When you bring up why I left, you bring up why I left... When you give false reasons as to why I left, I have to correct them. And again, you skip any issues brought up to once again brush what has happened under the rug. So what is worse, standing up for a friend, or ignoring and/or supporting what the true cause of the pain was/is? You certainly seem to support what happened to her, is that really any worse then me standing up for her? You are the one that continuously says I left for reasons other then I did, which in turn causes me to give the real reason I left. Is it my fault you can not accept a truth? Sadly, it is you that bring her up not I...so please, desist yourself.
If I quit because I got my site listed, then you support molesting children because you uphold the directory that supports such things. This is your logic not mine. I stopped calling you a pedophile when you asked, now explain why you can't return the favor. The facts of the matter are, you do not molest children and I did not leave because I got my site listed. If you disagree with one, then you must disagree with the other, or you must declare yourself a hypocrite and a liar.
Hahaha. Your crying troll. There is no crying in a forum. I pick my nose. I am bad. I was booted. I am a gangsta. You can call me whatever pleases you honey. Just don't cry and pretend. Waaahhhhh.
Now there is a worthwhile post. Thank you for sharing, backing up your points, staying on topic, and answering the questions posed. Kudos to you, and regardless of what your signature says, you ARE a spokesman for the ODP and what you are saying, IS childish. Or are you going to say I am wrong and that you are a responsible and mature member here?
This kind of attitude by revr gets away with it in the ODP guidelines. This is how they picture themselves as high standards. Good people for the Republic of the Web. Nice example revr.
And the ex-editor did not attempt to tell you how the figure is made up and carefully uses the word "around". This debate was about the figure posted on the front of the directory, why that figure is used and the difficulty in assessing how many "active" editors we really have.
This thread becomes so serious...of course that we will enjoy so much hundreds of editors like Q ... BTW, never our goal was to list more sites. Yes, there are inner "competitions" between Regional cats, but they are more informative, than real ones. We are still wanting quality edits. And qualified editors. But we also spend a lot of time in removing and re-editing bad ones...
If it's not the goal to list more sites... What is the point in needing, or even wanting more quality edits? In fact, without listing sites, what is a quality edit?
Quality edits - my take on it. I don't know if you got a different impression during your time as editor, Q, but this is often talked about on the internal forums. If I have the following: 1. a site I just found that is not listed, 2. a site that has been suggested by someone and is awaiting review 3. a site that is listed by has a poorly-written description 4. a site that is listed that I just found redirects to another site 5. a site that is listed that is broken the order I will edit them in is 5, 4, 3, 1, 2 Note that the first three do not result in a new listing. I would rather have what *is* listed be as correct as possible than fill the directory up and ignore the "broken" listings. I will add something I found myself over a suggestion simply because (without looking at the suggestion) the odds are good that the site I have found is more likely to be a legitimate business than the suggested site. Sad, but true. The ODP gets criticized enough that it is full of broken links - quality editing is all about trying to do as much as possible, given the time I have to volunteer for the project, to improve that situation. Yes, I would like the directory to be as full as possible of all sorts of relevant links, correctly described. I will take quality over quantity any time, though. If the ODP were a listing service, then the order would be very different. But, being what it is, and what it tried to be, this ordering makes the most sense to me. Hope this clarifies.
Sure does, you included two points (#1 & 2) that involve listing new sites, so yeah, I can fully agree with your answer. I only questioned not listing sites as not being a goal for a 'directory' as that does seem like the reason the ODP even exists...as a listing of sites. I do not mean to imply that ALL sites need to be listed, or that every site out there even deserves a listing. Only that listing sites should be on the list...so thank you for putting it on there.
I think you have to take budalata two comments together and as they were in one post I would expect anyone trying to seriously read the post to take it that way and not try to drive wedges between them. She is saying that the objective is not to list more sites, we could o that easily, the objective is to list quality sites and we have no qualms in removing sites that go 404, as you Q will know. As alucard says, most of us will work on the sites that are already listed that need attention. I think I have forgotten how long it is since I looked at submissions, we do seem to have 404's etc cropping up faster than mushrooms in a dark cupboard. Indeed in Regional recently when a long term number target was suggested, the result was to agree that we needed more to work on structure and ensuring quality sites. So our objective is not to increase simply numbers. And the context of the post was just that.
The third sentence doesn't belong AT ALL. Neither does the pronoun "Our". There are other problems with the first two sentences as well. If the category really has a lot of listings that bad, it's probably not getting a lot of editorial attention these days, so don't hold your breath for your particular submission to get attention.
To CurtMonash, I'm not too worried about it anymore. From the sounds of it, ODP would be waste of time, whether you are trying to get your site listed, or become an editor. Also, whether the reports are true or not, there have been an large amount of posts about inner-problems that ODP has with its editors not getting along with others, even sounds like a fraternity during rush week with all the examples of unethical HR practices. I think they need to clean that issue up before worrying about the broken links or finding new ones. And I am sure that all the editors that do their job to the 'T' get sucked up into all this bad press. Thanks for all the input everyone has given in the thread.