Net growth in the number of editors: 116(new editors)+ 118(reinstated editors)- 311(removed editors)= -77 Current number of current editors/ total numbers of editors joined= 7407/73737= 10% Net growth in the number of listings, less than half a percent (.36%). The only thing that is still growing and thriving in DMOZ: Corruption and abuse.
Google own part of DMOZ. If they want to change it then I am sure their 5% would give them some influence.
I would check your figures again - it is -29. Still the wrong way. More interesting is the numbers involved. June - 443 new editors, July - 164 new editors. This is the lowest number of new editors recruited since the reports started to be published by a significant margin. Reinstatements are also at their lowest level. Since DMOZ has been on a steady decline for some time it can be reasonably assumed that these are new records. Given robozilla, the major link checking tool last ran in May you can reasonably assume approx 20,000 broken links accrued since then that will eventually be removed next time it runs, 10,000 for every month it doesn't run. That would bring the net listings down to 7300, or quite neatly, one per editor on average. Adjusting May for the 63,000 links removed by robozilla to 30,000, the net additions for July, at 17300, also sets a record for lowest monthly productivity to date. It can be assumed that July and August will be relatively poor months for DMOZ performance due to summer holidays in the Northern hemisphere. However, given the higher base number of editors at the same time in previous years it is a reasonable assumption that again we are seeing a new record low. Yet more proud achievements for the Admins. Three records in one month. It is time for them to go. They have proven beyond any doubt that they are incapable of managing the project back to health so they should hand over to others with vision who will bring the editor community back on board as a team to solve the problems. For God's sakes go before you do any more damage.
lol, good point. It is a rather depressing and boring report is what I meant...but perhaps not so boring when taking a closer look at those numbers. What's sad is that no one internally seems at all concerned about it...
Expressing concern is not welcomed by the Admins and gives you the popularity rating of a fart in an elevator (trust me). I would hazard a guess that if you could set up a poll or survey that was guaranteed to be confidential, i.e. no recriminations, 99% of metas and editalls and active regular editors would be very concerned about it. There are two problems with these monthly reports. First the blandness means that the eye is drawn to what little information is actually provided and analysis is focused there. They form the key performance indicators and when they consistently go the wrong way, month after month after month, you will get judged on those and nothing else. Second I draw up project reports every month. Initially my instructions were to spin the positive and obscure the negative so the customer did not get concerned - corporate policy. But the customer could see the negatives staring them in the face, things were not happening, and the spin and blandness of those reports was making them lose confidence and trust - the reports were worthless. I jumped the gun but soon after it became corporate policy to tell the truth warts and all. At the same time you have to explain what you are doing about the things not going to plan. There was a total change in attitude - by telling the truth the customer turned 180 degrees, trusts the reports, has confidence that action will be taken. The number of problems suddenly leapt not because they were not there but because they were being suppressed before. But one by one, month by month, they were eliminated because the team could see what needed to be done and everyone worked together to solve them. And now there are very few major problems across all projects because they are dealt with as soon as they are identified, or before when someone notices a risk and pre-emptive action is taken. Failures became successes. The DMOZ monthly report never draws attention to mistakes and failures, never says what action is to be taken to fix mistakes and failures. What is being done to correct falling editor numbers and productivity - if the report says nothing everyone including editors believes that it is nothing. Leading to further loss of confidence, further demotivation, and more editors leaving than joining. There is only one way to turn things around with DMOZ and that is to open the cupboard, identify every single risk, issue, problem. Prioritise and work as a team to fix it all. I know that Admins cannot understand how to manage or grasp this approach as it relies on total openness and exposing weaknesses, which is why I believe that every day they remain they cause more and more damage. I don't know whether it has reached the point of no return yet but the omens are not good.
But it needs to be done and you would be much better off doing it from the inside as oneeye. Its about challenging the status quo and dragging the dinosaur into the 21st century. The unfortunate reality is (with a few exceptions) the higher you go up the chain the less innovation you will find. And that’s quite simply the result of the promotion system which rewards the followers and penalizes those who do not read from the script.
As I said somewhere else I do not believe I would be permitted to return if the intention was to raise real issues of substance and I am not going to pretend to be interested in knitting patterns. If I wanted an editor account that bad then I could take the gworld way. The Admins would view my return as too disruptive to their own agendas. There is no doubt that raising serious issues can be disruptive but only if you have no clue as to how to manage it effectively, find it impossible to delegate, and have little confidence in your average regular editor to discuss things intelligently. When I say I know that Admins cannot understand how to manage or grasp a turnaround approach that relies on total openness and exposing weaknesses, believe me I know. If they change their minds they have my email address and if they ever get serious about changing their approach I will give them whatever help I can. For the moment they don't want it so I can only say my piece outside.
Seriously brizzie, I think the directory needs help and you could make a lot of difference. Your thoughts here on most issues are just what they need.
I can see that you are having fun condemning all and sundry Brizzie. But I have to disagree. Making ODP statistics available to the public was a very positive move, in my view. If those statistics spell out a worrying decline in the editor base, then so be it. The truth is being told. That is important. The reasons for the declining editor pool can be argued from here to eternity. How can anybody know for sure? Yet some conclusions seem logical. 1) Not everyone is a volunteer type. There is a limit to the percentage of any population that will be able and willing to contribute to any volunteer task. So with any online volunteer community, we would expect an initial burst of volunteers as people come online, followed by lower levels of volunteering as the world reaches saturation levels of online access. We can test this theory. When the ODP was born, only the US was extensively hooked into the Web. Many people in the US had free Internet access. At that stage the ODP editor pool was overwhelmingly American. As free or cheap access spread over Europe, many more European editors arrived. Then the Asians began to appear in greater numbers. In the last couple of years World has taken the largest share of new editors. The largest growth rates are in Regional and World. (It would not surprise me to learn that Wikipedia is showing a similar pattern.) 2) The decline in use of directories must have an impact on the number of volunteers to the ODP and presumably the smaller volunteer directories too. If people are not using directories for search, then they will not even see the 'volunteer to edit' link. That decline in use must surely have an impact on the morale of existing editors too. They may wonder if their work is actually useful, or if their time would be better spent on another project such as Wikipedia or Project Gutenberg. This is where the recently-completed project investigating the uses of ODP data comes in. The ODP report for July provides a link. That confirmed what staff said some time ago. I won't quote directly, but the comment in effect was that if AOL stopped funding the ODP, a couple of search engines would be happy to give it a home, because of the usefulness of its data 'behind the scenes'.
Absolutely not genie. The responsibility lies only with a small group of people, the Admins. Because only they have the ability to make change happen. Nothing the editor community or editors individually think or want makes any difference without their say so. I agree. The reasons are multiple. And I agree that the two examples you give are going to be in there with others. But those two examples are extremely worrying as, if taken alone, it condemns the ODP to certain and inevitable death as they are progressive and outside ODP's control. I have repeatedly said that one thing ODP needs to do is to survey current and former editors to determine the factors involved in people leaving and in losing motivation. And do this regularly. There may be plenty of results that DMOZ could do nothing about. But at the same time there may be plenty more that could be acted upon and reap big dividends. The basic concepts of DMOZ have not changed since it was founded. It has grown but apart from that it hasn't changed with the times. For example Search is abysmal and out of date. To survive, any organisation has to adapt to moving trends, even re-invent itself from time to time. Find new ways of making itself more relevant to its target audience. Find new ways of getting the resources it needs to maintain itself and grow. I read it the other day. It didn't actually say much that wasn't already common knowledge though - the full research would have been interesting. The thing is though genie that if the ODP does not have the resources to maintain itself properly, then the integrity of the data becomes more and more damaged month on month. To the point where its value becomes marginal to anyone who might have found it useful. We don't disagree genie, I agree totally. But it isn't the truth that is being told that is the problem. It is what is not being told. If the report showed the editor base stats then said that the continous decline over the last xx months is a matter of great concern as it threatens to compromise the ability of the project to sustain itself if the trend continues in the same direction. To counter this we are running a survey next month to find out the reasons. Following this we will examine those with the editing community to determine ways to reverse the trends. If it said that wouldn't you be far more confident that the decline was being taken seriously, that something was being done about it, that you would have an opportunity to contribute towards trying to solve the problem as part of the team, that this might be something that could be reversed? You know, I know, that consistently falling editor numbers is a demotivating factor for serving editors. Decent managers would recognise that and attempt to counter it, try and find a way of turning a demotivator into a motivator. For example, getting editors involved in a survey, proving the issue was being addressed, involving everyone in possible solutions - that would be motivating surely. You know, I know, that such an approach could only be initiated by Admins - if you tried it without permission it would be stomped on - which is why I hold Admins alone responsible for this.
Here is where we have a philosophical divergence perhaps. I believe that volunteer effort will flow to where it is most effective. I don't find that at all worrying. If the ODP ceases to be useful, then its death would free up volunteers for other projects. Naturally those of us who have contributed to it for years would feel a loss. It is a community. I'd miss the banter! But life is change. Right now the ODP still has its uses. Search is still developing. The ODP is feeding into that process. It has to change to survive of course. It has been changing, but so gradually most people haven't noticed I think. Levels of automation have risen. That is vital. And more along that line is envisaged. Come back and you can read it.
It's an interesting divergence! In some ways I agree with you. I believe that the role that ODP fulfills on the Internet is exceptionally useful and should it disappear the Internet will be a poorer place for it. But I don't think its decline is entirely down to natural ebbs and flows but largely a result of mismanagement. If it was lost as a result of reaching the end of its natural lifespan then fair enough but for it to be lost through inept negligence of its managers then it is a travesty.
Top Level Category | Aug/06 | Jul/06 | Change | Yearly % Change ------------------------------------------------------------------ Adult | 47243 | 47413 | -170 | -4.3 Arts | 289549 | 290057 | -508 | -2.1 Business | 256386 | 254666 | 1720 | [COLOR="Magenta"]8.1[/COLOR] Computers | 139439 | 139930 | -491 | -4.2 Games | 61433 | 61496 | -63 | -1.2 Health | 65012 | 65029 | -17 | -0.3 Home | 32806 | 32728 | 78 | 2.9 News | 235632 | 235646 | -14 | -0.1 Recreation | 117074 | 119374 | -2300 | [COLOR="Red"]-23.[/COLOR] Reference | 65891 | 65939 | -48 | -0.9 Regional | 1114423 | 1113195 | 1228 | 1.3 Science | 105881 | 105809 | 72 | 0.8 Shopping | 113887 | 114243 | -356 | -3.7 Society | 267229 | 268275 | -1046 | -4.7 Sports | 107903 | 107871 | 32 | 0.4 World | 1754638 | 1743017 | 11621 | [COLOR="Magenta"]8.0[/COLOR] Kids and Teens | 41175 | 41013 | 162 | 4.7 --International | 14151 | 14148 | 3 | 0.3 --Non-Int (English) | 27024 | 26865 | 159 | [COLOR="Magenta"]7.1[/COLOR] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Total | 2815601 | 4805701 | 9900 | 2.4 Non-World (English) | 3060963 | 3062684 | -1721 | -0.7 Code (markup): (Yearly % Change is the monthly % change multiplied by 12 to approximate what this category would do in a year based on this month.)
While the internet continues to grow, evolve, and progress... ...DMOZ shrinks, devolves, and regresses. It sure isn't keeping up... I don't think it will get better. I wouldn't be surprised, if within a year, year and a half, Google no longer features DMOZ data in its "Directory" - but rather, content from its own Google Co-op.
The importance of pure directories is much diminished. But google co-op has a long way to go. I wouldn’t be surprised if google did drop the directory one day.