http://resource-zone.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43015 Mr. Leroy is removed as an editor. Mr. Leroy requests that his editor profile be removed since he is no longer an editor. His request is refused. Rationale? DMOZ policy. Motsa (ishfish) and bobrat (macdesign) do their usual job of gang-ridiculing the request. jimnoble does his usual job of stepping in and closing the thread RZ creates another satisfied customer and another shining example of good public relations for DMOZ the rationale for all this, apart from the obvious pleasure editors posting in RZ get from mocking and insulting people, is another rule that is a rule just because it's a rule - it doesn't have to make sense - it's a rule It never ceases to amaze me how, as an organization, DMOZ seems to take such joy out of shooting itself in the foot.
No. I don't see why removed editors profiles are kept intact. I think all the customizable parts should revert back to their default state, blank. And I'm not fond of the way RZ is run either.
Another problem with this "rule" is again it does not seem to be applied consistently. Are the profiles of ALL dismissed editors retained? It seems not. Are the profiles of SOME dismissed editors removed? It seems so. So what is the difference? How does DMOZ decide which ones to keep and which ones to remove? Is it a matter of if the dismissed editor requests removal of the profile it is denied?
Here is some information on profiles. Profiles provide different information to editors and the public. Profiles are linked to edits, forum posts, and categories. Knowing who made an edit or post can be important information when looking through the history of a category, site, or editor. If the profile was removed, the edit history of that individual would be affected - which could make it easier for booted editors to come back. If you believe that an editor has violated the communication guidelines - you are welcome to file an abuse report. The rule - "Uncivil behavior toward submitters, other editors, or ODP Staff" - applies to both external and internal communications. ETA - I don't know of any profiles being removed - even those who never made an edit are still there.
Absolute rubbish. What we are talking about is a public profile page. Removing that should not affect the edits that person has made or anything else about the database. It just means that people like me can no longer see the editor's page.
Minstrel Minstrel Minstrel. Bashing DMOZ once again. Don't you know that DMOZ is the pure epitamy of professionalism. Obviously they like his profile and wanted to keep it. BIG DEAL. In all honesty, I think rules mean crap when a) they are not enforced b) they are enforced for some or c) they are alwas enforced even under random and stupid situations. DMOZ had a chance to be professional. I knew little about their problems until you and others here kept complaining about 'em. I submitted my site to them way back and frankly could care less if I get accepted or not. If you are that unprofessional eventually people want nothing to do with you. Skinny
Aww I see - you want the profile to become private (available only to editors) - the poster at RZ wanted the profile completely removed. I don't think they should be private - even though they were removed, they still contributed. Now, I personally believe, some parts should be removed - like email address, home page, and photo. Currently the only part that is removed automatically is the email address - on all noncurrent editors (removed, self-removed, or timed out).
No. That is not what I said at all. Honestly, the sheer appalling ignorance about web pages, web sites, daatabases, etc., among DMOZ editors astounds me. Can you explain to me, lmocr, in all your great wisdom, how a page profiling an editor, public OR private, links to the database of directory listings or who listed or edited those listings, and how removing that page wiuld suddenly render the database useless? And if the editor no longer wants to be asssociated with DMOZ or have his/her former association with that organization publicized? If that editor makes a request for removal? You believe the request should be denied?
I sincerely apologize for not being a computer tech - I didn't even know how to quote in a forum until a few months after I became an editor. Shame on me. Because they're interconnected - sort of like that big red x that appears on my web page if my daughter removes a photo, but doesn't remove the link to the photo. Of course, this is based solely on my limited understanding from using MS Access, trying to view missing photos on forums, and my web page Yes I do - he (or she) wanted to participate in the first place. Just because they don't now (whether by their choice or not), doesn't mean they never did.
Im in the same boat and the more I read about them the more I think the plug should be pulled on the lot - just a waste of everyones time.
You don't need to be a computer tech. Just stop reciting canned DMOZ responses as if you understand them when they make no sense at all. I can't see any reason why that would be true. You are talking about wanting to retain information about listings and who edited them. The profile page for the editor should have nothing to do with that function. There was a time when I voted for the Liberal party in this country. I was never a "card carrying member" but I conceivably could have been. At this point, I am disgusted by that party and almost embarrassed to admit that I ever voted for them or endorsed their candidates. If I had a profile on their website, I would sure as hell want it removed. I have also never been a DMOZ editor but if I had been I wouldn't be one now and I sure as hell would not want a DMOZ profile suggesting that I still supported or endorsed the organization.
Here's another reason that policy is dumb: Error - No such editor. Here we have someone trying to contact the editor of some category. The name is there, apparently. The profile is there. But when he tries the email link he gets "Error - No such editor". 1. how does that help DMOZ? 2. how does that help visitors to DMOZ? 3. how does that provide any kind of service to anyone on the planet or in the known universe? Notice jimnoble pops in there to say as if to say "that will answer all your questions" and then locks the thread. Is he being intentionally or unintentionally sarcastic with that remark, do you think?
Yes that would seem to be exactly right, the message is correct there is no such editor. You seem very confused about all of this. Perhaps if you went to resource-zone they might be able be able to explain it to you
No, nebuchadrezzar, I'm not at all confused about it. The DMOZ policy makes no sense. The only people who are confused about are those DMOZ editors who think it makes sense. As for The Resourceless Zone, the day I go there to ask about anything is the day you can have me committed.