Why would someone want to become a DMOZ editor?

You would have a very short career, but thanks a lot for the headsup, it's duly noted. Makes things so much easier when people are honest.

 

Well I have now been an editor for 10 days or so. Had some fun, listed a few sites and enjoying the little bit that I have done. I highly recommend it as a "fun" pastime.

I can tell you that I have read these boards for a long time, listened to all the complaints about corruption and even had doubts myself. After being privelaged enough to see inside, I can tell you that I am amazed at how transparent it is, how many checks there are and how many people can trace every move that is made, every edit made and every site listed.

I believe that the talk of corruption and wrongdoings are grossly exagerrated and based on heresay and third party "conversations".

It's a shame that people want to constantly argue and bicker about DMOZ, instead of helping to build a great resource.

 

Good post, snooks, and you'll notice that everyone gets to voice their opinion no matter what level they're at, and conversations can get quite heated at times, . Just like any family squabbles occasionally, but, they are still family.

Any editor can investigate the activities of any other editor, right from day one, including what metas are doing. There is no way for an abusive editor to hide what they're doing for long. All it takes is one abuse report or suspicion that something doesn't look right, and experienced editors have very sharp eyes. Things automatically stand out for us.

I guess what most people on the outside don't know is just how massive the Directory is on the inside, and how much reading there is to do.

You're a brand new editor and I've been editing 6 years, we're brothers, you have an equal voice within the Directory.

 

Most of the corruption is pointed at the higher ranking editors, who all have forums you do not have access too. And many of the claims are based on internal affairs. Look up Ivans edit history and see if he is lying, look up any of the editors here and do the research there on them. You should find that the only hard evidence of any of them breaking rules is hidden well away from your prying eyes... but do not pry too deep, you'll be canned.

And remember, they can fire you at any moment, for no reason, and you will NOT get a say in things or an appeal once you are let go. So maybe you will not want to look into things too deeply. *shrug*

OH, and then there are the things which are out in the open which are still going on, like Skrenta's automated listings for over ten thousand deep links to an affiliated site. And then there are the scriptlance transactions for listings which have been completed. Both of these things are out in the open, are not exaggerated, and are based on actual events...

 

While you are at it, be sure to check all the places where communication guidelines were broken. Self-interested abuse is evident in an editors logs, it doens't take a sekrit room to see that. Communications abuse is a lot easier to find, if you want to look for it.

Its all there for anyone to see, again if they actually want to find it. The problem is, that with many no one wants to believe it so they don't want to find it. You will not be "canned" for looking into any of it.

Account removal procedures are also outlined for anyone to read. All removals require a consensus of Meta's, and are subject to review by staff. You cannot be fired for no reason. Editors who work within the guidelines are not subject to removal.

Skrenta was a founder of the project, and topix was a staff decision to be mass added across the directory years ago. To my knowledge (before my time) editors didn't like it then, and most of us still dislike it now. Many editors have been working to rid the junk deeplinks from the directory for a long time. Deeplinks are acceptable if they actually provide information for the category they are included. The sad truth is that in most little localities for example, the topix links are junk and many editors have been working to remove that junk when they come across it for a long time.

Scriptlance and other places have been a plague of problems for a while now. Sometimes it is difficult to determine the specific URL's in question, but in most cases the issue is clear. The abusive editor is removed and the sites are treated according to the guidelines. If you know of a scriptlance listing that was closed and hasn't been dealt with, report it and someone will investigate and take appropriate actions.

 

In the same spirit, I suggest that the heads of major crime families to be put in charge of organized crime division of justice department.

 

There is no evidence given in many cases of people getting removed. The person removed is not given a chance to defend themselves, and there is no appeals process for those let go unjustly. The warning system is a joke, as a dashboard warning is NOT mandatory, and any meta can claim to have given one via email or through instant messenger.

The fact that they are still there, and that staff are the ones that opted in for the issue are both signs of rule breaking being done from the upper levels of the directory.

Kudos to the editors removing such links!

In an open system, people could see that such things happen. As it stands the system is closed, and there are no signs that any editors are being removed... From anything other then the internal meta forums it does seem like paid listings are A-okay, and as many believe it is the meta team which is listing such sites, it only compounds the problem.

 

Well hello again GW.

 

If an editor is removed, there is evidence for those that want to look for it. The problem sometimes is that why we think an editor was removed, may not be the reason. The common reason for removal is self-interested editing, i.e. listing affiliates and client sites, while neglecting or abusing competitors. There are other forms of abuse, like communication abuse that is sometimes harder to see but its still there. The removed editor had the opportunity to defend themselves by editing within the guidelines, but if they feel that they were removed unjustly they can contact the Admin's or Staff for an appeal.

Well removing them is hardly a priority, there are plenty of other things to do. I delete them when I find them unhelpful, but admit I don't even always re-review them if they are the only site listed for a locality.

In the case of scriptlance, if the URL can be determined (there is no sekrit way to do it, if a meta can figure it out any editor can figure out the URL) then any editor can watch the URL and see who lists it. They can also see any directory response to the listing - which is removal/banning of the site and termination of the abusers editing account.

 

Hello to you too. Does old Jim need a backup? At least you are more interesting, he is too easy.

That is a big IF.
Only a moron will list the URL in scriptlance. It is a private transaction between buyer and seller.

 

LoL, thanks I think. I don't think jim needs my help, he can hold his own. I just missed you guys. ;-)

Your correct, that makes it tough to find out the abuse that is happening. Sometimes though, the poster isn't so smart. Other times they are and its months before someone slips up and gets caught. Then there are times where the winning bidder isn't even an editor. I don't disagree that there is a chance that an editor is winning bids and listing sites based on scriptlance adds. However, they don't go unnoticed and are investigated. If the site and editor can be determined they are dealt with. If its impossible to immediately determine who is doing it and what the URL is, it doesn't mean its not being investigated or not important.

 

So despite all the talk, abuse happens and you can only hope some one, some time in future might be caught.

That brings the question about why not change the procedures the way that makes it extremely difficult for corruption, removes the need for corruption and increases the participation of current editors while make it easier for people to join?

I know already the answer, it is rhetorical question.

"Any new procedure that makes corruption difficult, it is not acceptable to "editors" and in DMOZ community everything should be done in agreement."

 

No one to my knowledge, has ever denied that abuse happens. What do you suggest is changed to make it more difficult for abuse to occur? I think that it is always going to be a possibility, so long as the directory is free (thats not likely to change, sorry) and people continue to cling to the mis-information that its somehow more important than any other link. The only thing I can do is continue to fight against the abusers and reverse the problems they create.

 

Who said anything about changing it to fee directory?
I have suggested many times simple changes in procedures that makes corruption very difficult and increases participation but I always got the answer that is not acceptable to "editors".

How is it going with our friend from Holland these days?

 

As shadow575 has said (he posts faster than me - more practice ) nobody has ever said that abuse doesn't happen. If that were the case, there would be no need for editor removals, nor for the internal and external abuse reporting systems.
Unfortunately it is inevitable in such a successful directory a small percentage of selfish people will place their own interests first, to the detriment of the project. Sad, of course, but not at all surprising. Many volunteers spend a great deal of their time watching for and correcting the damage done by abuse, so it is inaccurate and unfair to say that all anyone does is "hope".

Besides, everyone can help reduce abuse in the ODP. As has been repeated many times in many forums: if you have evidence that an editor (of any level) is abusing their position, please report it using the proper channels.
With so many metas and Admins reviewing each report, all but die-hard conspiracy theorists can see that universal collusion is impossible.

 

No one said anything about changing it to a fee directory, I was just mentioning that as it often comes up. I haven't noticed (or don't remember) seeing your suggestions, but I would be interested in seeing them. Do you have a pointer to some of them?

Sorry, I am a bit slow today apparently. I don't get the last bit about Holland.

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=479672&postcount=260

I got the answer that stopping corruption is not acceptable to "editors" but we both know that 99% of editors don't have any say about what happens in DMOZ.

 

So, a common reason for the removal of editors is listing affiliate sites while neglecting others... like putting in an automated script to bypass the human edited nature of the directory to put in thousands upon thousands of deeplinks? Funny thing that Skrenta is still an editor... yeah, yeah, it was a staff's decision. Though it's odd that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Not in all cases, and even in those cases, the editor in question is still hard pressed to convince a staff member to allow them back in. They are hard to get a hold of, and they pretty much go with the flow of the meta community.

They bring down the quality of the directory, go against the human edited nature of the directory, were placed there by an automated system without review... I guess you are right, they should be a low priority

I find it strange that self interest can be upheld on one end, and editors are getting banned for it on the other. Is there a difference?

 

Didn't look to me like that is what brizzie said, but I wasn't there at the time and only skimmed his response. There are some good points (pros and cons) for what you suggest, but the problem lies within the structure of DMOZ itself. Something I agree that the editors (all levels) have no control over. There is no different way to say it, the directory is just not setup to provide listing services. If it were, then many of the suggestions (with some modifications) would probably work out very well. There are checks and balances in place to limit and fight abuse when it occurs. Some are more effective and some not so much. I agree that I wish editors could not add their own sites, although under the current system that would be difficult to enforce.

To my knowledge, the editor in question did not add the script that mass added those deeplinks. It was done years ago (before my time) and by staff. If I had to guess, I would guess it was under the theory that every category needed sites (just not something that is a common opinion today) and they were looking to quickly populate the directory. Blaming the editors of today for blunders by staff of yesteryear (who probably none of which are even still around) isn't solving the issue.

Just because they choose not to respond, does not mean that they haven't received and reviewed the appeal. They are not that hard to get a hold of. The reason its hard to reverse a removal is that the investigation is thoroughly documented, all evidence is logged and gone over by several metas before a removal occurs, and done so over usually long periods of time. In most cases there is no reason to reverse a removal decision. I have seen it happen once though.

In most cases where these links would be removed, they are one of only a couple of links on the topic. Sure they suck, but is it really better to have nothing? Well actually I say yes it probably is, but why waste time seeking them all out and removing them? Its not bringing down the quality of a category that would be empty without the link, at least not any lower than it already is. So yes, its a low priority for me.

Self interest is not being up held. The guidelines have changed over time, sites that were listable in 1999 may not be listable now. We remove them when we find them. At the time, staff must have decided they were a good enough resource to implement an automated dispersal. There is no rule that editors cannot delete the ones that are no longer listable under the guidelines. Editors have the freedom to do so at any time. Just the way we do with any other link, so long as its done in accordance with the guidelines.

 

Thanks for at least not giving the usual blah blah and canned response.
The point that I don't understand is: "There is no different way to say it, the directory is just not setup to provide listing services". What is the purpose of a directory? To collect and publish a list of useful web sites, so how is it not a listing service?
What you forgot that I am quite familiar with in and out of DMOZ system and there is nothing in the structure which stops the implementation of my suggestions with minimal work, except the resistance of "senior editors" to stop the corruption. The responses that one eye gave on that thread, was the old one eye when he was an editor and after some more discussion, he opened both eyes and finally quit DMOZ when he was confronted with all proofs of abuse. So be warned that discussing with me and learning about the true nature of systematic abuse can be dangerous for a honest person.