Welcome to Resource Zone.

Useless numbers

Thread starter #1
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Some editing results

Last fall, I kept some detailed statistics on my editing efforts in Regional/North_America/United_States/Arizona and its subcats.

I thought I would share some of those statistics:

I processed 69 unreviewed sites. These sites had been swimming in the unreviewed pool for a total of 2,517 days, or an average of 36.47 days. [It is worth noting that in counting the days, I used the submission date if the site had not been touched by an editor prior to this visit, and I used the date the previous editor had touched it, if it had been moved into the current category.]

Two sites were processed within one day. One was a brand new submission that was immediately deleted for a lack of unique content, the other was moved by another editor and was listed.

The site waiting the longest sat in the pool for 137 days before I deleted it as spam. About 300 copies had been deleted prior to this action by other editors. The next two longest sat for 126 and 127 days respectively. Both were moved by other editors, the 126 day site was listed, and the 127 day site was deleted because it was dead, and was dead when last touched by an editor four months earlier.

I found it interesting that five of the seven sites that sat for more than 100 days were moves, rather than submissions. Not sure what it means, but it was interesting.

I listed 25 sites. In two instances, I listed the mirror rather than the submitted URL becaue the mirror contained more unique content that the site that was submitted.

I moved and listed 10 sites (usually just short hop, up or down a level). I rarely move and list a site if it has to be moved very far. In those instances I just do the move and let the next editor in the category deal with it, even if that next editor will likely be me.

I moved 1 site for some other editor.

I moved 2 sites to a private holding area to see if content grows over time. I'll revisit those sites in a few months.

I deleted sites for the following reasons:

Porn (2)
Deep links (3)
Insufficient Unique Content ( 8 )
Not found/Dead/Bad Domain (5)
Affiliate (1)
Lead generator (1)
Mirror (4)
Already Listed/Dupe (5)
Pure spam (1)
Other, not appropriate to discuss here. (1)

So what does it all mean? Probably not much, but here are some of my personal observations that may be worth considering:

1. Regional does not seem to get as much pure spam as other parts of the directory where I edit.
2. Lack of unique content is a major cause of sites not getting listed.
3. Only about half of the sites I looked at were listable. (At the time of this study I was definitely not tough enough on cookie cutter real estate sites, but am now much stricter.)
4. Another editor performing the same experiment could have wildly different results, even within Regional/.
5. The easiest sites to list are those that are listed in another part of the directory and have been sent to Regional/ by the listing editor.
 
Top Bottom