Now we all know it takes long long time to get listed in DMOZ, the reason of course is that too many new listings submitted and insufficiant editor team. (Because they are volunteers). If wiki can let everyone submit, and let editors block/unblock/delete, why can't DMOZ? Consider that wiki has ten times or more traffic.
Consider that under normal circumstances, a huge proportion of the listing suggestions are for websites that we wouldn't want to list.
Wikipedia has also option to block editing of articles which get lots of spam, same could be done at DMOZ, separate spammy categories and limit them to dedicated editors while most healthy but badly out of date categories would be free to grow without being hampered by all the junk categories wasting editor time.
It will seriously cut in "senior" editors income, you didn't by any any chance really believed that they were volunteers, did you?
Most are. Most of the editing I do in Wikipedia is removing spam and dead links and if I had the time it could be a full-time occupation from what I can see. Wikipedia is also an online encyclopedia not a website directory so whilst some things might transfer the freedom to add content unconstrained would be a big mistake. There are ways of relieving the pressure and increasing editor numbers and competencies such as mandatory training coupled with relaxation of the application process. Alas DMOZ is stuck in 1998 and allergic to such thoughts.
Considering the "quality" of senior editors and especially some of the Metas, I think anyone with IQ over 50 should be accepted.
There are three main problems with the editor application process. First any slight indication of the applicant being possibly untrustworthy means, no matter how good it is, the application it is likely to be rejected. However, since such individuals are not told the reason for the rejection they cannot defend themselves. Since acceptance means the right to add sites to the directory then being able to trust the individual is important. However, it does not work - a modicum of identity cloaking will see corrupt editors accepted and free to wreak damage where others who may be only slightly suspect are rejected but who may have made a great contribution if accepted. Second the application acceptance/rejection process is to a degree a lottery dependent on which meta reviews it. Same with existing editor new permissions applications. Some metas are pedantic, others look to the potential. That can't be good - inconsistency means some bad editors are recruited and promoted and good editors are rejected. Third the application process requires a degree of knowledge on site assessment, review, descriptions, and placement that in tun requires some in-depth reading of guidelines before applying. And we all know even the most experienced editors make mistakes on assessing sites and placing them - indeed there is an affiliate travel agent listed in an Admin's own home town in Regional. On an application for becoming an editor of course that means probably a rejection and no clues given unless the meta is feeling generous - work it out for yourself stupid. Several applicants have tried numerous times to get accepted and eventually made it - how many gave up and are lost forever but could have been highly productive like the ones that persisted? There has to be a balance to weed out bad and corrupt editors but relying on the cursory editor application as it stands now has patently failed to stop the recruitment of bad 'uns and no doubt rejected countless good candidates. So here is the solution. Shift the balance firstly. Unless there is positive evidence that a candidate is up to no good and provided they have basic english skills, accept them. Secondly, put them through mandatory online editor training in site assessment and review, descriptions, and placement. Before they are allowed to list sites in the directory live. And you have to pass tests to get your editor wings. Third, a mandatory 100 listings under greenbusting rules required to get listing rights. That means, for those who don't know, that an edit has to be approved by another editor before it is added to the live directory. That would mean that far more people would get a chance to prove their skills and trustworthyness. But those in it for the quick spam would not last the course or be rewarded with keeping their one site listing. A far better trained editor workforce would also lead to far fewer quality control issues, and far quicker promotions. And most importantly, the perception of subjectivity in editor applications and promotions would diminish as rights would be based on objective testing. As with all things there is a downside - the numerous niche editors who only do a small number of edits in their career would find themselves greenbusting forever. But quick attention to approving good greenbusts should see little difference there. And in the great scheme of things, it is the 500+ edits a month editors that make the difference as to whether DMOZ lives or dies. An extra 10 of those, from inside or outside, a year means 60,000 edits which would make a real difference, especially if they are well-trained.
Tell me about it, when I applied for extra category which had only dozen links and out of date for years I got rejected for using word "huge" (and that was understatement humongous would be more correct term) in description of "competitor" website. So instead of just noting that word and letting me edit it took few more months before I decided to reapply and got approved this time - only to have certain editall delist one of my deeplinks because it had inappropriate description and this was the same description which passed meta approval when I applied for that category! They should really agree amongst themselves on what is appropriate... Not really, I managed to add almost 500 unique sites to my niches with ease, trick is called creating new categories, there are so many missing in DMOZ there is no way for them to run out.
You shouldn't have used "huge" and you should have known that. If you knew it and still did it you only have yourself to blame. If you didn't know it then training and certification would have done you a lot of good, as would granting you greenbust automatically rather than full rights after educating you. I was up to a State level within weeks, and national level in months. Never once got a rejection. It was very easy. I would have taught people how to do it, indeed it should be official training policy, but my perception is that such things are viewed as coaching not training, and frowned upon. True, you discover people's flaws by letting them sink or swim on their own, but at the same time you demotivate them and keep them at the bottom. Perhaps it is worth teaching people despite reservations from the powers that be - better if it were done under official control but better than not doing it at all. You were motivated to do that. Many editors are not, they just want to edit their 20 site backwater twig and leave it at that. Does no harm if they do it fairly. But they aren't the salvation of the project. Happy to have a debate on the points not agreed
Sadly, you aren't a member of the most relevant theatre and to have the debate elsewhere would be to breach the ODP communication guidelines. Not going to happen, sorry.
So as the member of most relevant theater, how much do you make every month from your "volunteer" work?
A very closed minded attitude if you don't mind me saying so. One of the thoughts it is allergic to is that those who are not editors might have something relevant to say. Comes over as pure arrogance dplurker and I thought better of you. Having a debate concerning something put forward on DP by a non-editor cannot in any possible way breach ODP communication guidelines. Try reading them - I know them very well myself. If you were to say what you agree/disagree with then perhaps I could clarify. What was the point of asking me to expand on my point if what I have to say is irrelevant to anything?
You were never a meta or catmod and you've never been involved in the detail of newapp processing. I'd be amazed if your detailed claims were any more than conjecture and extrapolated hints picked up over the years - particularly since some of them are just plain wrong. I particularly wanted to see your proposals for relaxing the newapp evaluation process. Instead, you've made a few suggestions about what should happen once an application is accepted. They're interesting but sadly not novel. Were I being arrogant, I'd never have asked you at all .
I am always happy to be corrected and admit when I am wrong, but you are not saying what is plain wrong and why. Isn't that part of the problem - the fact that the only evidence that exists about this mysterious process is circumstantial due to the lack of open and objectively defined criteria for new applications and new permissions processing. This leads to a perception, which the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests to be true, that the process is inconsistent in how it is applied. That evidence is circumstantial does not means it is untrue, and in this case there is an awful lot of it. The arrogance is in assuming that unless one has direct experience of a particular process one is unqualified to make any comment on it. It is an arrogance, "meta knows best", that has seen DMOZ editor numbers decline to historic lows and quality control problems to be at an historic high. It is an attitude that demoralises editors below meta and a very strong factor in my leaving the project. The current meta/admin management are directly responsible for the project's decline and they clearly do not know how to reverse that. The evidence of that will be in the next Monthly Report whenever it happens, and it will be no good using the outage as an excuse - that was a direct result of failure to manage risks properly, another management failure. They're not novel because here and there I have been saying the same thing for quite some time, inside and outside DMOZ. Sadly the powers that be were not even interested in allowing a proper detailed study of such a proposal though it would have cost them nothing. The allergy to change goes beyond basic guidelines and into attitudes.
If the process was inconsistent then I could not succeed with all my applications. I can guarantee above 80% success rate for my applications. The most important point is to convince them that you are stupid and you are in.
Well they should then make list of banned words, guidelines give only general direction and as I have said word huge in this case was understatement (it described massive gaming mod which is several them bigger then original game and there was no other mod like it) and since my only connection to the mod and website is that I wasted several months of my life playing the mod I saw no problem in description, especially since there are plenty of cases of word huge being used in description at DMOZ - are they all in violation of guidelines. I figured that out myself but I'm just lazy to bother with it - my free time is bad as it is - no point in creating more responsibilities. That way you could also better control editors with annoying sense of humor instead of removing then - hey it's not my fault I grown up on Monty Python's Flying Circus, Only Fools and Horses, Red Dwarf, Blackadder, Benny Hill, Fawlty Towers, Chelmsford 123... blame the Brits! I was like that at first so for the first year I didn't move out of Total war category only once I started serious work on my website did my niches start to expand and once I discovered how to create new categories only sky was to limit. P.S. Happy New Year!
Well yes, there are strategies that are consistently successful or I would not have had a 100% success rate in new permissions once an editor. Not in an underhand way but by reading and absorbing guidelines, avoiding using examples that were borderline in any way as regards listability and placement, and double checking spelling and grammar on a bland description. These things can be taught so any editor can apply them, thereby increasing resources. The inconsistency is in terms of some metas who will recognise potential and develop it, and some metas who are pedantic and reject rather than develop. It comes down to risk management again. Organisations that move forward take risks, calculated ones properly managed. If you don't take risks then you stagnate. If you properly train editors and control them via greenbusting for a period then you manage risks and can take what appear to be much higher ones. In fact the risks are lower than at present because you are in control. You might get 80% of your applications accepted, maybe 90%, but to do anything with the accounts would mean going through a couple of months of training and supervision with each one, reducing the attractiveness of doing so with malicious intent.