44 replies to this topic

[Jean_Manco]

ODP´s editor community has decided to publish regular reports in future, to inform the public about the development of the project. To get started, we have compiled a report for the last year:
ODP Report Jan-Dec 2005.

Edited by Jean_Manco, 23 January 2006 - 08:19 AM.

[bwelford]

Hi Jean

It's good to see more visibility from the ODP. Transparency is a great way to get more grassroots involvement.

[Jean_Manco]

I'm all in favour Barry. Of course the ODP has always had basic statistics on its front page, but those don't tell the whole story.

For example the number of editors given on the front page is all those who have ever been registered as editors. The number of active editors at any given time is less easy to compute, but now we have some reliable figures for last year.

The figure for number of listings has also been a bit confusing for various reasons. Now we can see something more meaningful - the rate of growth, including falls, which give an idea of the number of links that go dead and have to be removed (or in some cases changed). But as the report says, the falls due to Robozilla runs are only part of that story.

What Google calls 'link churn' on the Open Directory gives some idea of the rate of change in the Internet.

Edited by Jean_Manco, 23 January 2006 - 09:52 AM.

[bragadocchio]

Thanks for pointing this out to us, Jean.

I agree with Barry, the type of transparency that we see here helps let us know more about what is going on with the directory, and that's a good step forward.

Link churn is an interesting concept. Nice to see it being met head on at the DMOZ.

[JohnMu]

Am I reading this wrong:

    *  Active editor accounts on 1 January 2005: ~8,000
    * Active editor accounts on 31 December 2005: ~ 7,744
    * Number of editor accounts approved since the foundation of ODP: 71,050
    * New editors accepted in 2005: 4,776

Does that mean the turnover for editors was over 50% last year? That seems like a lot ... I wonder what the average turnover over the years has been? Without knowing more, it seems like either they're approving editors who only stick around for a short time (and the rest are long-time editors) or there's something bothering the editors to make them leave in that number. (Or I'm reading too much into some dumb numbers )

Any insight, anyone? Thanks!

John

PS Where is the "# of spam sites using ODP-data to fill up the serps"?

Edited by softplus, 24 January 2006 - 02:43 AM.

[travis]

Thanks Jean,

Its great to see some data on the project.

[Jean_Manco]

Softplus - yes turnover of editors has always been pretty high.

Some editors are approved, but never even log in and so their accounts time out. Some make only one or two edits and then time out. Reasons? Could include lack of interest (perhaps applied on a whim, or out of curiosity) or just wanted to list their own site.

Of those who stay longer, some are removed, some die and some leave for happier reasons (new job, new business, new baby, promotion). Some burn out. Some get fed up.

Some force themselves to leave (or at least take long breaks) because it's bad for your health to get too addicted to editing. I'm serious! That includes me, so I can speak from certain knowledge. Yes I know most people reading this won't believe that sitting at a computer all day and night is anything but natural and normal. But the truth is the body needs exercise. And I'm not even going to start talking about repetitive strain injury and carpal tunnel syndrome.

[JohnMu]

Thanks, Jean

I imagine it takes a pretty thick skin to be an editor... That's one of the things holding me back from even taking a better look at what it would take to do that -- I can just imagine the level of abuse you have to take from the webmasters and probably even the "politics" of everything going on behind the scenes, that must be pretty hard on the nerves. What's your feeling, how is the time as an editor spent? I might go for 90% reviewing, 10% overhead, but it sounds a bit idealistic; what is your guess?

John

[Eddie]

  I can just imagine the level of abuse you have to take from the webmasters 

I have had very little of that over the years from emails to me. The only really bad experiences I've had is when posting on boards trying to explain something. :iamwithstupid:

[jimnoble]

What Eddie said.

It's mainly those of us who show our heads above the parapet in external forums who receive incoming abuse. Most editors just quietly get along with their hobby - or not if they so choose .

[Jean_Manco]

What's your feeling, how is the time as an editor spent? I might go for 90% reviewing, 10% overhead, but it sounds a bit idealistic; what is your guess?

Hard to say. It will vary enormously from editor to editor. For a new editor there is a lot to take in. Once past that learning phase, editors could edit pretty solidly, but many of the keenest end up as metas, which mean they could be spending a lot of time on non-editing tasks such as reviewing editor applications.

Edited by Jean_Manco, 05 March 2006 - 11:47 AM.

[DianeV]

:offtopic:

Wow:

Yes I know most people reading this won't believe that sitting at a computer all day and night is anything but natural and normal.

That's got to be one of the best, if humorous, statements I've seen. Mind if I borrow it?

[Jean_Manco]

[DianeV]

I'll take that as a "yes" then. It's a must-have for DesignerJones.com.

[Jean_Manco]

ODP report for January 2006.

I can't see how to modify the title of this thread, in which I stupidly included 'for 2005', when I knew that the plan was to issue reports monthly this year. It seems silly to start a new thread though.

So here's the first monthly report. It does include a graph showing net growth through December and January, in order to show the effect of a Robozilla run.

[bwelford]

Hi Jean

I changed the title - hope that's OK.

It's great to see monthly reports. Now all they have to do is add a RSS newsfeed for maximum visibility, and what more could anyone ask for. Way to go.

[Black_Knight]

New editors: 301
Reinstated editors: 326
Accounts inactivated for a variety of reasons (inactivity, resignation, removal): ~ 778 (estimated)

So that looks like 627 editors in, versus ~778 editors out...

If the estimated ~778 editors inactivated is anything close to correct, that means an overall loss of around 150 editors for the period. Or put another way, that DMOZ seems to be losing editors 25% faster than it is attracting editors. I noted that in the previous report for last year too. Even though the workload is ever increasing (web growth just keeps accellerating), it does seem that the labour pool is definitely on a downward trend.

Has this become any level of concern yet? Are there any plans to address this situation of a shrinking editor pool somehow?

[Jean_Manco]

Thanks Barry!

Has this become any level of concern yet? Are there any plans to address this situation of a shrinking editor pool somehow?

Yes and yes. Senior editors have been aware of the issue for some time and naturally they have been thinking about it.

We have had some fancy tools internally for years that enable editors to see stats for all sorts of things, but it tends to be the super-keen (and tool-savvy) who use them. Now with these reports, some stats are made available to all editors and the public.

However the stats don't tell us everything we might like to know. If I may venture on a little speculation, I'd say that there is a natural limit on the number of people willing to volunteer for online collaborations.

If so, then in parts of the world that have reached saturation online coverage, I would expect suitable applications to slow down. (I would expect some, as the next generation arrives on the web, or people retire or their circumstances change, so they can think about volunteering, but not a mad rush.) However in countries where the Internet is still building up, I would expect applications to continue at a higher level. I would be interested to know if that prediction is born out by the figures, but so far we haven't got those stats.

Edited by Jean_Manco, 05 March 2006 - 11:48 AM.

[Jean_Manco]

ODP Report for February 2006

[Black_Knight]

Thanks for keeping us updated, Jean.

New editors: 289
Reinstated editors: 303
Accounts inactivated for a variety of reasons (inactivity, resignation, removal): 664

So the trend of declining editors is continuing, and not merely a post-Xmas thing.

592 Editors In versus 664 Editors Out to represent an overall loss of 72 editors over the month. While this represents a loss rate of only half the previous month's, it is still a sad statistic to see. The more so since we know that demand upon that shrinking pool is only growing and growing.