By critiquing categories for other editors, you can provide very
valuable help that will benefit both the editors and the directory as
a whole. Conversely, offering new editors misleading advice can cause
them to be confused and frustrated. The suggestions contained within
this guide are intended to aid experienced editors in helping newer
editors.
The Goal of Category Checking
The purpose of the cat check threads is to get editors to
understand the official editing guidelines, so they can independently
use them as a basis for good editorial judgment and common sense
decision making. Official editorial policy only exists in the ODP Guidelines,
category specific guidelines, category charters, and some category
FAQs. Your feedback should be backed up by these guidelines.
Avoid basing your feedback on opinions or comments made in forum
discussions and editor's notes. These sources do not contain official
editorial policy, but comments on editorial issues and decisions made
in very specific instances.
Unlike other threads, cat check threads provide feedback rather
than discussions of editorial issues. To avoid confusion and the
proliferation of editing myths, refrain from giving your personal
opinion and interpretation of the guidelines. For example, when
statements such as "You shouldn't list sites that do not include a
postal address" are made, new editors may construe them as rules. This
causes problems, as when somebody else advises this new editor to the
contrary, they can become confused. If you can't cite guideline
sources to back up your comments, make it clear that your comments are
not supported by official editorial policy.
Suggested Steps
1. Structure
Has the editor made structural changes? Do they make sense? Has
he consulted other editors or discussed changes in the forum? If not,
remind the editor of the importance of communication, and point him to
the appropriate forum to discuss taxonomy changes with fellow
editors.
Has he created categories that overlap or duplicate others in the
directory? Are the category names spelled correctly?
If this part of the directory uses a template, then the required
elements should not deviate from it. (Note that some templates, such
as the Regional template, have portions that are merely recommended or
suggested).
2. To Include or Not to Include
Look at the category's editing logs. Has the editor deleted good,
working URLs?
Have they been adding affiliate links, or content-free deeplinks?
If they have, direct them to the Include or Not
Include section of the guidelines, and offer specific advice if
they have been consistently making the same mistake, such as deleting
all deeplinks, sites that are legitimately dual listed in Regional/ and Topical, or
sites on free hosts.
Is the editor listing redirects or mirrors? If so, point them to
here and
inform them of the purpose of
Test/See_Editors_Notes .
3. Link Integrity
Run a link
checker over their category. Make sure you double check the errors
the link checker finds. Some link checkers report errors for URLs
that work. If redirecting/erroneous URLs are found, suggest that they
use such a tool in the future.
If the editor is listing 'vanity URLs', such as those supplied by
CJB.net, explain that they should list the site's actual URL
instead. If necessary, provide guidance as to how the correct URL can
be obtained.
4. Placement
Were sites added that belong in either Adult
or World ? If so, explain the purpose of these
two categories, and point them to either the Adult Guidelines or
the World FAQ as appropriate.
Is the editor listing sites in their category that would be better
placed in related categories? If they appear to be making this mistake
regularly, then inform them of the fact, suggest they re-evaluate the
scope of their category, and indicate related categories that should
be linked to.
Advise to create/update a category charter to help with site
placement and submissions if necessary.
5. Descriptions
Do the descriptions describe the content and/or subject matter of
the sites?
Do the descriptions read like advertisements or sales pitches? If
so, give examples of good, objective and unbiased descriptions, and
suggest how they could be rewritten. Avoid being overly nitpicky
about the use of adjectives. Focus on flagrant examples of marketing
hype, i.e. words and phrases that say nothing about the site's actual
content and subject matter.
Is the person following the
description guidelines? If not, cite the guideline not being
followed, and suggest ways to re-work the description.
Avoid pointing out every single problem. If an editor has made
some consistent mistakes, such as spelling and punctuation errors,
simply point out a few, and ask the editor to review all titles and
descriptions again for these types of errors.
The Positive as Well as Areas for Improvement
Look to see what editor has done well. Constructive criticism is
important, but so is feedback on good editing practices. Has the
editor found a lot of new sites to add? Is he moving misplaced
submissions rather than deleting them? Has he written a useful
category charter? If they have done any of these, congratulate
them.
Last update: 2002-02-15
