DMOZ issue

Its a shame people do this.... but the point is there are tons of people willing to pay to get into DMOZ which encourages them.

 

I'm not branding macdesign as corrupt. I am saying that any profit he gains from this service will be the result of a perception that as an editor he is providing either information not available from other sources or more reliable information than he would have access to were he not an editor, whether or not he violates DMOZ rules. In other words, he is, as I have said more than once, profiting personally from his position as a DMOZ editor, which is certainly against the spirit of the directory if not a specific rule.

Do you think that people would pay me, a non-editor, for the same information? Not likely.

The impression created by a site such as macdesign's is another public relations gaffe for DMOZ. My point all along has been that if it isn't against the rules for an editor to do this, it should be.

Either he is providing quality information available to him only because he is a DMOZ editor, OR he is providing "nothing for something". But either way, it leaves the impression of something shady.

 

I am going nuts with those hypocritical statements.
To me and I assume to many other users of any service, it does not make that much a difference. It is the impression that counts. What exactly is the impression one gets when reading: Open Directory Status Reporting and Tracking, and The service is currently not available for single sites?

 

Man, and I thought my 26 lines of code to check a site's status for my directory was an excellent free idea - This is an even better idea, offer a fee for submission status lol.. Classic, I might just impliment this - oh, only kidding folks!

Seriously, all this is the tip of the iceberg within Dmoz...and look where it got Titanic

 

A lot of people provide what some of us would consider "nothing for something" - take my real job for example. I had someone call me yesterday and ask me to get her a business license. We charge for that service - but anyone with half a brain could go to the state website, download the form, fill it out and send it in. I think that's along the same lines as what that site offers. So this individual either doesn't have half a brain or doesn't want to take the time to do it herself.

 

Yes, I'm "harping" on the pro-pedophilia issue too. I'm harping because you and certain other people apparently don't see anything wrong with the issues I "harp" about. And THAT is a serious problem for DMOZ.

There is a difference between making money from his web design business and making money due to his editor status. If you really do not understand this, then you being a DMOZ editor is also a serious problem for DMOZ.

Thank you, vulcano. Clearly, you "get it" too. Evidently, lmocr can not or will not.

 

Interesting choice of words, coming from you

No doubt your clients appreciate the obvious disdain you feel for them.

 

So this is like a "Pet Rock"?

 

What the hell are you talking about, fathom?

 

obviously trying to be funny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_rock

 

Looks like MacDesign's site was hacked:

http://www.open-directory-status.com/page_1.htm

and

http://www.open-directory-status.com

Gives a "Join our crew and fight corruption message" the redirects to:
http://research.dmoz.org/publish/chris2001/odp_reports/report_2005.htm

 

LOOOOOLLL .. How cool ...

 

Editors are not held to a higher standard than noneditors. There are certain areas that are expressly forbidden, such as releasing internal communications to the public, tampering with listings, cooling your own site - in order to remain an editor, but if a full disclosure is made of an affiliation and it is not contrary to the guidelines, then I see no reason why a someone couldn't put on his resume that he's an editor or another editor can offer a service that anyone else could.

It's not that I don't understand where you're coming from - but the mere appearance of corruption does not make it corruption, nor does it make the act something that has to be avoided.

Macdesign's site (prior to being hacked) is not contrary to the guidelines.

Volcano, it's not hypocritical - it's having a good sense of where the line is and knowing that the issue has been discussed internally and what the outcome of that discussion was.

Perhaps the problem you're seeing is that I'm not emotionally involved in this conversation, therefore I can see both sides and have chosen which side to argue.

 

I know what "pet rocks" are - I just don't see the relevance to this thread. If it's intended as humor, fathom, don't give up your day job just yet...

Actually, you are completely wrong about that - you're still not getting the point, are you?

Oh. Yes. That must be it.

 

Wow, I must be really confused, because I think you're both right.

lmocr, I agree that macdesign didn't do anything wrong and that it is true that an editor isn't held to a higher standard than a non-editor. Macdesign is completely innocent of any wrong doing in my opinion, and in the opinipn of a lot of editors, including meta-editors who have looked into this (non)issue.

On the other hand, I agree with minstrel that the appearance of corruption should be avoided by editors at all times. IMO we should hold ourselves to a higher standard as a matter of personal integrity. This is the reason that we do not "cool" editor owned sites, even if they deserve it.

So, I guess I add nothing to this debate.

 

On my opinion macdesign has not crossed the line. The editor or the inside editor has already crossed his line by supplying inside information. As I have stated, a hobby is a hobby but when a hobby has started to generate cash it is not anymore considered a hobby it is considered as a career.

minstrel, I am trying my very best to be unbiased and understand what the public perception is. Sometimes I would agree and sometimes I won't. In many ways, Thank you very much too for your contributions.

This will be just a preliminary dialogue. But I assure you that corrupt eds are very, very minimal and they had slipped the presence of the majority of honest eds. And that is very sad, because while we construe it as a favorite past time they are trying to ruin the very essence of it.

I don't know about the other editors and I just speak for myself. If it is wrong it's wrong if it is right it's right. No blind loyalty. And I like my favorite past time.

 

Is this so?

Reminds me of seeing some tv-spots from political parties around elections in the U.S., the President...is held,... oops, think it went the other way around.

In contrary, I am strongly argueing, that even the appearance of corruption has to be avoided.

I would not say that you have to be emotionally envolved, DMOZ-ODP is run by humans, humanly. Looking at it humanly, gives me an impression I can not support, no matter if there is/was actually corruption or not.

 

Nothing for something [I believe you penned].

hmmm... reminds me of:

DMOZ: You want answers?

Minstrel: I think I'm entitled to them.

DMOZ: You want answers?

Minstrel: I want the truth!

DMOZ: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has categories. And those categories have to be guarded by men that can review. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. not-included? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for webmasters and you curse the editors. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that webmaster's death, while tragic, probably saved links. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves links...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me in that category. You need me on that category.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very listings I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a quene and start a review. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Minstrel: Did you order the red note?

DMOZ: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.

Minstrel: Did you order the red note?

DMOZ: You're goddamn right I did!!

 

Sorry in advance, but I have to ask you, are you stoned or drunk, or both?

 

I don't know if a stoned drunk could recite those Code Red words so well Thanks for the laugh fathom.

PS Great Jack Nicholson impression.