ODP Report for February 2006

The ODP Report for February has been released.

 

And a further decline in the number of DMOZ editors:

Net loss = 72 more for the month of February (on top of the previous declines)

Active editor accounts on 1 January 2005: ~ 8,000
Active editor accounts on 31 December 2005: 7,744
Active editor accounts on 31 January 2006: 7,669
Active editor accounts on 28 February 2006: 7,597

 

I will point this out again since the numbers I used in my last post about this subject was low. This is just amazing. You have 7597 active editors. If an editor AVERAGES 3 edits a day thats 90 per month. That totals 683,730 sites reviewed per month and over 8 million a year. Editors speak of a backlog of submissions, yet 3 reviews a day on average would clear all those submissions up. If it takes 20 mins per review thats 28 hours per month spent reviewing, thats 7 hours per week.

Draw your own conclusions, but to me this speaks volumes for where Dmoz is at presently.

 

I used to be an editor in the Agriculture and Forestry News section, but my request for reinstatement was rejected and my renewed application was rejected. No reason was given. Incidentally, my application included suggestions for other people's websites, including western Canada's largest ag newspaper.

I realize now that I probably lost my status because I got busy with my "for pay" work and did not do the minimum number of edits needed to maintain my status as an editor. The section was not terribly busy, but there was always one or two new submissions every week or so to consider. As well as reviewing what was there to make sure the sites were still active and relevant.

However, as I recall, I was not able to jump into other people's sections and work on their backlogs. Consequently, the law of averages may not work on clearing the backlog. Current editors would be able to shed more light on that.

 

An editor's work isn't just reviewing new sites - please read the part of the report that gives some detail about what editing is all about.

And there's still the part about "an editor is only required to make one meaningful edit every 4 months". Some editors are very active and some are not. Also, just because an editor makes 100 edits in one day, doesn't mean any sites are being added. (I know, because I've done that - quality control, bringing descriptions into line with the guidelines, moving nonworking sites, deleting duplicate submissions, etc).

 

What about the part of the report that documents declining number of editors, lmocr?

What's missing of course is data on the number of editors who are actually doing anything useful. As discussed previously, one "edit" every 4 months is nothing to be proud of. And having that as a minimum requirement is nothing to brag about.

 

The way that DMOZ is set up, the large number of editors don't have a possibility to edit anything. There is no real stats but from my own observations, I estimate the real number of editors is some where between 500-1000 in the best case.
DMOZ structure is flawed and there is too much power struggle with no real procedures. If the structure and procedures in DMOZ is changed, I believe all the problems can be fixed in 6 month to 1 year.
If we forget about imocr blah, blah, blah about editors "difficult job", I explained for a 9 years old child how to edit for 10 minutes and in the next hour, 10 listings were added. The work was checked by a meta and was categorized as very good job.

 

I agree minstrel however it seems to me to be nothing but an excuse. If I ran a business where my employee was only required to show up once every 4 months, I wonder how long I would be in business.

I know I know we are volunteers, well if a volunteer was only required to perform their duties once every 4 months I think this might be a guideline I would rethink. That statement from you is a good indication of why Dmoz is so bad.

We hear Dmoz editors claim I became an editor to improve the directory, well listing 1 site every 4 months isnt helping it is only hurting Dmoz. Again lets just call Dmoz what it is, it is a self promoting directory for its editors, nothing more.

 

Yes, that "volunteer" BS is total smokescreen.

On most forums, moderators are also volunteers. And on most forums, if they can only be bothered to sign in once every 4 months, they won't stay moderators for very long, will they?

Volunteer organizations in the community also expect a certain level of commitment. If you can't deliver, no one will necessarily think evil things about you but you will nonetheless be replaced.

 

How does this hurt the directory?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. 500-1000 editors? Power struggle? Could you clarify this for me please?

 

haha DMOZ really needs a make over staff wise imo if they can not be bothered to update their categories in a timely manner.

and by timely that does not mean 1+ years

 

Take away all the editors who are in small categories and have nothing to edit and then look how many you are left with. Let editors edit in different categories and instead establish procedures and rules that makes corruption impossible and you will get rid of backlogs.

 

I would bet that the number of editors who have actually have nothing to do is less than 5%. If an editor has no greens to process, they can go find sites to add on their own.

And if an editor has shown that they are at least somewhat capable, they are almost gauranteed to be approved for their next category. I think the largest cause for being denied a larger category is that they try for a category that is much too large for them.

 

Make the DMOZ like a Wiki and all problems solved...

 

LOL

Oh wait...were you serious...?

"all problems solved"?? What about the new problem that would be created when hundreds or thousands of SEOs and webmasters started rampantly deleting competition and adding their own sites hundreds of times?

 

Care to find a few more 9 year olds who want to apply then?

I have never ever said that it's a difficult job - I find it extremely simple. To the point that I sometimes have a hard time understanding why applicants and other non-editors can't figure it out. But like I've said repeatedly - there is much much more to editing than just adding listings. It's time consuming - especially if the site you're looking at looks hinky.

However, just because I think it's so simple, doesn't mean that I want to edit 24x7x365. I have other things that I enjoy doing away from the computer (believe it or not) - and some days all I do is read the forums. Other days I'll have the objective to do some serious editing and the first site I look at is so interesting that I spend so much time reading it, that the editing plan just goes out the window.

There is a very good reason why the 4 month rule is in effect - it's called real life. If the time-out rule was more stringent, then there would be more work for the metas - in the reinstatement requests.

Just because an editor times out after 4 months - doesn't mean they're gone for good. As long as the edits they've made in the past are acceptable, they can come back anytime. However, their request to be reinstated has to be approved just like a new applicant's request.

 

How about .05 x 1 x 36 (just a suggestion) - even that would be better than 3 times a year

You must be so proud. I'm sure all the other DMOZ editors hold you up as a model for new applicants

See my comments about real life volunteer organizations and forums above. Don't have time for more than three edits a year? Move aside. You're deadwood.

 

I was referring to allowing all editors edit all categories, not just anyone who wanted to. The way the current wiki will probably end up.

 

I Agree that the 4 month time out rule is a bit too long, but in most cases I don't see that it actually hurts anything...so why worry about it?

 

If an editor really cares about helping the ODP they will be able to move up to editing complete branches in a matter of months. I don't think it's too much too ask that a person prove themselves before giving them the ability edit vast amounts of sites, delete entire categories, etc.