So long, and "thanks" for all the fishing

I've been more or less happy to contribute to this forum for the last year or so, because I hoped that having another "senior editor" (not my term) answering questions may be helpful.

Apparently not. ​

Sadly, most people who post here are not interested in truthful answers, but only in airing their private opinions. That's fine, of course, but it's a waste of my time to try to explain things to those who simply don't want to listen.

That's a great shame, because there is so much misunderstanding. But there ya go - it seems destined to remain so.

Many other editors have tried and failed to provide answers and explanations here, and now I join them in absentia. To those who have listened and found value in my posts, I say thank you.
To those who were interested only in trolling, I sincerely hope you get your come-uppance one day.

And to gworld, who repeatedly accused me of lying, corruption, stupidity, deceit and worse ... if you ever have enough gumption to admit you made it all up, I hope someone lets me know.

Or even if you eventually manage to name a single site to back up your accusations, that would be a breakthrough!
Until then, I'm sure you'll stick to your sad hobby, but personally I'm tired of repeatedly asking for you to prove a single solitary claim.

Oh, and you needn't keep referring to getafreelancer bids unless you can point to any sites that have been listed as a result of all those stupid bids. Yep, there's a real challenge for you.

 

makrhod,

I've never seen any of your posts until this one, just now. So, I have no opinion whatsoever on what may have happened in the past. But, if in fact you have been here to help, then somewhere your help will be appreciated. . . don't give up on helping.

/*tom*/

 

Hey, makrhod. It does get a little old, but there are many people who never post, and just read, so I think it's worth commenting for them.

Others enjoy baiting us, or want to vent their frustrations, but they are so obvious about it that it just becomes an entertainment and they're not to be taken seriously.

Some have legitimate questions, but you're right, you gotta have a thick skin to put up with the garbage posters in here.

 

Since you have never contributed anything of value and only continuously repeated the same BS that is on official DMOZ site, I like to quote jryan 54 great post for emphasis.

 

Interesting you should end that way...

You want the truth? People point to COMPLETED transactions with POSITIVE feedback. The sites in question are confidential... yet you want us to give you the site names. Well, sure thing... we will break that confidentiality once you break that of the ODP's. We are speaking of DOZENS of sites that are seemingly buying their way into the ODP, and you seemingly want us to PROVE even further that it is happening... well, it should be enough that we are showing the positive feedback which even a dimwit should be able to conclude that the COMPLETED transaction was in fact completed and there is now a PAID listing in the ODP... and I'm not just talking about the professional submissions...I'm talking about the completed PAID listings.

You have been WONDERFUL here, very helpful in MOST instances... However, as of late, I've found you confusing and have found myself perplexed over the recent changing of the terms that have been used here on Digital Point and other ODP related sites for years and years and years and years. It's no longer a QUEUE, but you'll not give us a better term. It's no longer a LISTING, yet you'll not give us a better term. It's not a service, yet the documentation says it is. It's not a submission, yet that is what every site in the world talking about such a thing has called it for a decade...till a few weeks ago.

Maybe you are just in need of a break?

 

Queue - line of waiting persons, vehicles; sequence of computer tasks awaiting action.

Well, there is no line of vehicles, obviously. There is no line of people, there is no line of site suggestions, and a line really suggests that each thing gets an orderly turn, which would be false.

There are computer tasks, but there isn't a sequence of computer tasks. We pretty much pick and choose to do things randomly.

So, strictly speaking, there is no queue, though I think we all know what is meant by it, ODP wise. I can't speak for makrhod, but what I believe she means is that there is no orderly, first in, first served line of site suggestions waiting to be resolved, and she's absolutely right, there isn't.

It's not our fault that you refuse to believe or understand what editors tell you.

And you can all thank your lucky stars there isn't. Which one of you wants to be number 490,974? (example) At least, the way things are now, a site suggestion could possibly be looked at within a day or two - three years, should an editor get all wild and crazy and choose to look through them.

What is it? Take a handful of sand and throw it on the ground. See how it scatters all over? That's what it is, site suggestions scattered all over the Directory, no line.

There again, it's a matter of knowledge and interpretation.

It is not a service, as in "listing service", for site suggesters, but it is a service for information seekers, as we strive to serve them by building categories. So, she is right again.

There again, it is and it isn't. It is a submission of a site suggestion, but, it is not a submission as in "submit a site for listing", because we don't offer that service.

You may think that's nit picking, but there really is a big difference in the interpretation, based on knowledge of the Directory and what editors actually do. So, she is right once more.

 

It will be a great surprise if you ever say anything different about her or any other senior editor DMOZ, wouldn't it?

 

WTF is an editor? Anyway, bye. Oh wait, it's in the DMOZ/baby-tantrum section. Sorry, hope it's nice where you're going.

 

Thanks for the negative rep, I was obviously spot on with the 'baby-tantrum' comment.

 

Yes, it would, especially when I know they are correct.

 

Would it make any difference if they weren't correct?

 

OK, so if I start calling it "the sand pit" then that'll be better then calling it a queue? And way to go on not being able to step outside the examples given in the dictionary yet coming up with the sand pit definition, lol. BRILLIANT!

That to me is little more then trowing sand into the wind

If it truly was about the information seekers, then a webmasters trying to buy their way in would not ban the site if the site was worthy of being listed... you are slapping the information seeker in the face in such cases.

Not to mention, I am saying it's a SERVICE not a LISTING SERVICE, so notice how you actually didn't answer my question, well, ya did, but by adding words into my my meaning.

Are you actually serious? That IS nitpicking and there are no two ways about it. If someone submits a site as a suggestion it's still a SUBMISSION, by the very act of submitting!


There seriously needs to be a DMOZ glossary if they are going to make up words, or change the definitions of existing words.

 

Makrhod will be back...not that I care either way, but when was the last time someone did a big goodbye post on a forum and actually stayed gone? The answer to that is never.

Even if it's to respond to posts on this thread...they shall return.

 

Actually, I think you just like to waste everybody's time by arguing about mundane points that really have no meaning or value. You're amusing though, friend Q. lol

 

That's just it... the arguments I bring up in this thread are NOT mine, rather, I've been just trying to maintain the common usage of the words presented here. Personally, I'd not have sunk to such a low level... but seemingly that is the new ground for editors. Look through the threads on DP and you'll see that it is in fact the editors that are making these ridiculous changes and not the ex-eds that you guys keep saying are the ones being ridiculous. Yes, I did bring them up in here, but then, heh, they seemingly are on topic as our dear makrhod is the spokeswoman for the change of definitions.

So yeah, the things I generally bring to the table that have no value generally include lists of tens of thousands of pages in the ODP that do not belong, like the syndicated TOPIX listings, or the now removed CNN pages that were 404. Heh... nice try at turning it around though.

 

Since the topic of this thread appears to be DP's Dmoz Forum and its cast of trolls, inebriates, and other odd life forms, guess this is the correct venue for this observation of a rather weird behavior that is more common here than anywhere else on DP.

There are currently 23 people that have this forum open on their computer. Of those, ONE is logged in (that'd be me) and 22 are logged out but "lurking" incognito.
[We certainly wouldnt want to know who's watching.]



LOL, I've never seen anything quite like this place, even on other DP forums. Hard to believe all the charges, countercharges, and general rancor is just about people that maintain a website that makes lists of websites.

 

Most likely different DMOZ senior editors who have been permanently banned from this forum because their "honesty" force them to break the rules anywhere they go.

 

Quite off topic but well, your topic title has prompted me to look for a towel and dig my copy of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

 

How true. Here we are, just a bunch of ordinary people who volunteer their free time to build a community directory, as a hobby, and we get all this hate because someone can't get their site listed as quickly as they'd like, or at all.

Despite all the accusations of corruption, not a word about the moron who attempted (unsuccessfully) to bribe me, and my exposing him publicly.

 

You mean like when you said I was found out about something but refused to tell anyone what it was or provide single piece of evidence of my wrong doing even after I explicitly give you permission to post anything that will prove your words and even posted my editing logs so you could simply point things out?

Yep, you really are trustworthy person.

So if I get this gworld is lying beacuse he made it all up and didn't show you any real evidence but when you claim that I was found out but refuse to show any REAL evidence your not LYING???

Why does the word hypocrisy comes to my mind?