Interesting info about editing and becoming an editor

Want to know about the editing community at ODP or thinking about joining, then the new blog is for you
http://blog.dmoz.org/2007/10/24/what-topic-do-you-care-about/

 

Do you think that I should apply?

Don't they ever get tired of posting the same BS over and over again?

 

Thx for the info.

Will check it out sometimes.

 

Why would you do that? You've been claiming to be an editor all this time, while bashing the Directory. So, no, I don't think you should apply. Known liars are not good candidates to become editors. (It's a trust thing)

For everybody else, it's an opportunity to do something about your complaints by getting in and doing the work yourself, as long as you follow the Guidelines and remain unbiased in your editing. If you don't want to, then you really shouldn't complain about others who do give their free time.

It might take 2 or 3 tries to get it right, which happens to many editors, so don't get all miffed and go stomping off, just fix the problems and reapply.

 

Yeah right, yet another DMOZ lie, I managed to become level 2 editor in matter of days at Skaffe and they even give me (before I even dared to ask) entire Croatia category to populate with websites.

At DMOZ I had to beg for totally outdated category with two websites listed and I suggest three, only to get rejected!??? When I offered to list over 200 websites and totally reorganize another category I get removed!

Only possible reason for DMOZ to be looking for new editors is so that metas get new people to abuse and remove.

 

A note to those interested in applying. If you have a small edit count you will be treated like a complete n00b and will be more or less shunned in the internal forums by the majority (note, I said majority, there are a small handful of nice people out there).

Inside of DMOZ it's all about the size of your edit, and if it's not 5 digits you are not worth the time of day.

In fact, if you have less then 30 edits some editors will even say you are still NOT an editor.

 

I don't think so, you can have thousands of edits but if your not 500% following party line you'll get removed sooner or later and if that isn't enough you'll get branded as corrupt by so-called community.

Making friends with meta is most important thing in DMOZ! Without it almost nobody will care about you and cover your back when they start witch hunts, also creating completely fake identity to cover up the fact you might be a threat to metas vision of DMOZ is also good idea.

 

lol, you boys have such wild imaginations, .

Here you complain that sites don't get listed fast enough or at all, and when the Directory puts out a call for more editors, you try to discourage them with false information. You never cease to amaze me.

I like you guys, but sheesh, give it a rest would ya?

Why not encourage people to become editors, get on the inside, see how everything works, and make their own judgements? Then, they'll see for themselves, which of us are the real liars, or are you afraid of that test?

 

Well then, tell Robjones that I was in fact an editor with less then 30 edits. And he is an editall...some example set there.

Then log into the internal forums and remind the guy that called me a n00b that he was wrong, or remind all the people that have pointed out edit counts that it goes beyond that.

Sorry, but we have called it like it is. If you do not want people to get discouraged, then don't knock the folks speaking the truth, rather knock those that are causing this to be true.

Editors that log into Digital Point keep bringing up edit counts, do I really need to give proof?

 

The only part about edit counts that is important is the experience you gain by writing proper, ODP compliant titles and descriptions, and reviewing a variety of sites.

Some areas of the Directory get few submissions, and editors have to go out and find them (which many editors prefer doing), some editors work in spammy areas (like Shopping) that require a lot of investigation, and other parts of the Directory (like Regional) are just overwhelmed with site suggestions. A Regional editor might have higher edit counts than a Topical editor might have because of the nature of the area, so edit counts wouldn't be a fair comparison.

Edit counts are really not as important as the quality of the edits. That's why you might see a meta with massive edit counts and others with much less, it depends on where they've spent a lot of their time.

Robs point was that you needed more actual editing experience to become an authority on the ODP and to speak about it. A lot of things you say are correct, but the other half just isn't accurate.

Added - Ridiculing anyone about their edit count is off base, in my own opinion, and you'll never see me doing it, but I don't control what other editors may feel is right.

 

Ahhh, but I was an editor. He says that I was not, and that I only had a log in.

That does not look encouraging to any aspiring editor that is willing to overlook the things I happen to dwell on. With that type of attitude to those with small edit counts by someone on that status does not look well on the outside, regardless of the reasonings behind it.

Also, when I do post here on Digital Point I am often told that I am wrong, but rather then being corrected I am once again reminded of my edit counts, as if that some how proves my statements are inaccurate. This does show potential editors that they are to be considered clueless until they reach some invisible magic edit number. Maybe if when I was incorrect the editors with the big pretty numbers could actually correct me rather then making it personal... it would look better then turning my "false statements" into personal attacks on some level.

 

I can't speak for or about another editor, but, I know that a lot of posters have different personalities and backgrounds, and might clash with each other, and many things that are said just need to be either ignored as baiting, or calmly answered with truthful facts, .

 

And if you like to know what is the work that you need to do, you can learn from crowbar example and register yourself in different forums, so not only you can praise the "glorious leaders" in internal forum, RZ, DMOZ blog but anywhere else that opportunity present itself.

 

No, I'm complaining about duplicity at DMOZ which claims to be global community run by volunteer editors while in fact it is run by metas while everyone else has only right to be removed without even knowing it. I claims to want more editors and then does nothing to help newbies advance and if newbie dares to ask for another category it takes weeks just to get rejected!

In other words DMOZ encourages editors to be as lazy as possible while does everything to discourage any kind of progress or change.

No we are just warning them what might happen to them if they dare to question the divine power of metas or even worse suggest that some meta should remove and have entire community vote for a new ones!

 

Ok so lets just examine those 30 edits a bit closer to see what you really did. tell us how many were done in the sandpit called "bookmarks" and were not 'live' edits? How many did you do to try and get even your own site right of those 30 edits?

What Rob has said is that of the few edits you did few were 'live' edits, yes that makes you an editor but how experienced is another matter. The point he also makes is that with that very feeble experience not only do you want to come in here and tell others what happens and run the directory down, you also tried to lecture the directory on the internal forums. Yes we are willing to listen to anyone, but I know when I had 30 edits under my belt I knew nothing about what really happened in ODP. I also know that someone kindly took me on one side and explained a few facts when I was shooting my mouth off and managed to get banned for a week. I certainly know a great deal more now, I still shoot my mouth off, but I try to do it constructively, politely and with some experience under my belt.

At what point in the internal forums did you even begin to want to know when you were being advised about proceedures?

Annie, whom you once called your mentor, has advised you to re-apply, I wouldn't give that advice anymore (but I thought it was the best advice a little while ago) yet you continue to berate Rob who also left because of that sacking and returned. But from your so called mentor whom you left to protect, you refused the advice.

And one last question are you still in the space to tell people that you advice them to "forget2suggest" their site to ODP after an editor did what any editor should do with any site and removed your site when it went 404. Or do you want us to leave all the deadlinks in? That would mean that you are not bothered that it has been removed...

 

Ivan, I am glad you put that clown up recently and that I remmeber you have a strange sense of humour, because bearing this in mind this just made me laugh. Go on put the stuff up about it being worse than Gestapo and that we all ought to be careful in case Metas come for us next.

Ahhhhhhh, ahhhhhh, I think one just broke into house and has me by the short and curlies (hope that translates) I am being dragged off for daring to comment about ODP and at times saying that I do not agree with Metas. Ahhhhh, ahhhhhhh put me down, leave me alone............ Tehetehe

 

If you remember, the affiliate database was down when I became an editor and it was advised that new editors place their affiliates there until the proper procedure could reimplemented. I was following available protocol.

Either way, you are still putting me down because I didn't have the experience, and it was the same mentality I got from several editors before I quit.

I was told several times to "shut up and edit" but in between all of that, look in the newbie thread. I pointed out that much of the material available to new editors was out of order. I was one of the few to even mention it showing I was one of the few actually wanting to learn.

Sadly, my site never really went 404 according to several other people on my server. There was a few instances of the server hanging, which would have resulted in a timeout, and not a 404, followed by a quick reboot of the server, and then a short time with the site going 500 (internal server error) as they fixed the fastCGI. At no time in all of the downtime (which by the way never lasted more then 15 minutes) did my main index pages actually go 404.

As for removing dead links, yes, by all means remove them, but do not single out working pages that are having a little trouble. Rather, hunt down the pages that are actually defunct with little or no chance of them getting back on line.

it's nice that the editors here actually care enough to take out my page that was down for a few minutes. Though can I ask how many other sites were removed that day? It would make more sense to clean out a few of the hundreds (possibly thousands) of CNN links that are no longer working, as those are down for the count and will never be brought back up.

As it stands, removing my site because it had a little server trouble just goes to show that if you point out flaws within DMOZ ones site will be watched and removed at the slightest sign of trouble. Yeah, that's serving the end user...

So with that type of behavior from the editors, yes, submit & forget... as the next time your working site has trouble your site will be removed anyway, while the sites that have been dead or changed for weeks, months, or even years in some cases, will remain...

 

No wonder there is so much paranoia in DMOZ, some senior editor obviously believe webmasters hit squads are stalking them. I wonder how many real editors got rejected because meta believed them to be gworld or some ex-editor in disguise.

 

Metas have a responsibility to the Directory and to the editing community, as well as site owners, to be careful about who they take on as editors. It's easy to slough it off as nothing, until the responsibility lands on ones own shoulders, then suddenly it becomes more important when it becomes your decision, I imagine, .

 

Is this the reason that Metas are some of the worst abusers of the directory and some of the Admins lie about owning commercial web sites?