Why do you seem so concerned with ODP?

Brizzie here speaks with much wisdom.

Indeed, editor "underlings" can be evicted at any time if they attract the attention of a paranoid, antisocial editor. That's what I was trying to avoid when I asked for arbitration; but I now know that there is no such thing as "arbitration" at the ODP, it is a farce. After the initial "I will be your arbitrator" email, the so-called arbitrator disappeared, and never responded to reminders.

Indeed, ejected innocents turn into enemies. You bet.

The knee-jerk reflex to assume that all ex-editors are guilty of abuse is another sign of that the hateful paranoia (in the full psychiatric sense of the word) of some editors has, over the years, permeated the entire structure of the ODP.

 

I mean nobody is screaming I got banned from Wiki, my profile has been locked - they must be corrupt! Anyone can see editor notes, contributions and see what he has been doing and if he was vandalizing, spaming and why he got locked.

It's a price of popularity as you have said it; if ODP become authority once more it would have same problems with or without anonymous editing.

Certain pages are already protected from anonymous contributors and some are only allowed for admins to edit so there is no need for widespread block, especially stubs should be allowed for anyone to edit to get them off the ground, much bigger problem is maintenance and many orphan articles without any other articles linking to them. IIRC English wiki did block creation of new articles by anonymous but that is understandable since it become monster size.

 

Try to pretend that you are not abusing the directory but there is always evidence about the abuse. It is part of the guideline for people who oppose the corruption in DMOZ that we can not tell you the evidence we have about your abuse or what you have done. Why does people who get paid for listings, work for SEO companies or list their sites without mentioning in their affiliation, always get surprised when they are found out? You know that this must be correct because we have a lot of experience with detecting people who abuse the directory. If you are not abusing the directory then prove it.

 

Yes you were. You were an abuser. So you can quit your sanctimonious blatherings. If you don't know why you were removed, you're either deluding yourself or really don't understand what abuse is. Either way, I'm glad your gone. Ta.

P.S. Brizzie, you should know that I can't reveal the reason for removal. For one, without access to the proper meta forum, my conclusion is based solely on what I can find in the logs. Two, I would be removed if I did that. Something I really don't want to happen.

 

A plain and simple lie. You are steeping very, very low to cover up the unfairness and paranoia of the ODP.

You have found nothing in my logs. There is nothing there to find. I bet you didn't even look. If you took the trouble, you wouldn't be "glad" I'm gone.

That's mighty convenient.

It's like a mirror; you keep complaining that no one brings forth "proofs of abuse from editors." But you are refusing to bring facts to the light, in the same manner that you condemn in others.

 

You are confused. I've never complained about that. I can almost always find the abuse in the logs. And most of the time, I wonder why it took the metas so long to remove the editor.

 

Superb post! Apparently, I need to spread some reputation around before I can applaud you with green.

 

The way the guideline are written with the rules and then hundred different "exceptions" that contradict the original rule or other guidelines rules, any kind of edit can be the worst kind of abuse or totally confirming to the guideline depending on the intention the one who is looking.

If Metas and Admins were really after removing the abusive editors, I have presented clear evidence of abuse by editors and Meta, why these people are not removed?

Is it again a case of all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others?

 

Helleborine - I don't think Ishfish is a liar. He asked for your editor name, remember? It was obvious that he was going to take a look in your logs. You feel that you are innocent. He feels that you are guilty. So is there any possible explanation? Several:

a) You simply made mistakes, as Brizzie suggested. Sometimes when working quickly we may add a site that we intended to move or delete.

b) Someone else had access to your login.

c) You were not aware that something that you were doing could be considered abuse.

 

d) helleborine was railroaded for pissing off one or more senior editors or admins

Most likely answer? Probably d) ...

 

Most unlikely Minstrel, as has already been explained at some length. An editor can't get thrown out on the whim of a single meta. http://dmoz.org/guidelines/meta/abuse.html

The Admins don't come into this at all. I'm not sure if they were even in position at the time. I'd need to check dates. But anyway it is metas who deal with the day-to-day business of hire and fire (so to speak.) Admins will be involved only for senior editors.

 

Yes minstrel, I also think it's (d).

======================

Google will eventually unload DMOZ, I think, for one of two main reasons.

(1) Embarassment. The embarassment may come from any the several sources ODP oozes with.

(a) The shameful behavior at RZ;
(b) paranoid editors (google kctipton for a stellar example - seek out his forum contributions, don't bother with his soporific blogs);
(c) unstoppable accusations of corruption stemming from its continued hermetic secrecy;
(d) a growing body of disillusioned ex-editors;

But the biggest nail in DMOZ's coffin will be...

(e) gallopping obsolescence, increasing inability to keep up with the pace of the growth of the web, a hopelessly antiquated database, editor attrition, and sluggish editor renewal.

I can't imagine Google wanting to tarnish its good name with the ODP much longer.

(2) The existence of a viable alternative, i.e., Google Co-Op.

I don't think the success of the Co-Op is necessary for Google to come to its senses and drop all ties with the ODP. But I do hope it can hurry things along.

=====================

Let's not forget that, although the ODP, most revealingly, passed on the opportunity of ridding themselves of pesky webmasters forever by using the "nofollow" link attribute, they continue to publicly protest that they would really love Google to stop propping them up. Well, they don't say "propping them up" but I do, haha.

They should be handed what they say they want. They say they would love for Google to drop them. I look forward to the day.

Then, having reached the nirvana of googleless editorship, editors will finally live happily ever after, categorizing 10 yr-old cobwebbed websites, with no one bothering them and accusing them of corruption.

And everyone will be happy at last.

 

If one day AOL decides to help the senior editors in DMOZ, I suppose minstrel can have full time job with AOL. The fairy princess and other assorted crazies in Meta and Admin ranks are not much better than kctipton.

 

I don't think that google is exactly "loaded" with DMOZ now. Their directory (which few use) is about it. I think that it is a mistake to assume that the fortunes of the ODP are linked to that of google, just like it was a mistake to link them with Altavista in 2000.

Have you seen this? http://dmoz.org/newsletter/2006Spring/odp_data_use.html . The ODP (at last) has acknowledged that the net has changed and that straight directories are not the sole future.

 

The total number of active editors is some where between 300-500. The 7000 is just a number too hide this fact. If Google drops DMOZ as it's directory, the number of active DMOZ editors in the best case will be about 30-80.

The "senior" editors are always pretending that they don't care about SEO and links but if you look, you will see them already in wiki, co-op and any other directory that you can find, so they can move their sites and links to the alternatives when DMOZ ship sinks.

 

You accuse the ODP of being secretive and yet when they release info you say it all lies. This is your modus operandi isn't it? Quote unsubstantiated nonsense as if were fact, and hurl it about as many times as you can in the hope that some of the mud sticks.

By the way I did a search on the forum threads and I couldn't find any information regarding sites owned by adult metas. Specific information that is. You can reply to my PM any time you like. Or was that just a another mud slinging exercise?

 

Sorry gworld but the total number is 2,000-2,500.

 

ODP was expanding, had a healthy editor base that could cope well with maintenance as well, people used global directories. In 2006, as ishfish's and chris2001's statistics show, productivity is at an all time low, site listings in English language cats (exc. K&T) are declining and have been doing for some time, editor numbers are at an all-time low, and others are doing what ODP used to do best in many areas better. I can't see a way it will adapt in time but it may survive in some form with the die-hards. How long AOL will fund something on the decline is another question.

I know that but I looked through the logs at the time and didn't find anything. And because no-one will (by convention) reveal the reasons and evidence then helleborine has no opportunity to defend herself - she seems very convinced of her innocence so misunderstanding has to be a possibility. She is at least winning the propoganda battle and presentation of the evidence, if it proved her guilt beyond doubt, would most likely be in DMOZ's best interests. Therefore the official conventions would appear to be another example of DMOZ shooting itself in the foot by allowing either a corrupt editor to fool people or an innocent editor to be tarred and feathered for a misunderstanding. Either way it is a policy that does not work on any level.

I recall the case of an editor below me in a branch who was doing very well, getting his work checked regularly, taking on board advice, looking to expand. Along came a very nasty meta (not one I had ever heard of before or since, one of those who lurk) who took umbrage at something about the editor's grammar, which was actually fine, and threatened to remove him for bad punctuation or something equally trivial. It didn't happen, it didn't stay quiet and the meta was eventually ticked off after initially being defended by fellow metas. But that editor never did more than a couple more edits. So I can well imagine that some editors have been removed for allegedly poor editing because they didn't have the guts to stand up for themselves, or been effectively demotivated so far they might as well have been removed. That is meta abuse and I have heard it too many times from too many serving editors - if they had been being abusive they would have been removed so this is not corrupt editors complaining. And it is not just metas either - there are stories of Admins being extremely rude and condescending to regular editors who dare not answer back so who is there to fix the problem. I will never be convinced of widespread corruption in senior ranks but there is altogether too much abuse via bullying right up to the very top, and too many good metas who watch them do it and say nothing.

 

LOL, now that is funny, you are the one who is accusing helleborine and every other editor who is removed for abuse and corruption without providing the smallest piece of evidence and you are complaining about mud slinging.

By the way, I am still waiting for any proof that you are not defending DMOZ because you are working for a SEO company and selling listings in DMOZ? If you can not prove that you are innocent then it must be true, even if we can not provide you with exact information about what you have done or the evidence.

Have you dealt with with the editor that was mentioned in my post before you try with Meta? How do I know that you are not just another of Meta's puppet that is just trying to kiss ass by defending the corruption and hiding the facts by your smoke screen? You must admit that you closing your eyes to all the facts, doesn't exactly generates confidence in your integrity.

 

Hang on a minute old soak. You said you had evidence of corrupt metas. Real evidence. Many times. Over and over again. Now you are asking for proof of innocence. You are starting to appear a bit flakey. You either have the evidence or you do not. What is it? How hard can it be to send me that PM?