I want to give welcome to truebluedmoz and lmocr and thanks for being more detailed in answers.

Your answers and comments IMO are better than any I have seen in other forums and previous threads here.

lmocr wrote:

Applications should be made to a relatively small category - typically this means a category that contains less than 50 sites, but could be as high as 100.  The category should also not have a large number of subcategories.  Colorado is a large category containing almost 14,000 listings (based on the current view of the directory) and multiple subcategories.   The city of Pueblo has over 200 listings and also contains numerous subcategories.  Drilling down into Pueblo, there is Business and Economy (still rather large with over 100 listings). 

But inside Business and Economy - I can see a few categories that look like they could use the help of an editor.  For example, there's the Restaurant and Bars category - please tell me that a city of Pueblo's size has more than three restaurant websites.    I counted ten in the Chamber membership list, but some of those are chain style which wouldn't be listed unless they had significant regional relevance (one example that wouldn't be listed in Pueblo Restaurants is the website for Wendys). 

An alternative to beginning with editing a subcategory of Pueblo, would be to edit one of the smaller towns around Pueblo, like Avondale or Rye.

Thank you, has been noted.

I too agree with Northie, if you don't like something and do nothing to change it then you should shut-up.

For me getting a solid answer and not political jargon is all I have asked.

When the same question gets the same dead-end-no-answer response it does have a tendency to leave a sour taste with you no matter what side you are on.

Following this discussion and reading the posts made by DMOZ editors, has (for me), answered a lot and the taste is not as sour as it was.

I feel that the issues regarding rejections for editing have been covered fairly well. Still lost about how duplicate listings can get placed while other sites can't.

truebluedmoz wrote:

They'd hang me in a second if I made RZ all about you!

hehe...com'on they're not that bad over there

My comments were more aimed towards the system itself, but you have shed some really helpful light on the role and views of editors!

I now realize that entering the discussion based on my intended point may be an exercise in futility based upon it's potentially redundant nature. Like Northie said- if I can’t help I’ll stay out of the way.

Thanks again for your insight- hopefully we all learned a lot ( i know i did). Look forward to chatting it up on some other topics with you!

Cheers

Still lost about how duplicate listings can get placed while other sites can't.

ColoEagle,

It's extremely hard to NOT get listed in a Regional category- most everyone is located somewhere. If you've suggested your site in Regional, and are not yet listed, the most likely answer is that it has yet to be reviewed. If you've suggested your site in the Business branch, please note that most category descriptions contain wording to the effect of  "If the website serves only a limited geographic area, submit it to the proper locality category within Regional." Mind you, not all cat descriptions mention this specifically, but that is the general rule of thumb. For more information, please see the Business charter, specifically "Sites generally not listed in the Business category: Local businesses".

So, how does a site get listed twice? Usually (in my experience), the site is reviewed and found to meet the criteria for a topical listing. Many editors then forward a copy of the suggestion to the appropriate regional cat (or list it themselves if they have editing permissions in the additional category).

Hope I've made some correct assumptions on what you're asking- if not, feel free to ask!

[note] I replied before seeing that you're already listed. I'm leaving my post unedited, as it may be of some use to others.

trueblue, i appreciate your posting here, and i appreciate the information. just so you know http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ has not worked for some time now. which means, i can not follow up on my complaint about an editor.

also, approx. Oct. 13, i resubmitted one of my websites which had been listed on DMOZ for Years. it is not yet listed. other websites besides mine were also edited out of the Category. i believe you will find that the Editor for http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/ … el_Guides/ is also the Owner, or works for, the first website listed on that page. he/she was also a problem on Wiki: Cancun.

i use to be a cheerleader for Dmoz. i'm afraid i no longer can be. respectfully, tim

lmocr wrote:

ColoEagle wrote:

I also understand the passion or knowledge thing. I applied to edit the category for my state. Haven't checked since then but there was no editor for Colorado at the time.

Disclaimer :  I don't review or approve applications, but I've been an editor for awhile and am familiar with some of the reasons why applications are rejected......

I am a bit late to the party, but will inject something anyway.  I have had experience (albeit limited only to Regional) of reviewing/approving/rejecting editor applications and would like to stress that lmocr is spot on with her information.  All of Colorado and even all of Pueblo are far to large for a trainee.  At  110 listings Pueblo/B&E is a tad on the too large side, but I think a well written application could result in either acceptance there or more likely acceptance to one or more of the smaller sub-cats.  I would also recommend as a reviewer to avoid if possible applying for real estate and travel and tourism categories because they tend to not be preferred first choices for new editor trainee's.   I will also say with near certainty that a new editor isn't very likely to be given all of any state as a first category simply due to the scope of those permissions. 

Also to address some other points raised (from my perspective), the role of an editor from the standpoint of the dmoz community is to help in any capacity they can to build the categories they have permissions to work in.  So to say that X number of editors is unmanageable or too many to be productive is IMO unfair.  Each editor contributes as much time as the can, we they can, and to what they view is important at the time.  No editor changes what I decide to work on today (theoretically speaking given that dmoz is still down and I can't edit at all today ) and no one is effected on how much or where I work today.   
Editors are required to make one edit every four months, what that means is that as long as they are an editor at least 1 more quality edit has been made in those four months than would have been had they not contributed.  Whether they edit in Colorado or Bulgaria doesn't effect me or any other editor and since I could edit in either Colorado or Bulgaria I still could do so.  If they choose not to edit this month, I still can edit so nothing has been lost.     

nic wrote:

These particular rules such as the one above aren’t what I wish to discuss, but again the system as a whole. I think it need tightening so a better level of service can be provided.

May I ask what service you are referring to that dmoz offers and it isn't performing as well as it could be?   This is where I think a large gap in communication exists between editors and the public, and I admit this is our fault for not being able to make it abundantly clear for everyone to see.  The only 'service' dmoz provides (or claims to provide) is the creation of freely available data that anyone can download and incorporate in anyway they see fit (with proper attribution of course) at no cost,  in the hopes of making information searches better and giving web surfers a more beneficial Internet experience.  There has never been, nor will there ever be services geared towards sites, site owners, designers, webmasters, or SEO's and there will never be services geared or directed to specific sites or paid inclusion options.

Sorry for the length, I do hate long winded posts (but I am sure if you ask blue he will quickly tell you I usually fail to avoid them ).  I hope that helps at least in some small part, to clarify some things.  I will try and bookmark these forums and check back more often, because of all the forums I participate thus far this is one of the more positive and objective ones I have seen.

Hope that helps.

Cbeach1 wrote:

trueblue, i appreciate your posting here, and i appreciate the information. just so you know http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ has not worked for some time now. which means, i can not follow up on my complaint about an editor.

also, approx. Oct. 13, i resubmitted one of my websites which had been listed on DMOZ for Years. it is not yet listed. other websites besides mine were also edited out of the Category. i believe you will find that the Editor for http://dmoz.org/Regional/North_America/ … el_Guides/ is also the Owner, or works for, the first website listed on that page. he/she was also a problem on Wiki: Cancun.

i use to be a cheerleader for Dmoz. i'm afraid i no longer can be. respectfully, tim

Tim, yes with the editors servers down while the repairs are being implemented the abuse system is also offline unfortunately.  As one of the Regional Catmod editors I would have access to abuse reports and do actively monitor and investigate those in Regional categories.  Naturally I cannot comment on any abuse complaints, nor would I discuss any particular editor who may be subject of an investigation. Not to mention, that I have not had access to the abuse system for over a month so couldn't even look to see the report you filed at the moment any way.  I will tell you though that if you did file a report and provided evidence of the abuse it will be investigated (investigations are taken very seriously) and if abuse is found action to correct will be taken.  That being said (and bear in mind I do not know any details of your report and have not looked into the category so the following is only a general statement) owning a site in your category is not abuse.  Not listing someone else's site is not in by itself abuse (note: listing only ones own sites while rejecting competitors would be, and showing favoritism to ones sites or affiliated sites would be abuse as well).  Often times (not all, and I wont even say the majority), abuse reports will uncover horrendous editing but not abusive editing.  They are still helpful though, because it alerts senior editors to problems that are in need of correction and monitoring.
When dmoz does come back please check the status of the report and if you like you are welcome to PM the evidence you have of abuse and where/what is occurring and I would be glad to take a look-but note I will take your report and evidence to the abuse system once it returns and will not respond or comment on any findings or actions taken as a result of anything I find. 

I hope that helps.

Hey Shadow,

To be perfectly honest with you…

1)    I am disheartened with what happened in the RZ and as you can tell by my last post will not be contributing again (nothing to do with you- in fact you and a few others were the only reason I even stuck around). When I saw there was an issue with the article I came over, introduced myself, took responsibly for publishing it, listen to comments and advice (such as yours), admitted we weren’t perfect, responded sensibly and  agreed to look into it/improve our systems for the future. Can’t say the same courtesy was returned by a number of RZ editors which made me decide it wasn’t worth following through with more posts.

2)    I don’t use DMOZ. I don’t use it as a web user to find sites or relevant info. I don’t use it anymore as a webmaster to submit sites (submitted 1 site in the last few years out of 10+ we created since)

3)    I spent a lot of my day yesterday in the RZ and on DMOZ and in turn neglected real work I had to do which I am now paying for.

So for the above reasons I will discontinue talking about the ODP for a while. Sorry, I don’t mean to bail on you, but I have to draw the line somewhere and use my time in a personally more prosperous manner with items I’m actually dealing with. (Sorry if that sounds selfish- not meant to be)

Again your contributions here are very, very, very appreciated and I know for a fact that you and others are helping A LOT of our members. For that I thank you and encourage you all to keep helping.

Look forward to hearing and chatting with you on different topics. I hope you’ll find many of the other conversations beneficial. It’s a pleasure to have you here!

Nic

Hi Cbeach1,

Lucky for me that shadow575 came along and answered your question. He's a catmod (for some reason, likes to call himself a half-meta ) who truly will have access to the information once the server is back up. If he says he'll look into it, I have absolutely no reason to doubt him. I cannot help with this, I do not have the proper permissions (I'm just an editall). Have faith- we're all struggling with this outage. Hopefully it will not last too much longer.

@nic:
I truly am sorry your experience at RZ wasn't any better.  Honestly I didn't see much that wasn't positive in that discussion.  There were a few posts that for whatever reason didn't come across the way I believe they were intended and thats sad.  For your members and yourself, there is a spin off forum located at http://www.dummies-guide-to-dmoz.org/phpbb2/ which is administrated/moderated by current and former editors that may be useful.  Note, neither RZ or DGTD are official extensions of dmoz but rather unofficial forums moderated by some of the volunteer editors.  I more frequently visit RZ, mainly because DGTD has just been established and there are still things that need worked out but I have on occasion managed a few posts over there.  They both are trying (I think) to accomplish the same things but going about it from different angles.  I won't say which one is best because I think it depends on the questions being asked and who is responding but it may be a fresh view of things if you want to try.

@blue you misquoted me as usual-  That's 50% pretend-meta. (just a funnier way of saying I am not a real meta just play one in Regional)

@shadow-

half-meta eats less bandwidth. Get a clue
[ducks quickly-- oops, too late! There go my permissions!]

hey trueblue, i bestow upon you 'Permissions'!! lol!! hope you get em some day. if you want. i Know it's Tough to be a Volunteer sometimes. same for you shadow.

yes, that helps shadow. just hope you also can see that deleting sites may indicate intentional abuse. (cancun.com and allaboutcancun.com were also deleted. if i could access Alexa's Wayback Machine, i could tell you more.)

thank you both for stopping by and putting your 2 cents in. tim

Cbeach1 wrote:

hey trueblue, i bestow upon you 'Permissions'!! lol!! hope you get em some day.

I'm dying laughing - but then I know what permissions 'blue has. 

For the benefit of those who don't speak the DMOZ language:

Permissions - the ability to edit in a specific category or categories.
Metas (and half metas @ Shadow) - can add and subtract permissions
Editall+ - these editors have the ability to edit anywhere in the directory
Editall+ editors have different names depending on their extra permissions, like Catmod, Editall/Catmv, Meta.  Here's a linkthat describes the types of editors.

Now why am I laughing?  'Blue is an Editall

lmocr wrote:

Now why am I laughing?  'Blue is an Editall

in That case, i kneel in thy presence oh Great Blue!! hehe tim

heh. If only I had the powers others perceive I have.   Nope, I'm a mere mortal.

truebluedmoz wrote:

heh. If only I had the powers others perceive I have.   Nope, I'm a mere mortal.

Family keeps telling me "Your for the birds"

At work they call me "Mr. Picky"

Guess that makes me  "Picky Bird Feed" 

My apologies. I don't have the opportunity to log onto the Internet on a regular basis.

It's nice to see others from RZ posting here.

All I can say is - If anyone would like a personal answer to a personal question, please let me know.

CE wrote:

At work they call me "Mr. Picky"

I've been called worse, CE. (I'm seriously nitpicky.)

Nic wrote:

Can’t say the same courtesy was returned by a number of RZ editors which made me decide it wasn’t worth following through with more posts.

I'm sorry to hear that.  I thought that SR and RZ were making progress in attempting to understand each other.

Cbeach1 wrote:

hey trueblue, i bestow upon you 'Permissions'!! lol!! hope you get em some day. if you want. i Know it's Tough to be a Volunteer sometimes. same for you shadow.

yes, that helps shadow. just hope you also can see that deleting sites may indicate intentional abuse. (cancun.com and allaboutcancun.com were also deleted. if i could access Alexa's Wayback Machine, i could tell you more.)

thank you both for stopping by and putting your 2 cents in. tim

Deleting listable sites can indeed be abuse, especially if affiliated sites are being included while competitors sites are being deleted.  Deleting sites can also be justifiable for other reasons and could also just be poor editing.  It is also important to remember that 1)the named editor of a category may not be the one who performed the edit to remove the listing.  It could be an editor higher up the branch or with the editall+ abilities lmocr talked about earlier, as well as an automated tool that detected an error and unreviewed the site for an editor to double check (the auto-tools are good but not perfect and sometimes errors are flagged and immediately found to be ok).  Not to mention that the sites could be simply unreviewed pending a move or other reorg project.  In any case, it is probably advisable to resubmit the abuse report when it comes back making a note that there may already be one under investigation  That would just make sure that it wasn't lost somewhere in the shuffle.

Now I haven't looked in great detail at either of these sites, but at a quick glance I would probably not be to worried about allaboutcancun.com.  It is part of a network of 'destination' sites and fortunately the owners smartly created allaboutmexico.com that tie all the sub-sites together and also crosslinked them.  I would probably (again, I didn't have time or desire at this point to perform a detailed review so take this as a grain of salt) not list allabout[insert locality here].com throughout the directory, rather I would prefer to have the main site allabout[insert country].com at the national level.

shadow, again, thanks for the info. if someone could give me a heads-up on when 'report abuse' is back up, it would be appreciated. just to reiterate, all sites that were once listed above Cancun101 are now gone. some had been listed on DMOZ for 6 years or longer.

trueblue, okay, i won't kneel!! LOL!! tim