dissapointed in DMOZ

Shygirl, I believe you're wrong and you should calm down, then go back and read whatever made you so angry again.

The last time you accused me of giving you red rep I didn't think I had but wasn't 100% sure so I didn't argue the point. However, this time I am 100% sure I didn't give you red rep because now it will show on our own rep if we do. In fact, I know I gave you green rep and I signed it so please go look again and check your colors.

Whether you care to admit it or not the opening poster accused shopping editors of wrongdoing. As a shopping editor I had every right to defend myself. That's not a flame.

ADDED: Shygirl, I just double checked. I did not give you red rep. Here's a screen shot:

 

I think the number of editors at present time is about 500-1000 and the question is how low can it get if this situation continues but I suppose the low number of editors is no problem for few that benefit from the present situation.

 

Gworld, what do you base this number on? It conflicts with everything I see. Check with Eddy and you can get accurate numbers.

 

Did annie just out her bookie?

 

Boy, I can't seem to say anything right in this thread, lol.

Eddy is a tool we have that gives us editor stats. We can see who and how many editors edit in whatever branch we want to check. We can also check the whole directory with Eddy and it will tell us when each individual editor last edited and how long they've been with ODP.

 

Hey! That's a bit rough!

I think your work cleaning up Adult is having a negative effect on you, annie.

 

That seems like an accurate number to me. The number of editors with active logins is probably around 7000. (I haven't checked in a while, so it may have changed.)

 

Ish, can you explain this? Why would the number of editors at present time differ from the number of editors with active logins? Isn't it the same?

 

The difference is people who could edit and people who are editing.

There are roughly 7,000 active editor accounts right now, but I bet less than 1,000 are "active".

[added]

I checked, the number is a little over 7,500 for active accounts.

Over half of them have edited in the past 30 days.

 

A few general questions to all of you
1) How many edits/listings do these 1000 editors complete in a day? (approx)
2) How many listing requests do you get per day? (approx)
3) Dont you have a certain time-period for inactiveness after which an editor is discharged off his duties or atleast given a warning about his inactivity??

 

1) No idea - but it could probably be worked out via the information in the last ODP Status Report - at least, you could work out how many sites were added and probably how many were removed. That's not an accurate number of 'edits", but it would be a start. Also, 1,000 is just a guess and depends on what you consider 'active" to be. Around 4,000 editors have done at least one edit in the past 30 days - but if it was just one edit, I wouldn't call that active...

2) No idea - I bet someone knows though.

3) If an editor doesn't make any edits for four months, they time out.

[added]

http://research.dmoz.org/publish/chris2001/odp_reports/report_200603.htm

that's for the month of March. I wouldn't even guess on how many edits were made, or did you only mean how many sites were added?

If it's just how many sites were added, there were two drops in the month of march at about 2,500 sites each, so add 5,000 to that number. Plus, a lot of sites are manually removed by editors. I think a very safe estimate would be around 2,500 for that. So, I think a fair (and most likely low) guess for the number of sites added in march would be around 30,000.

That, of course, doesn't even include the quality control work that happens (insert minstrel and gworld "AFFILIATE DOORWAY", pedophilia, child porn comment here).

 

My numbers are based on reality, not the number of editors in the reports that is about 7500. From the 500-1000 that are editing, you should minus the number of new editors that are only joined to add their own web site and after cleaning up their category with 20-50 listing which was there previously are stuck and can not do any editing. Also minus the number of senior editors that are not active anymore and just show up to keep their account and you will end up with a number even much lower than 500.

 

Instead of this wouldnt it be better that the number of edits should be fixed for a particular period or maybe 50% edits on the listing requests in the editors category/ies?

 

What about editors that have categories with 10s of thousands of submissions?

 

Do you mean the big boobs category?

 

lol, I was thinking more like people that edit large regional categories.

 

Why dont you try and increase the workforce, its the only thing logic suggests... - with so many editors idle how is it gonna help DMOZ. If you have heavy workload either you increase the workforce or stop taking extra work instead of giving an excuse about having thousands of listings to look into for certain categories.

 

I would love to see the workforce increase, as I'm sure practically every other editor would. We've been around 7,000 editors for quite awhile - there's a limit to how many people want to volunteer and I think we've reached that limit for the time being.

 

The problem is that if everybody is accepted as an editor and because of the time involved to get listed in DMOZ then the majority who joins wants to abuse the directory and list his/her own site and delete the competition.
In order to stop this from happening and in the same time to be able to accept new editors, there is a need to improve procedures, so it makes it much harder to abuse. But if the procedures are changed, the people who are already inside and are abusing the system, will not be able to continue also. Therefore, procedures are not changed and as long as there is not proper procedures, new editors can not be accepted fast enough.

 

I agree. That is another part of the problem.