ODP Report Jan-Dec 2005.
Edited by Jean_Manco, 23 January 2006 - 08:19 AM.
Jump to content
Posted 23 January 2006 - 08:18 AM
Edited by Jean_Manco, 23 January 2006 - 08:19 AM.
Posted 23 January 2006 - 09:20 AM
Posted 23 January 2006 - 09:48 AM
Edited by Jean_Manco, 23 January 2006 - 09:52 AM.
Posted 24 January 2006 - 01:56 AM
Posted 24 January 2006 - 02:42 AM
* 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
Edited by softplus, 24 January 2006 - 02:43 AM.
Posted 24 January 2006 - 03:58 AM
Posted 24 January 2006 - 10:16 AM
Posted 24 January 2006 - 10:30 AM
Posted 24 January 2006 - 11:00 AM
I can just imagine the level of abuse you have to take from the webmasters
Posted 24 January 2006 - 11:41 AM
Posted 24 January 2006 - 12:04 PM
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.
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?
Edited by Jean_Manco, 05 March 2006 - 11:47 AM.
Posted 25 January 2006 - 07:52 AM
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.
Posted 25 January 2006 - 08:04 AM
Posted 13 February 2006 - 07:49 AM
Posted 13 February 2006 - 08:14 AM
Posted 13 February 2006 - 09:14 AM
So that looks like 627 editors in, versus ~778 editors out...
New editors: 301
Reinstated editors: 326
Accounts inactivated for a variety of reasons (inactivity, resignation, removal): ~ 778 (estimated)
Posted 13 February 2006 - 09:39 AM
Yes and yes. Senior editors have been aware of the issue for some time and naturally they have been thinking about it.
Has this become any level of concern yet? Are there any plans to address this situation of a shrinking editor pool somehow?
Edited by Jean_Manco, 05 March 2006 - 11:48 AM.
Posted 06 March 2006 - 05:14 PM
So the trend of declining editors is continuing, and not merely a post-Xmas thing.
New editors: 289
Reinstated editors: 303
Accounts inactivated for a variety of reasons (inactivity, resignation, removal): 664
Posted 06 March 2006 - 06:11 PM
Posted 07 March 2006 - 03:27 PM
Editor numbers have been falling for years. You can find estimates dotted around from a few years ago that give an idea. For example Wikipedia currently says:
So the trend of declining editors is continuing
The number of active editors tends to range between 9,000 and 10,000.
Departing editors quite often give a reason in their logs. I'm not sure if we could persuade them to fill in a survey form as they go. As I understand it though, the problem lies more in falling applications from suitable candidates. Which fits my theory on the effect of Internet saturation. But who knows?
survey some of the exiting editors, and perhaps people who applied but were rejected.
Edited by Jean_Manco, 07 March 2006 - 03:28 PM.
Posted 07 March 2006 - 06:45 PM
Well, I just applied. I have to say, I wasn't very aware of DMOZ at all until I just recently got involved in learning more about SEO. Perhaps you have saturated involvement from certain kinds of people on the internet, but maybe there are lots of people like me (passionate about a particular topic, not very aware of directory editing!) that with a little education, would be happy to participate.
As I understand it though, the problem lies more in falling applications from suitable candidates.
Edited by dgeary9, 08 March 2006 - 10:07 AM.
Posted 09 March 2006 - 02:32 PM
Posted 09 March 2006 - 03:28 PM
Posted 09 March 2006 - 04:54 PM
Posted 10 March 2006 - 01:33 PM
Edited by jimnoble, 10 March 2006 - 01:45 PM.
Posted 10 March 2006 - 09:20 PM
LOL! OK, I guess I feel encouraged!
That you got some comments specific to your application should be regarded as encouragement (unless they were Please do not apply again).
Jim, I much appreciate you taking a look, but I admit to being very confused. I applied for a parenting chats & forums category?? I don't see anything about commercial sites?
The category you requested doesn't have a description, but you might like to look at that for its parent category. It points out that commercial sites belong within Shopping if they meet its requirements or within Business otherwise.
Edited by dgeary9, 10 March 2006 - 09:30 PM.
Posted 11 March 2006 - 02:18 AM
Posted 11 March 2006 - 08:35 AM
Posted 11 March 2006 - 01:47 PM
Oops, I was talking about the application with the username dgeary9. If I'd checked the date, I'd have realised I'd got the wrong one .
Posted 11 May 2006 - 10:45 AM
- The Guidelines for Site Selection have been changed: Spider food sites, lead generators and content mills have been added to the list of sites which are generally not included.
- At the same time, trustworthyness is now explicitly named among the criteria to consider when selecting sites.
Posted 10 July 2006 - 04:04 PM
May I humbly suggest that this is edited to read:
Activities & Projects
·The Spring/Summer edition of the ODP newsletter has been published. Written by editors for editors, it offers insights what we are working on, what we do for fun and which topics we are excited about.
Edited by manager, 10 July 2006 - 05:02 PM.
Posted 10 July 2006 - 05:04 PM
Edited by Jean_Manco, 10 July 2006 - 05:17 PM.
Posted 10 July 2006 - 06:29 PM
Yeah OK Jean, Ihear you !
I don't worry these days about starting a sentence with but. I was taught that it should be used as a conjunction, but I get weary of however and like to throw in some variation. If is not regarded as a sentence-starter to avoid. You may be thinking of and. However Fowler's Modern English Usage simply refers to the "superstition about starting a sentence with but or and", rather than taking it seriously as poor usage.
Edited by manager, 10 July 2006 - 06:32 PM.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users