Send me a PM if you're a meta-editor or an editall with editing permissions in the Society directory. I'll explain my proposal in a PM.
I sincerely hope this is not the fore-runner to an offer of payment? As made very clear in many places on this forum and others, such attempts to subvert the 100% free nature of DMOZ always end badly: any editor accepting or requesting payment immediately and permanently loses their account any webmaster offering payment (in any form) risks having all their sites permanently banned from the directory Surely not worth the risk?
Well feel free to post in the open forum, rather than pm. Hopefully the information provided, can assist both you and other people visiting the thread
That didn't sound like a question that could be asked in an open forum, which is why I pointed out the risks of making certain "proposals". Glad to hear that this "proposal" was not going to involve any special treatment, favours, or information in return for anything. In which case, as snooks said, please elaborate here.
If you want to pay a senior editor or make another type of deal, just go to one of the freelance sites and post a project there. You can not buy a meta or editall editor for dime a dozen but you can buy them for around 100 dollars.
I'm not a meta, but hell, I wouldn't walk across the street for a hundred dollars, lol, or any other amount. I prefer to work for my money, and editing isn't work, it's a lot of fun. Just added 38 sites this morning, and not a one of them had to pay me, they were a great addition to two of the categories I edit in. I enjoyed listing them. I did clear NYS of all update requests yesterday, as they stand out seperately for us, and are usually more time effective to deal with. (we can do those fairly quickly)
Just for the record - I was looking for somebody to review my submission. After all that's what editors do - review websites, DMOZ rules don't prohibit that. I didn't want to pay anybody, I was looking for somebody to do this as a simple act of kindness, one DPer to another. I guess I was naive, maybe those that suggest bribery are right.
The only problem is, there are a few hundred thousand other people who would also like that, and would it be fair to them if an editor reviewed your site first? Bribery is always wrong, whether you're offering one or accepting one, and the consequences are the same for both, as it should be.
Oh please, what kind of fairness system is DMOZ implementing right now. When I was an editor, the order in which websites were reviewed was completely up to the editor, meaning random.
That's absolutely true, each editor can choose to go out on the web and find new sites, deal with update requests, investigate and resolve reds, review submitted suggestions (in any order they want to), create subcats, sort sites, rewrite descriptions, and other tasks because they are volunteering their time. And you are correct, an editor could review a site that someone requested he/she look at, after all, a good site is a good site, no matter where you find it. There is really nothing wrong with asking, and there is nothing wrong if the editor looks at it, reviews it, and adds it. (technically) I guess some of us might be a little overly cautious about staying as impartial and objective as possible, and trying to avoid even the appearance of what might be considered showing favoritism to anyone. Can you blame us, with all the unsubstantiated accusations of corruption we get? Being a former editor, you were wise enough not to make the request in the open forum because you knew what would happen, a flood of requests from everybody here if the editor actually reviewed your site, and a flood of accusations if the editor didn't do for everybody else, what he did for you.
Exactly. So it would be completely inappropriate to beg/plead/offer anything at all for a "favour" which involved subverting that process. It seems to need repeating every few days: Reviewing suggestions is not a priority, let alone a requirement, for any editor.
I'll pretend that you haven't made this grossly insulting, laughably baseless, and above all tiresome accusation a thousand times before, and I'll answer it sensibly and politely for the benefit of others. The priority for all volunteer editors is to build and improve the directory, and this is achieved in a number of ways. Each editor is free to choose how they spend their editing time, within the bounds of their permissions and the guidelines of the directory. Editors look for worthwhile sites everywhere they can, and the suggestions made by other people are no more than one resource they can use if they choose to. That is why we keep on reminding people that there is no "queue" of sites "waiting" for review. To return to the topic, the fact that all sites (whether suggested or not) have an equal chance of being listed in the directory is something that is essential to its value, and trying to "persuade" an editor to break the rules is definitely not appreciated. As I have explained, the consequences for both webmaster and editor are simply not worth it.
Umm, sorry? Why should we stop denying something that isn't true, particularly when it is a direct insult for which no evidence is ever provided, despite "thousands" of invitations to make that evidence known? It's trolling, pure and simple, and I'm sorry for you and others who fall for it, and who follow his demonstrably poor advice. Still, I do what I can to warn people about the consequences. After that, it's their choice.
Stupid comments like that make me extremely happy that you are an ex editor (assuming it's true). Having been involved in ODP, I would have expected you to know better.
The evidence of corruption has been provided more than 1000 times but you still on purpose decide to be blind and ignore it. It makes anybody wonder why? Can it be that closing your eyes to corruption is much more beneficial to you than acknowledging it?