

Editors don't have ways to speed up the review of sites suggested by them in categories they can not edit.
Asking for such a favor to another editor will be seen as bad editorship.