dissapointed in DMOZ

I have no problem with you. Apart from the fact I asked for your discretion and you saw fit not to respect that. Other editors here kept it to themsleves.

Um, this is Digital Point not Dmoz. That's my point. The above is not relevant here. And please, don't patronise me or flatter yourself that every point I've made in this thread is somehow relevant to you. (I think you have unfortunately). Dmoz wise you do an excellent job. I'm not disputing that in any way. However...You are not best pleased when brought to task or questioned about your viewpoints or opinions here on DP.

You shot your mouth off 1) by revealing my editor activities and 2) By making it absolutely clear to everyone here (of all places) that personal bias does play a part in reviewing, or choosing not to, review sites. Not good going in a webmaster forum in my opinion.

You probably should now do the impossible, and try and explain to everyone here what exactly 'personal bias' entails and even better where it stops. World ?, Shopping ? , Kids and Teens ?, I'm an editor with a competing site ?
If I'm so wrong in voicing an opinion that thats ...uummm probably not really what webmasters in this forum particularly want to hear. A real 'stick your foot in your mouth' moment if you ask me, with you as an Editall and being an established editor for so long.

You've practically just handed all the ammunition anyone needs in quotes and references, from an editall no less !, for the next 60 or so threads when someone asks 'Why isn't my site listed'.

Ditto. But I prefer to use the term 'disagree with me' rather than 'attack'. Attack is a bit overly dramatic and 'dying swan' really in the context of a simple forum post. I've learnt fast here eh !

Enough now from me. I've said my piece. Flame away !

 

OK, but it only makes a difference as to which editor/editall lists the site. It doesn't make a difference to the submitter. There are over 240 editalls and above who can edit anywhere and those 240+ are all covering the gaps in the personal biases of each other. Let's say I was reviewing health sites in a Regional locality and came across an abortion clinic. I would probably have left it unreviewed for highly personal reasons. I may well have highlighted it in a relevant forum and asked someone else to review it. Any of those 240 and any Regional branch editors with the rights is then welcome to go review and list - their choice. If I didn't highlight it then no matter, the next one of those 240 (and the rest) to look at the category who doesn't have that bias will review and list. When I was in that locality I may well have only looked at the Health sites, and completely ignored all the sites waiting in Transportation and in Education. Not through bias but because at that moment I wasn't interested in them.

For a few months I ignored all sites other than school sites in a particular Australian state. I found and listed the lot. If there were tobacconists or hunting sites, or abortion clinics, or any other of the myriad of other sites waiting then they were ignored because that is not what I was looking at or for. My personal bias was education sites. To me that little project was the proudest achievement of my editing career and if some website developer who didn't get listed wants to argue I was being unfair, I'm ready for them.

Whether the bias is positive or negative it doesn't matter because another editor will be along some time to fill the gaps.

You know me by now - I get a tiny bit irritated by DMOZ giving out negative impressions. You know something else - I don't think the existence of individual editor bias based on personal morality actually is negative on balance.

Firstly one big flaw is not explaining clearly that DMOZ is not a listing service for webmasters and an editor's job is not about processing submissions. There should be no expectation that every site submitted is going to be reviewed when the category is next visited by an editor of any grade. So if a negative impression is given to webmasters who think DMOZ owes them a living by editors being selective in what they review then I am not particularly concerned.

Secondly there will be people out there who may be put off being an editor because they think they will be obliged to edit everything put in front of them and may have to compromise their personal morals. They don't and Annie's statement that she is not forced to list tobacco related sites or mine that I was not forced to list an abortion clinic, will reassure them. To me that is a positive impression given to people who we do want to give a positive impression to. People who matter.

Thirdly, it is being honest to webmasters by explaining that if their site is controversial or political in any way - tobacco is controversial and political, so is abortion, and a range of other subjects - then some editors will decline to review it for personal reasons. Since editors are allowed to decline to review sites for personal reasons it is always better to be upfront about that. This is in the DMOZ Documentation Project at http://research.dmoz.org/~gti96/ddp/07003/#offensive so giving webmasters any other impression is wrong.

It stops where your personal preference leads to deleting sites that are listable. It stops where your personal preference is to solely list sites with which you are affiliated in some way. It stops with abusive practices that favour your affiliated sites over competitor sites. All these are dealt with under abuse procedures. It is acceptable to be offended by tobacconists or porn merchants or abortion clinics, racial supremacists, or religious cults, or any number of topics. It is not acceptable to be offended by competitors, or to demonstrate through behaviour that your offence is contrived and inconsistent. I would add to me it would be unacceptable if your bias was itself offensive, e.g. if you declined to list sites on the basis of race, colour, sex, etc. of the webmaster.

 

Shygirl - a question. You come over as a very sincere person to me, one who cares, one who may well one day log on to a new dashboard and access to the editall forum and be welcomed warmly there. The call to editall rarely comes to those who expect it.

The first category you go to as editall contains a U.S. Klu Klux Klan site waiting for review. What are you going to do?

 

Why do you need a status forum? In case someone’s application didn’t arrive, then they’ll know they have to reapply. In case someone’s acceptance or rejection letter got caught in their spam filters, they’ll get the news in the forum. I don’t think anything regarding Dmoz has a simple solution. I don’t know what kind of resources it takes to implement the system that you think is quite easy. I don’t know if that will make the process more efficient. I also think it’s easy to say there’s a simple solution to a problem that we don’t have to evaluate and try to implement. I don’t know how Dmoz’s system as a whole works, so I don’t know all the possible problems that can be encountered with your simple solution. In other words, I don’t know the limitations of the ODP as far as implementing a feedback system for applicants, nor do I know if the resources are so easily available to them; that’s something that will have to be thoroughly analyzed by someone who knows the inner workings of the Dmoz system (tech. staff or whatever). People go to R-Z all the time and say such and such is wrong and give what they think is a simple solution to the problem. They quickly find out why their solution would not be feasible, and most of the time it’s because they failed to consider the impact of other things. And, there will always be arguments and misunderstandings when it comes to someone supposedly not understanding why his/her application wasn’t approved, and there will be even more dissention about how the ODP rarely provides open lines of communication between itself and others. If someone has an idea or question, then they can go to R-Z and ask. If they want to know some of the inner workings of Dmoz, then R-Z is a place where they can ask. R-Z is more than just status checks and quality control.

Again, regarding the quality control forum, how do you know all of these feedback forms are so easily “implementable,” feasible, and that Dmoz has the available resources for it? Have you thoroughly thought through the pros and cons of such systems from an ODP standpoint? Again, as I’ve said before, sometimes things seem much easier when you’re not tasked with trying to effectively implement them, because then you’re responsible for seeing if it’s even feasible and what could possible go wrong with them.

I also don’t think R-Z is going to go bye-bye anytime soon. It’s pretty much the only communication portable for where editors can communicate with the public. Some people are already angry at how hard it is to get in contact with Dmoz, well, R-Z provides that way. I think some people wishfully hope (wishful thinking) that R-Z would be dismantled. We see R-Z very differently.

I agree with your second paragraph. There are a lot of things regarding Dmoz that is ambiguous that should be clear and concise. The problem is finding people who are interested enough to take on the task. That’s the downside to a volunteer driven community.

 

It may be a place for certain editors to "communicate with the public" (DMOZ euphimism for "vilify those who dare ask questions, especially those including the word why") but if you are trying to justify its existence as any kind of service to non-editors you are living in a dream world. Of course the type of editor who frequents the Resourceless Zone "sees it very differently". Try looking at it from the viewpoint of the prey instead of the predator and you just might get a clue.

 

Oh, Minstril, you are playing the troll bit too well, but I'm sure you've heard that before.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to feed the trolls right now, so you'll go hungry in your little spot in the city zoo.

Maybe tomorrow they'll let you out of your cage then I might decide to play with you.

Just a word of advice so that you'll get the clue, try seeing Dmoz through eyes that are more objective and not hindered by your hate for it, then come back with an argument that's not weak and shameful and I might play with you...in the mean time try giving yourself some of your psychological therapy - it might help clear your mind to think objectively, plus you might get a clue as to why you come to message boards and act so immature. I can picture it now, middle-aged man in his parent's basement playing on the Internet - that they pay for.

Now, take time to log off the Internet, take a deep breath, log back on and present an argument. It's really that easy, assuming your brain can handle it.

 

I guess I'd do the same thing as a lot of editors do, and accept that its a 'freedom of speech' thing, despite the controversy, and that the category will remain there on the basis of the aforementioned. So like Annie, I guess I'd go in and edit regardless right ? I may even get, and I quote, ' a fucking medal' for it. (Sidjf previous post).

Other editors do it, I guess I would too, regardless of personal bias. I thought that was the point Brizzie. Thats what Annie is doing now ?? Isn't that what is supposed to happen ? Putting all personal stuff to the side for the sake of getting the job done as long as Admin (after endless weeks of discussion) have decreed that the cats in question have a valid and useful reason for being there ?

If they're there and it needs editing, then I think I'd do it on the basis of the category guidelines. Others do. Is there a problem with that ?

 

shygirl - regardless of what you may think, and no matter how much you ignore what brizzie is saying, the simple fact of the matter is that all editors that have large enough categories to do so, make choices as to where not to edit. Why is that such a problem for you? It's simple math - an editall simply cannot edit every single site/category green.

If I have 30 minutes to edit, I have to decide where I am going to edit for those 30 minutes. Why would I choose to do editing that I did not want to do when there is an unlimited supply of other things to do? Doesn't make a lot of sense...

Annie doesn't care to edit tobacco sites so she edits elsewhere instead. Big deal. If you aren't bothered to edit them, then have it.

Your speeches about editor bias make absolutely no sense at all.

I'd rather you stayed an editor and edited, but if you hate the place so much, why are you still there?

 

Really ?

I prefer I think to go where help is most needed also as a volunteer. Thats my take thats all. If it's a category I dislike but needs the editing, then so be it. If it has to be done then I will. Needs Must. And others do the same.

See previous response and explanations... if I could, I would do as the guidelines and rules state.

And do stop playing the 'clique' card to me. It's all too boringly obvious. I know I'm not in with the 'in' crowd at the moment for obvious reasons.

I'm stating a point of view on a public forum, thats all. What I do within Dmoz is my own affair thanks very much. I don't need to answer or to justify myself, my own reasons for editing/volunteering there, or why I'm still 'there'... anymore than you do to me. I wouldn't dream of asking in fact.

Do you have a problem with my last answer to Brizzie's question ? I've answered all questions put to me honestly and from the heart. Yet you're saying that somehow I ignored what he asked me to explain ? Look again mate, because I did. And answered it fully.

Don't try to make me look like a complete out and out twit Sid. I answered out of respect for him, even though I'd already said everything I have to say on this matter. And if you have any more to sling at me, try and make it relevant to my last post.

I'd also ask that you to accept that what I do and say here is up for public debate, like anyone else who posts... otherwise, you can wind your neck in. Cheers.

 

I don't have a problem with you posting your opinion - feel free to do so at any time. But if I disagree then I'm just as free to let you know.

You ignored his extensive post explaining to you quite clearly why an editor choosing not to edit somewhere is not bias.

But you seem to think that Annie has to answer for what she does within Dmoz...

You seem to think that other editors have it in for you or something and get worked up every time you get a red rep. Well, people get red reps - that's just part of posting here - and even if you've gotten one from an editor, so what?

I don't think any one has it in for you, and I'm serious when I say that I'd like to see you stay as an editor and edit - whether we disagree on every single issue or agree all of the time. A good editor is a good editor, period.

And as for your editor name...nobody cares. I don't mean that in a bad way as in "nobody cares about you", I mean it in a "nobody cares what your editor name is because it's not terribly important". The only reason I ever asked is because you wanted to talk about editor stuff and, as I told you, I'm not going to talk about editor stuff unless I know who I'm talking to.

 

Furthermore, shygirl should realize that if you get a red rep, you cannot really know who sent it. Even if it was "signed", it might not actually have come from the user who supposedly signed it.

I posted about the subject of false sigs on red reps once, largely to clear the air after getting a private message from a dmoz editor who was rattled by having received a red rep that was allegedly signed by me. Suffice it to say that I got razzed in the thread where I posted and received some red reps for the post. As sidjf says, red reps seem to be "just part of posting here."

 

Prediction:
As a result of the above post, my rep balance will drop to the level that I will become "an unknown quantity at this point".

 

I understand, you don't know and you don't think but do you need such long post to explain such a simple fact.

 

Looks like the self-righteous gworld is up to his usual SMOKE AND MIRRORS DECEPTIONS. Don't you have some of your friend's sites to add to the directory under one of your many Dmoz usernames? I think you had better get to work, because I'm sure they don't pay you sit on your butt.

 

I am sure that is the reason that I am exposing you and your friends that are abusing the directory. I am trying to force ODP to deal with abuse because I want to abuse the directory. Why am I not surprised with your logic? May be because you have already admitted that you don't know and you don't think.

 

Lol. You really need to steal Sidjf's tag line in his signature: Idiot Dmoz Editor. You keep saying the same things over and over. I guess if you say it enough then you might believe it.

Everyone should know by now, gworld, that you're the biggest liar at Digital Pointless. You've proven it countless times. But, your mind is really deluded if you actually think that with your corruption that you're actually helping the directory, lol. Maybe you should have a seat on Minstroll's couch so he can deal with your narcissism. You really need the help. Again, I will state, don't put yourself on too high a stool because you're likely to have a long, hard fall....

 

I think we should let the others to be the judge of who is the idiot and who is the corrupt. I think you have seen that even other DMOZ editors don't trust you and already speculate about your motives.
You can at least tell us why are you so upset, is it because some of the pedophile listings are removed, or are you upset because I am shinning the light on abuse in adult?
May be you just believe this is good way to advance in ODP? What ever the reason, according to your own admission, you have already prove to everyone here that you don't know and you don't think.

 

Speaking of motives, I’ve been reading this forum for some time and have many times wondered what gets you so het up gworld. You do realize that Dmoz is a merely a directory of websites rather than a secret organization devoted to the destruction of all things decent in the universe?

 

Try my very first post to this forum, I'm sure you know how to use the seach features and such (although I should over-estimate your abilities). And, then take a look at your's and the other trolls response to it and tell me why you weren't doing your usual Digital Pointless trolling, which ususally comes about when someone disagrees with you. By your own admission there was nothing wrong with what I posted, but you still acted very childish, shameful for a man your age.

Now, do you need me to go back and collect and present to you all the questions I asked, but you simply ignored because you knew I was right?

Actually, I woudln't be surprised at the content of your greens. I also came to this board and made up my own mind regarding gworld and minsTroll, and they've proven my intial thoughts to be true, and it also happens that I'm not the only one who thinks of them the way I do. Before I registered here I also used to come here and read the posts, so I know all about gworld and minsTroll, more than I'd care to know. This isn't the only board minsTroll is known to troll. I came across another board a while ago where he was mentioned in a not so good light by several posters who also see him for what he is; a prolific message board troll.

 

Interesting reply. What Annie is doing is to *remove* vile and damaging crap that DMOZ has decreed should not be listed. Not listing sites she is physically sick looking at because they are "listable". There is a huge difference. And whilst there is nothing I can find in guidelines that prohibit the listing of KKK sites neither can I find any listed via DMOZ search. If any are waiting for review it does not seem any editor has had the inclination to put "duty" ahead of personal revulsion. I don't think anyone would get a medal for being the first to overcome that.

With hundreds of millions of listable sites to choose to review help is most needed wherever *you* as an editor personally think it is needed. Quality sites on health matters - schools and other education sites - local businesses - charities - scientific research - etc etc etc - where on your personal list of where DMOZ needs to improve its selection of sites do racial supremacists and online tobacconists figure?

OK, fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But it isn't the official DMOZ position - editors can skip sites that offend them and it is not wrong to tell webmasters something that appears in DMOZ documentation - nor AFAIK is your opinion widely shared amongst other editors.

That would be the editor who deceptively returned here under a different name and posted for quite a while using another editor's DMOZ username.

Well it has been several years since I have seen the application form but if you added something like "If you don't receive an acknowledgement email your application may not have been received or it the acknowledgement may have been caught in your spam filters. If you do not receive any response within 14 days please email ........ and a meta editor will investigate." it would probably be better than the RZ forum. Why? Because all metas, not just the handful that go to RZ could investigate, and because as you yourself said, many applicants will not know about RZ.

What system? It is changing wording and setting up an email account.

They are given a list of potential faults when the application is rejected. I have yet to see any meta in RZ do other than refer them to that rejection email in terms of explaining why their application was rejected.

ODP does not provide any open lines of communication between itself and others. RZ is not, repeat not, an official DMOZ communication channel. Do some internal forum searches to find out what some very senior people really think of it. It is entirely independent of DMOZ, owned by an editor, managed by a small group of metas, and has rules that are not under the control of DMOZ or the editor community. Strictly speaking it has no more status than this forum - nothing in RZ couldn't be done on any other forum because RZ is subject to the same guidelines on communications and confidentiality. You can ask a far wider range of questions and get a far wider range of answers here - infinitely more useful. For example, someone can ask for a site status check here. Whether they will get an answer or not is another question but they can ask and editors can provide at their own choice.

I don't. But if it is such a valuable function then it should be a priority to provide it officially rather than through a section on an external forum. Again people can report quality control issues anywhere there are editors who can fix them. The RZ version is not officially endorsed, just convenient.

ROFLMAO. And what do you think editors are doing here, including you, and on a number of other webmaster forums? I repeat RZ is not an official DMOZ forum, just one run by a group of metas off their own back and on their own terms. The difference is that in RZ everything is highly controlled and moderated, the questions you can ask are restricted to a tiny number answered over and over again with the same responses, and I strongly urge you to review the editor lounge threads for the views of senior and respected meta editors about the style of communication used in RZ. For goodness sakes I once had to hit the Report Bad Post link to report a meta editor (and the post was moderated by another meta it was that bad).

Have you seen how angry people are dealt with at RZ? Post edited, thread locked, user banned if they try again. That is not communication, at least not effective communication. There was a time when you could have a lively and heated discussion on DMOZ with angry people. No longer. You don't make people less angry by editing their posts, locking threads, banning them, all that does is wind them up even more. Then they go elsewhere, like here, and relay their experience.

We do indeed and I am speaking as one with a hell of a lot of time and posts clocked up on RZ! Before the heavy moderation and crackdown on asking, and now it appears answering, questions it was quite good IMO. Now there are plenty of other resources available without the constraints where editors go to actually help questioners. Help being the operative word. Because of the lack of moderation editors do tend to get a hard time from the other members but if you are going to communicate externally as a DMOZ editor you had better go equipped with a thick hide.