To all the metas/editalls/editors from DMOZ who post at DP, I have a suggestion to make, I dont know how much my opinion will count for - as I am not an DMOZ editor. In a lot of categories one can see "Volunteer to edit this category", when you apply after 10-14 days you get a reply the category is too big for a newbie.. then wont it be proper that you should have "Senior Editors volunteer to edit this category" or "Volunteer to edit this category" with a no newbie flag? It will save the time of all the "Editors" & "META's" who review these applications and let them concentrate on listing websites rather than review such newbie applications for categories that are best fit to maybe EX-editors.
Sounds like a good idea. I can't wait for all the DMOZ editor clones to get here to tell us why it's a terrible idea.
Since the public and editor versions of the directory are different I can't see why you couldn't have different messages on both.
That is really an excellant idea. It's very confusing for new editors to waste their time applying for categories which they will likely not get. The reason has always been given that it's left there for existing editors applying for additional categories.
I have no opinion on it, but you could ask at resource-zone.com where more meta and editors will see it. They may or may not like the idea, but you might get more concret answers as to why it's the way it is, or it might give them something to discuss on the internal forums.
I only recommended it because he does have a good question, which I'm sure he'll get some answers to. It will help some people understand the situation better, because a lot of the people who are getting turned down because the category is too big for a noobie probably want to know the answer too. But, in all honesty, more editors and meta will probably see his question at R-Z than at DP.
The editors who hand out at RZ are not going to be helpful - you should know that. You should also know that there are probably as many editors who hate that place and what goes on there as non-editors. RZ is essentially a club where editors with small penises get together to mock and deride non-editors and any other editors who don't agree with them.
Okay, about 2 weeks ago I came across a very interesting post by a meta at R-Z, that was eventually deleted by another meta D). The thread was started by a poster who was very upset that his application for editor was denied x amount of times. This poster claimed that his applications were perfect and he had years of experience in the field he wanted to edit in, so he couldn't understand why his applications kept getting declined, especially without any specific comments by the reviewing editor. Well, a Meta replied with the original poster with some general questions for him, but later edited it to ask another more specific question of him. The question was quite enlightening in a way that made you think the original poster knew what he was doing, but came to the boards claiming to be innocent. The question was: Is this the same category (the OP applied to become editor of) that you submitted your site multiple times but forgot to add it to your affiliations on your application? That post got deleted by another Meta, I guess because it had too much information in it. But, the Meta whose post got deleted posted again, but this time it was the more general response that we see so often at R-Z. My whole point in telling you this story is that there are a lot of things we (non-meta and non-editors) don't know about the people who are posting at R-Z with their sad stories about not having their sites listed, or being turned down for editor several times, that Meta do know. Meta knows which posters are prolific spammers and which posters have tried to scam their way unsuccessfully into becoming an editor, but they (meta) are smart enough not to let the scammers know they are onto their games. Meta has tools available to them that regular editors don't have. So, what we see as a very mean response from a Meta to a poster at R-Z, chances are meta knows more about that poster than meets the eye. Lets say for instance that you decided to create a directory and enlisted the help of friends and relatives to help approve sites for it. You also set up a message board to answer questions about your directory - where people didn't have to pay for a link. Lets also say that your directory became so popular that you became overwhelmed with suggestions to it, including spam. Well, one day a poster comes to your directory's message board and says "I'm so fed up with you people, I have submitted my site several times (think hundreds) over the past few months and it still hasn't been included. You guys are a waste of space and I hope your directory dies soon." Well, you take the time to look up this guys information and find out that he's been spamming your directory with hundreds of submissions to different categories and doesn't seem to care about your guidelines, which clearly state that people should only submit their site once. Well, you know from experience that it takes time to clear out all the spam from your directory, which takes time from reviewing legitimate sites. So, you are clearly angry with this poster for spamming your directory and taking up your's and your editor's time. Would it be unreasonable for you to give this poster an angry response to his post on your message board? I don't think it's unreasonable at all given the circumstances. But, again, my whole point is that some of the people that go to R-Z with their sad stories aren't relaying the WHOLE truth. Meta know what the whole truth is, but they can't come out and tell someone that they know they are a prolific spammer to the directory, or that they haven't given all their affiliations on their editor application, or that they are very suspicious of their motives for wanting to become an editor. Those are some of the things that should be taken into consideration when reading someone’s sad story at R-Z where a meta has responded angrily. And, as for the person in my first paragraph, I'm happy that this person has been turned down as editor. This person clearly knows what he/she is doing, but comes to R-Z acting innocent and dumb. That's what Meta has to deal with everyday, probably, but they are made to look like the bad guys because there is very little information they can give out. Also, that person responded a second time in that thread, but it was obvious he didn't see the deleted post. Those are the kinds of people that meta are trying to keep from editing the directory because they would obviously be a corrupt editor; those editors who only want to become editor to list their own site and to possibly screw with their competitors, so I feel no sympathy for the guy. But, I have to say that if you've been turned down for editor 10 plus times, then take the hint that they don't want you.
It sounds like a good idea. The first thing that pops into my little itsy brain - How much programming is going to be required to constantly check the parameters by which you determine what is or is not suitable for a newbie editor and be able to update the wording on the "Volunteer to edit this category" links. That is probably the first question the metas and admins will ask as well as how much resource will that take and who is willing to do it. Im not a programmer so I don't know the answers. But I do like the idea.
I like it too. A lot. I've never heard this suggestion before max pain, you really should take it to resource-zone.
We already have this. If a category is too large for a new editor, then the "Volunteer to edit this category" is removed. See Reference/Libraries. That advertisement is for new editors only. Current editors have a different way of applying to new categories. If a category is too large for a new editor it should have the sign turned off.
Are you sure ishfish? What about these categories? http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/United_States/Texas/Localities/D (2,324 listings) http://dmoz.org/Recreation/Humor/Parodies/ (233 listings) http://dmoz.org/Computers/History/ (380 listings) http://dmoz.org/Arts/Crafts/Pottery/ (559 listings) http://dmoz.org/Business/Telecommunications/Two-Way_Radio/ (638 listings) I only took a really quick look, but I doubt a new editor would be accepted in any of them, yet they all have the "become an editor" link at the top.
Well then it would be even more glaringly obvious to users and maybe even Google how silly the directory has become.
I am going to post it in the R-Z as a lot of you have suggested (wanna see what the others in DMOZ think of it).... I will also be posting the replies here .. so that all can view what response this suggestion is gonna get...