Part II 3. Recruit new editors and HELP them get appointed. I've talked about this here before. In the main, if a candidate can communicate in the language of the category, pays attention to the detail, is honest, the category isn't too large or too spammy and he can select and describe websites appropriate to the category, he's hired. We don't expect perfection, but anybody who can't demonstrate all of these attributes is likely to be declined. Often, particularly if there are problems in several of these areas, he'll get a generic email outlining all of the important areas I've just mentioned. If it's just one aspect that's wrong, there'll probably be a helpful note added. Those who don't read the questions correctly, can't communicate or are just plain deceitful aren't good candidates. We can teach people to edit but we can't teach integrity or attention to detail. I've no desire to help people who lack these traits to become editors. There's lots of FAQs and guidelines around about how best to apply to become an editor. It's a shame that many either don't read them or decide that they don't apply to them. Once an editor is on board, there is even more help around. Direct one on one mentoring is there for those who want it (and quite often for those who don't ). A new editor can only operate within his first category of course and this will be looked at very closely when he requests further permissions. If you think that the standards we apply to new editor candidates are high, be assured that those applied later are even higher . When we first join you, we only think you'll be able to edit. When you request further permissions, we'll know. 4. Teach the editors at the resource forum how to talk to people. I guess I've sometimes been guilty of showing signs of impatience over there. This isn't an excuse, but it's bloody difficult to be polite to the 20th poster of the session who thinks that the forum rules don't apply to him. Whatever, we solved that problem a different way .
more blah, blah, blah response without responding to issues or offering any solution. The funniest part is when it mentions integrity as requirement for becoming editor. DMOZ editors and integrity? That was very funny, Jim, thank you for good laugh.
Jim, Your ideas don't work unless the editors are paid, and can be fired...accountability. The volunteer idea doesn't work unless you have someone managing the people and reviewing their work. This should be more like a real world business, not the government. All the power is with the editors, and there is no accountability. None of the power is with the people anymore. For the most part, the people aren't people when they are approved to be editors...90% of them change. Still waiting after 18 months in a small category, Brandon
@AfterHim.com I'm struggling to understand much of your post and its relevence to mine, but I'll respond to the parts which I think I do. Maybe I wasn't clear. I was describing actuality, not suggesting ideas for change. That would be against the foundation charter of ODP. Editors are mentored, warned when they merit a warning and, in extreme cases, are fired - much like in any establishment. Which we do. Experienced editors guide newbies and meta editors also keep discipline. Is that one of those 80% of statistics are invented on the spot sort of statistics ?
AfterHim.com That's about as accurate as most of the posts made here about ODP ... AfterHim.com - Men serving God together since April 1st, 2004.
Problem is Jim - things are NOT working as they are. Many catagories are terribly backed up, others are totally ignored. This is not to say nobody is over there doing anything, but be realistic. There is alot of work to be done and very few people actually doing it. (relatively) Thats no way to move forward. Now I gave you a handful of suggestions and you basically explained away all of them. You did say one thing though, that most of my suggestions had been suggested before. So I ask this - since things arent working now, why not give them a try?
OK, let me summarise my earlier comments on your suggestions, but focusing on their effects upon backlogs. Canning low productivity editors won't reduce backlogs - it'll marginally increase them. Automated status checks won't reduce backlogs and could increase them. Help candidate editors be appointed. We already do that for those that show promise but make a few too many unacceptable errors. Those that can't be bothered to take the application form as seriously as they would/should a job application don't get much. Those that only propose their own websites or whose story is a little distant from the truth don't get any at all. Encourage courtesy at RZ. With the cessation of status checks there, traffic is now so low there that the habitués have more time available for editing which could reduce backlogs. Whether or not they choose to spend that effort doing so is their choice of course. I help out there for the change of activity - I can't do nothing but edit or I'd be bored to death. I hope that clarified things.
Lemmie come back a little. Setting standards and expectations for editors will help get editors more productive. Canning unproductive editors wont hurt cuz their not doing anthing anyway. Further, to borrow a line you use later in your post, "Those that can't be bothered to take the application form as seriously as they would/should a job application don't get much." - well those who cant be bothered to take the job seriously --- you get the idea. No - it wont reduce backlogs but simple communication will make webmasters much more patient and supportive of the ODP. It wont increase anything because the system can be nearly completely automated. You may believe that, but I have applied as an editor twice. Was rejected once and never heard back the second time. I once inquired about my status and was told there were several editor applications for the catagory I applied for. That catagory still has no editor, at least not an editor that does anything. I have also read posts where others have described the same thing. I gave up figuring ODP didnt want my help. In fact YOU, Jim, were the one who answered me at the resource-zone when I inquired the second time, and said "There are several applications pending within Recreation/Autos and I have absolutely no idea which, if any, is you." Now, you were polite. But honestly, not very helpful. I only say that from this perspective... if ODP was interested in getting new and productive editors, they would try to help new people become editors, not ignore them. You know, a few months ago I had asked about multiple listings over there. I had asked before submitting to multiple catagories. One of my sites has regional chapters for the midwest, northeast, etc. I asked if it was appropriate to submit those regional chapter to regional boards. My question was sincere and merely an attempt to stay within the rules. I was accused of "trying to manipulate us to use us to serve your promotional purposes " Eventually another editor came back and thanked me for asking first before submitting, but I didnt exactly deserve to be accused right off the bat of having malicious intent. Especially because I didnt, and still dont. "But I remember thinking to myself, be careful, they might pull your listing if you piss them off" The ODP needs to make changes. Im just offering my point of view. Ignore it if you like. Notice im not bashing the ODP, personally, I think the resource-zone is unecessary in its entirity, so I have no problem with no more status checks.
I think we'll have to agree to differ about backlog reduction strategies . Thank you for analysing my comments rationally and without emotion. I hope I managed to return the compliment. I haven't sought out the original RZ thread, but that reads as if I'd have been able to give a much more precise answer if I'd known the exact category or the proposed editor name . The Becoming an Editor forum helps some people to become editors (an objective of both of us). It's also a route by which timed out editors who've lost their login details or access to their original emails can request reinstatement. Also, we particularly value the very constructive Quality Control Feedback forum.
I have no axe to grind. The ODP could be better, much better. Im not gonna help make it better if im all pissy and what not.
Joeychgo, I appreciated you taking the time to give your suggestions. The answer that Jim gave - essentially that we have heard them, and discussed them (some at GREAT length) and decided not to do them, is valid - we DID listen. As I have said elsewhere - the ODP has a very strong, focused vision of what it is and what it is not. Most of the ideas we hear involve drifting so far from that vision that it wouldn't be the ODP any more. And the editors do not want to do that. This is what I come back to - the ODP isn't meant to be all things to all netizens. It's far from perfect, but, from what I see, it is consistent with its goals. Whether it remains relevant, or even useful, time will tell.
When these two phenomena exist together in a system: 1. The system is horribly terribly pathetically broken. 2. The people in charge are unable to envision change to the system. The results are: 1. Long slow decay into nothingness. 2. Eventual revolutionary change. The pain threshold of DMOZ management has not been hit yet. They are not ready to change because they are more comfortable living in the pathetic mess which is their current situaton than they are comfortable with the major (in their minds) change which will be required to build a revolution from within. If you want to see improvements at DMOZ, you will need to increase the pain level on the organizations management until change becomes less painful that maintaining the awful staus quo. The question really becomes: How to increase the pain level on DMOZ management.
There's a lot of truth in that post, Will. The "pain" will not come from within but from without. There is too much comfort within.
Could that be accurately paraphrased as "If we do a good job, people will just submit more sites." If so, I agree with you.
DMOZ is only useful when site submission and review processes are somehow effective. I received an email three days ago, about a site I submitted 2 YEARS ago. It was something to the effect of, your site wasn't accepted because.. if you care to rectify, I'll reconsider it. Nice that the editor in question (a newbie) was willing to explore the queue, but absolutely pointless because the site has long since been abandoned - although it is still up. Too little, too late. That's DMOZ. Cheers, JL
Without getting into the doing a good job thing, the logic works like this. Repeatedly resubmitted unlistable websites merely replace any earlier submissions. Many spammers don't know this so they keep on redsubmitting. This doesn't affect the size of the pool or the editorial workload at all so we don't mind too much. The smarter ones do know this so they refrain, hoping that an editor will work the pool in submission date order. Right now, when we decline their listing suggestions, they don't know it and the size of the pool reduces. If we had automated status checks, they'd resuggest their sites as soon as they've been declined, thus negating the editor's efforts to reduce the pool and increasing its size again. We don't think that's a good idea.
Will, I agree - if your two premises are true, then those are the inevitable results. I would dispute, though, whether at least the first of your premises is true. I know it is from the point of view of a lot of posters on this forum, of course, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. We don't have to all agree, just treat each other with some respect. Why? I thought based on your posts and minstrel's that the ODP is becoming completely irrelevant and will die a natural death? Why are you campaigning to "inflict pain" on the management so that a revolution happens? Why expend your energy on something that is so irrelevant, as far as you are concerned? If directories are a dying breed, then let them fade into the background and die. If directories are not dying, but there is some way to do it better than the ODP, then let someone do that - build a better directory. As you have stated before, the issue is not the ODP, but Google using it to allowing it to skew the rankings. If a better directory is built, and Google see that, they will come running, I have no doubt. As I have said in other places what the ODP is attempting to do can come directly in conflict with goals of most web professionals - that has been illustrated time after time in the public interactions between Web Professionals and ODP Editors - both end up screaming "you just don't get it". "Causing pain" won't solve anything, in my opinion, and only increase the mutual hatred and distrust. The only reason I started posting on this forum was an attempt to increase the mutual level of understanding, so that we don't just sit at our keyboards doing the type-written equivalent of yelling and screaming at each other. I believe that what you are advocating will only make the situation worse, not better.
Ego gets in the way of good editing. "If we had automated status checks, they'd resuggest their sites as soon as they've been declined, thus negating the editor's efforts to reduce the pool and increasing its size again. We don't think that's a good idea." -- Now, there's the biggest problem with the ODP: it's set up to reduce the pain of spam sites, and punishes the real ones by default. This is why I think a "pay to resubmit" plan works. Share the revenue 50/50 with the editors on resubmitted sites - rejected or not - and you'll see a lot more fast action.