Resigned -

Never mind. From what I've seen so far, you look like an RZ troll, talk like an RZ troll, and walk like an RZ troll... maybe you are an RZ troll.

Of course, I could be wrong... it may be just an inaccurate first impression. We'll see.

 

Speaking of RZ trolls, I see jimnoble reading this thread...

 

I posted this before in response to bradley which posted the same official DMOZ response as you do but none of the editors responded. Would you like to answer it?

"I suppose that is where I and you defer on what is the problem. You see the problem as isolated case of editors corruption that should be dealt with on editors level while I think the problems are caused by DMOZ structure and procedures.

You want to find a corrupt editors and possibly get rid of them but you know very well that next day, the old ones will be replaced with new ones while I think that DMOZ procedures should be changed in a manner that makes corruption impossible, regardless of the editors motivation and selfishness.

What confuses me is that if it is true what you say about the number of honest volunteers that try to work selflessly, why does these same volunteers try to defend DMOZ at any cost and just keep the discussions to some previous corrupt editors instead of fighting for cleaning DMOZ organization and implanting procedures that makes corruption impossible?"

I also have another question, you and other editors just keep repeating spam, spam, spam as the cause of all the problems in the world and blaming it for everything which is wrong with DMOZ. Please explain to us how does spam causes all these problems and why is it so difficult to fix it, while I see no difficulty to fix the spam problem with proper procedure and simple script.

 

<waves to minstrel> Just here for the entertainment value .

 

I would agree with you if your premise about editor abuse being rampant were true. I have also stated that, in my ample opportunity to see editing by others, I see no such rampant abuse. So we should put more red tape around our procedures of listing and removing sites to correct a rather small problem? While at the same time others around here are clamoring for less red tape (to get a quicker listing, of course )?

Defend at any cost? Hardly. I'm just reporting what I know from experience.

What you call spam and what I call spam are two different things. You are referring to email spam, or other communications where the message itself is the spam, sent in an indiscriminate way to thousands. I am referring to submissions that may be hand-delivered to ODP, for sites whose contents are spam (meant only to generate income for the webmaster without providing value to the web-surfing public). The submission method may not be automated or mass-replicated, simple filtering won't catch the offending submissions (maybe I shouldn't call them spam - let's refer to them as crap from now on). So it's up to us volunteers to separate the crap from the worthwhile. The more the producers of crap know about our methods for doing so, the more difficult our job is.

 

Do you mean that there is so much discussion about DMOZ corruption and editors always admitting to previous editors abuse for no reason?
You want us just to take your word for it which is asking a lot specially when we have no idea about who you are and what your motives are. Your own posting doesn't make sense either since according to you, you moved from being a new editor to becoming an editor in commercial sections in 1 year which is impossible according other editors posting.
How does having proper procedures against corruption is making more red tapes? It is not like DMOZ is moving in light speed and procedures are going to slow it down, just look at all the backlogs. I don't think the proper procedure slows down an organization, it is lack of procedures which causes chaos and makes corruption possible.

blah,blah,blah. I know exactly what you mean. This is a standard crap that editors repeat in every forum in defense of DMOZ. I meant exactly the kind of spam/crap that you were referring to. Please tell us why is such a big problem when it is very easy problem to solve with proper procedure and a simple script.

 

We cannot pretend it's never happened. That doesn't mean it's particularly prevalent. I can't help that the same few statements keep fueling the same old discussion by the same old ODP-haters. That doesn't make it more than what it really is.

Impossible? I think not. I can point you to the profiles of a good number of editors who've made the transition from new editor to a position of much greater responsibility (top-of-branch editor, editall) in less than a year. You are right that you don't know me, or my motives. That's generally the case in forums like these. You'll have to judge that based on my posts. That's why I didn't just post and walk away - I'll give you an opportunity to base your opinion of me on the content of my posts here.

I thought it was you who suggested, several pages ago, that additions be triple-reviewed and removals double-reviewed. That would certainly very significantly slow down the pace of processing any submissions. If that was in fact not your idea, and you have a different one, forgive me. If you have a meaningful suggestion for rooting out corruption, I'm all ears.

You mean the same crap that Google et al are impotent to remove from their SERPs? If it were that easy, the big guys would have figured it out. Maybe you should get a job with them. Better still, why don't you share your proper procedures and simple scripts with us?

 

There are no backlogs in the sense you mean. I mean there are pools of unreviewed sites, what we used to call inaccurately queues, and there are hundreds of millions of sites out there that are listable by DMOZ. DMOZ is not about processing pools/queues/backlogs of suggested sites because it is not a website listing service. References to backlogs just continues to extend the myth that causes so many webmasters so much frustration and anger, something we need to sort out in terms of clarifying what submitting a suggestion actually means.

Of course no-one denies the existence of abuse within DMOZ, in the past, present, and future. But it is confined to a small number of editors with restricted editing rights, and is usually caught and dealt with quickly and brutally. Processes exist to monitor editors and act against them if they abuse their position, i.e. break the guidelines.

Where on earth did you get that from gworld? Like plantnut I was an editall within a year. I was listing commercial sites from the first day of editing. The categories new editors won't get are the highly commercialised ones with vast expanses of spam and a reputation for webmaster dirty tricks. How fast they progress depends on how quickly they gain the trust of meta editors and Admins these days - someone who edits 100 times in 3 years is unlikely to get very far, someone who edits 10,000 times in 3 months will have built up a lot of evidence about how well they edit and how trustworthy they are.

I gave examples elsewhere about procedures designed to make corruption very difficult. Eliminating it altogether? If police forces worldwide can't eliminate it entirely then it is probably not possible. Mandatory declaration of associations, 100% visibility to every editor of every editing action every editor has ever done, close supervision of new editors. An abuse reporting system that works (I have used it and know the editors concerned were removed). Whether anyone outside believes it or not these measures are pretty effective, and are constantly refined.

I know of no procedure or script that can do what I did this afternoon. And that was to examine dozens of travel booking service sites and work out whether they were affiliates or not. Strangely all bar one was an affiliate. What procedure or script identifies an affiliate site? Or a mirror? True I also picked up several redirects and that should be something that could be automated. Except technical resources are limited and not within my power to direct to the problems I want solved. The effect - I managed about 30 odd edits, listed 1 site, deleted 2 already listed in error, and the rest were bagged and noted so they do not get past another editor in the future. If the webmasters followed the rules that would have been 30 new additions.

 

Yes, rather like your personal opinon on editors I beleive.

Why, Thank you soooo much !!!

Oh careful Minstrel... You're in danger of trotting out the same old tired reponses that you accuse editors of and we wouldn't want that now would we ?

Ooops here we go again !!! ( subsitute 'disgruntled webmaster' for 'RZ troll' and you could almost be reading a post from Hutcheson couldn't you !

And last resort... personal attacks.. sooo predictable (yawn)

While I know Minstrel has been here so long 'commenting' and making observations about Dmoz that he's almost been regarded as a bit of an 'authority' on the subject.

It should be pointed out that he has absolutely no idea as to the 'inner workings' of the place, (he's not even a perhaps pissed off ex-editor like the author of the thread), and that anything he does say is absolutely NOT based on personal expereince in any way shape or form.

Just a bit here and there about 'things he's heard'. Kind of like a resident gossip columist, (would love to be a 'Star' but isn't I suppose).

Oh dear was I trotting out the same old predicable editor stuff ???

Well as long as it's good enough for Minstrel, what the hell !

 

You obviously missed the satire... not that I'm really surprised about that.

Now if you'll excuse me, shygirl, I haven't the vaguest idea what your beef with me is and I really don't care, but I also have no interest in continuing whatever you your little game is. In case I wasn't clear enough before, read or don't read, post or don't post, it's all the same to me.

Have a good evening.

 

troll, corruption and publically stating I spoke crap for starters.

But in the spirit of your last post, I too shall leave the thread alone and wish you also, a very good day !

 

Oh, we fully understand and expect that the majority of site suggestions come from the webmasters who created them. No problem with that. Not that we wouldn't love for the public to suggest more of their favorite sites - those would be the ones that have already proven their value. Just don't mistake an organization that happily accepts suggestions from webmasters for a listing service. That's all we're saying.

You're right that if there were no websites and no webmasters, there would be no ODP. You're not right that the ODP could not exist without webmasters being able to suggest their sites. We'd find them (as we do now) by looking for them on our own. But we wouldn't find them all, especially the smaller players in any field - so I'm happy for the suggestions that come to me in the unreviewed pool. I guess I'm lucky - I find most of the ones I encounter to be of listable quality (although often not listable in the particular category to which they were suggested).
Good luck with your websites. Rest assured that, if they meet the criteria for inclusion in ODP, they eventually will be listed.

 

The original intention was that surfers, when they came across a good site, would let us know about them. Obviously webmasters would use the suggestion tool too but I don't think it was anticipated that the ability to suggest a site would be interpreted as a signal we were providing a service. We desperately need to correct this impression. An increasing number of sites are found and listed by editors without a suggestion being ever made. Because this is a far more productive source of listable sites. I reckon this is about 50% of listed sites and that proportion will grow. Many editors question whether having the ability to suggest sites in commercial categories at least is worth the bother.

Sorry, I don't get that. We serve the surfers, acting as a kind of website spam filter, webmasters provide the materials and we select the materials we think our target users will want to see. What the webmasters want our users to see is not part of the equation, sorry. If it wasn't for the brickmakers the world would have no use for houses?

It would be an inaccurate guess. There are many reasons why a site is listed when a more informative site isn't. Editor abuse is the least likely. Mostly it is because the more informative site hasn't been reviewed or for some reason does not meet other aspects of the guidelines. Or that the listed site was accepted at a time when standards for inclusion were lower. A legacy. But for every more informative site submitted there are probably 10 not submitted. Our job is to find the most informative of the lot, not the most informative of those suggested.

Again your assumptions are wrong. If the site meets all the requirements for inclusion it will be listed sometime but not being listed means only it has not been reviewed. And as I am sure you can appreciate a webmaster's own assessment of the value of their site is likely to be biased. Equally, if the site simply repeats information found elsewhere or is part of a family of related websites then its chances of listing are more or less non-existent. Remember the rule not to submit related websites.

Your conclusions would be incorrect. Because you are making them based on something DMOZ is not, that much is clear from what you post. And I appreciate what you say earlier - we are simply not clear enough about what we actually are. Hopefully we will correct that in the future.

DMOZ will be 7 next year (I think) and contrary to all the predictions is actually on the up. In part this is because certainly in the last three and a half years since I became an editor there have been considerable moves to root out and prevent abuse and corruption. Becoming an editor, and increasing your editing rights once an editor, is a lot slower than it has ever been because the processes are tighter than ever before. We don't publicise these sort of initiatives widely, maybe we should. Every corruption case feeds the process of refining and enhancing measures against corruption as methods are detected and the perpetrators eliminated. You wouldn't expect anyone from DMOZ to reveal what they do and how they do it to give information to the corrupt as to how to avoid detection - that isn't even shared with editors below meta level.

The trouble is that those who see greed and money as the root of all human endeavours are failing to notice that there are some people who are motivated by other things, such as job satisfaction, community spirit, a desire to improve the lot of others, and so on. If a person has no principles themselves then they find it impossible to comprehend that others might have them and impossible to understand what they might be or why they might have them.

 

You guys have to realize that the only difference between Minstrel and Hutcheson is that Hutcheson got accepted as an editor while Minstrel got turned down. Minstrel is just as much of an ass, but he's never lived out his fantasies of abusing people and being backed up by a team of those who don't seem to have a backbone or their own identity to keep them from doing so.

Disclaimer: this post is not to make friends. It's about assholes on both side of the fence. There is no excuse for enabling and backing up assholes for a "greater good", because the "good" can't be that great if it tolerates some dickheads and let's them run wild.

That's just my 2 cents.

 

So what are you saying? Is this your "Goodbye DigitalPoint" post?

I'm sorry, Toots. Pricing any of your posts, even whole threads started by you, at 2 cents is just way over pricing.

 

Goodbye? Of course not. I've been overlooking your trolling and been able to live with it. Keep running away from your mental problems, Minstrel, remember ... the reason you've studied Psychiatry in the first place

 

I think minstrel needs a hug.

 

No, don't worry. Toots and his rants don't affect me. It's occasionally amusing to see him get all steamed up and serve as such a wonderful example of projection. And at least while he's ranting, he takes a brief time-out from his blatant self-promotion.

I think it all comes from having to live in his car

 

I did not suggest any of those things that you mentioned and I see even before starting the discussion, you have started with all the usual blah,blah that all DMOZ editors repeat. You even used the latest excuse of DMOZ editors comparing DMOZ to Google while the 2 organization have no similarities. Google is a search engine while DMOZ is a directory and hopefully you are aware of the difference.

To fight the corruption, first we must identify the methods that editors use benefit from DMOZ and it will become very simple to fight it.
What methods editors use to benefit themselves?

1- To pass the queue /line/ submission suggestion and add their site before anyone else.

2- Approve their own site and add multiple links to their own site in different sections

3- Delete competition or deny listing of the competition

Stop the above 3 method and corrupt individuals have no use for being an editor.

How do you stop it?

1- treat all the submissions equally and think of it as a line up with first in, first served. If editors think that they know of a site that is useful, let them add it to end of line. You assume that editors suggestion should be better than other suggested sites while in reality a site in lineup can be better but never get a chance to get listed because editors add his own site but never looks at submitted sites. this way editor does not have possibility to pass the lineup.

2- Have multiple editors in each category and let the system decide which submission should be assigned to each editor. This way editors can not routinely add their own sites since it is possible that system assign their site to another editor that can add or deny it. They can not add multiple links to their own site either since someone else is going to decide if multiple links is necessary or not.

3- At the time of approval, read the page from the site and add it to the database, compare the save version with on line site every 3-6 months and if it has changed, flag the site for review. The review sites are assigned to editors by system, so the chance of some one deleting their competition is much less.

By implanting the above 3 method, the chance of any wrong doing becomes much smaller since no one can be sure that being an editor can actually be useful for their own benefit.

We can discuss the above suggestion and if I see any of the editors are serious in discussion and will not just repeat official DMOZ line, then we can discuss what procedures can be implemented to organize submission and make it both efficient, fair and manageable.