dissapointed in DMOZ

But, of course you do. You post under one of your Dmoz editor handles. Just remind everyone that you have several that you use to push your's and your friend's sites through the system ahead of everyone else.

 

No. You missed it again, Engma. *sigh*

Oh, well. You've managed to totally bore me again, Enigma, and that doesn't happen easily to me. I think I'll leave you to continue posting your puerile little jottings and head out to the pub for a bit.

 

You are so right and that is the reason I am exposing the abuse in DMOZ.
Unlike you, I have been around for sometime, so I don't need to be busy with 1 letter image gallery and hoping to get higher privilage that way.

 

No, the choices for where people CAN edit for the majority of active editors, is in fact quite small actually. 'Editor', (another example) with 3 or 4 cats, I think you'll find, numbers aside, is the norm as editing privilidges go.

Thats basically the same as saying I won't (cough) 'actually get round' to actually ever listing the site. That's not good in Dmoz it it now. Editor bias for or against particular sites, noooo surely not? You're admitting there is ? I wasn't aware that's how things worked ? Again do correct me if I'm wrong ??

Unreviewed/Unlisted does it matter ? End result is exactly the same. It doesn't appear in Dmoz either way. Is there actually a point to the above point you made ? Personally I am not keen and am strongly for natural birth. The US way of medicalising the birth process is something I really do object to. But I WILL review and will list sites that fufill the criteria should they fufill the category guidelines nevertheless. My personal feelings don't come into it.

I completely agree, thats why I find it so hard to fathom the song and dance about one ciggie site ? It's a bit weird.

If an Editall has proven themselves worthy of editing anywhere, ..anywhere at ALL in Dmoz, then personal bias against any genure is a bit hypocritical. Editall's should be seen to be completely unbiased wherever they choose to spend precious hours editing. THAT my friends is what I find very hard to understand.
Editalls that can't be arsed editing in cats that annoy them ? Now that's a admission to make AND to announce somewhere like here of all places... That that THIS is what being in a trustworthy position within Dmoz is all about ? It sounds crap and it looks crap.

I trusted you. You let me down again. You're screenshots are good, but they don't include anything at all we've discussed personally previously. But you DID tell me I have a lot to learn although you think I mean 'well'. Thanks but..

I came here as an ordinary DP peon who was also a Dmoz editor NOT the other way around. And boy did I take some flak for it. I could've revealed anytime that I didn't actually edit in shopping, or e-cards, or real estate. I chose not to. You knew who I was and you big mouthed it here despite knowing that personally, I didn't feel the need to have my editor name bandied about. That's what made me mad. You chose your registration details here, I chose mine.

Well you know what, there actually ARE people like me that edit who do none of the above in non-commercial categories, and are only too glad to . Some of us actually do edit because they feel they have something to contribute in some area's. I know I'll never be an editall or anything like that. I don't have the time with real life commitments. I'm glad I stumbled upon here and this forum, because it's given me a better insight into the whole picture. I'd never have known about the peadophilia threads or anything else like that as I'd still be innocently logging in, and never seeing anything amiss internally as it would all be hidden in forums and areas I don't edit in.

Dmoz should be looking after people like me. I and people like me are their best bet for the future. We're leaving in droves. Because ordinary editors don't have any say, yet we take the flak in places like here, and are bascially impotent internally.
Oh and if I ever did 'get' anywhere and was trusted to use my editing skills anywhere in the directory... I sure as hell wouldn't be delivering anti-smoking lectures on sites with names like 'cigar-outlet'.

That is an 'Edit ALL's' job. Not to be biased, or ever seen to be. Certainly not annoucing to all and sundry in this forum that it's ok 'um just not to review it'. I ain't trashing anyone for being an editall. Just pointing out that that level of trust should be used completely and unbiasedly towards the greater goal which is Dmoz's ideal. Which is, after all, listing the very best human edited sites in EVERY category despite personal preference, bias or gain for or against. And this has been re-inforced many, many times by editors when answering accusations from webmasters who maintain there has been apparent bias involved in listing 'competitive sites'.

I suggest you and Annie watch what you're admitting to in future. It's not the best thing to be holding you hands up to. Not listing sites because you don't 'personally' like what they represent and 'choose' the leave them to languish in the unreviewd pile forever.

If you both as Editalls are openly admitting it and encouraging me to do the same, what hope is there ?

 

Hmm. Are you actually talking about yourself and your postings? I think you are, especially that most of what you say is rubbish. Buh-bye.

Also remember that people who are bored are usually the boring.

 

Hahah. You're so funny. I don't edit in adult, and you don't know how many categories I edit, nor do you know how far up my priviliges go. Again, Gworld, you've put yourself on too high a horse, beware of a long and painful fall. But, I guess corrupt editors have no dignity.

 

Easy answer - close the editor application forum. You get an email if accepted, an email if rejected to every editor application anyway. Why do you need a status forum? Provide a feedback link somewhere for those who don't get a response in say a month and ignore all the feedback emails until the 30 days are up. No arguments, no misunderstandings. Move the QC forum to a public and official DMOZ feedback function. Bye bye RZ. Bye bye problem.

Problem - when someone kicks up a stink and editors respond with the correct answers they can't always point to clear and unambiguous guidelines and instructions and say there you go - it told you you were only making a suggestion and DMOZ isn't a listing service for webmasters. Solution - say it on the submission form. Now the webmasters might not be happy even so. But others watching can see who is clearly in the wrong. And the watchers are the ones you want to think about becoming editors. Cost - some free volunteer editor time to revamp the submission form. Ditto for other ambiguous and confusing instructions, like where Shopping and Regional meet.

 

I was one of the people who was quite hard on you because I thought that you are just another birdie, pagode, lmocr, enigma... that will say or do anything in order to advance in DMOZ and I am sorry for that.

I applaud your honesty because after knowing the facts, you have taken a stand for principals and what is right way of doing things.

Unfortunately, editors like you are in minority and ODP is controlled by power hungry senior editors and their usual ass kissers. I hope one day this situation be turned around and honest, idealist editors will take the control before it is too late and no one is left.

 

Ditto all of that.

 

Oh, the world is coming to an end. Actually, that's kind of funny.

But, one question regarding the ass-kissing. Is that the same way you and Minstrel kiss each other's asses? You applaud someone on their honesty, but the ironic things is that you greatly lack it. I guess you could stand to gain a thing or two from Shygirl.

 

*total waste of ammo*

 

22 minutes? Quick beer, eh? Reading the postings in here makes me want to drink heavily.

 

Me too.

But no... waiting for my girlfriend to get back first.

 

Shygirl - I appreciate what you are saying but as an editor you choose which categories you edit in by virtue of your cat applications. If you don't want to edit blue widgets then don't apply for the cat. When you are appointed editall, and in my day and I don't think it has changed in general you were appointed without being asked, you acquire automatic rights in every cat and you can't give any of those rights back. It is all or nothing. So if you have a personal objection to a category then you can choose not to edit there, just as without editall rights you wouldn't have applied for it. If you have chosen to edit a category and come across a site you object to, like hunting sites I found in Regional, I drew a long breath and reviewed them. But had I left them no-one would have criticised me. Ideally you should highlight them in forum so someone else can go finish the job. What editall means is that you are trusted to edit any category you feel you are capable of editing and trusted not to edit any category you don't feel capable of editing - two way street. If you have a personal bias such that you don't feel you could give sites of a particular type a fair review then the editall trust means you must not do it. You stay within your capabilities and have proven yourself capable of making those judgements for yourself. Does that make sense?

And that is a shame. But it is the same for editalls - they have no more influence than category editors. DMOZ needs to do far more to retain editors and find out why they leave. They need to be far more imaginative in how they use editor skills regardless of "rank". Hang on in there - the penny will drop one day at the top.

 

Excellent post brizzie.

 

Ditto what sid said

 

Ditto what Brizzee said.

Listing sites in only a small part of what editalls do for the directory. Mentoring new editors, helping with category changes, and working on quality control issues are just a few of the tasks that are aquired when made an editall. If I choose not to list sites in Adult, for example, I am not obligated to. In the same respect, if a new editor needs a question or concern answered for a problem in Adult, it is my obligation (IMO) to take care of them.

 

Now hold on there. If he does not kiss ass that is not the case, some prefer hard working and some do. Some criticize because were just human beings but we do not judge as God and play God. Now learn from this thread maybe one or two. We might differ from opinions but a good help is always appreciated that what counts for the directory and always should be.

And what's your agenda accountability ? Do you have one ?

 

Of course it makes sense Brizzie.

I'm not advocating that editall's or editors 'should' or 'have to do' anything. Volunteer being the crux of the matter obviously.

Just that perhaps announcing to the world that 'personal bias' does an can make a difference in Dmoz when it comes to reviewing individual sites, even it seems, if they ever get reviewed at all. I didn't think that was a particularly good picture to paint from an editall when so many webmasters are convinced that that is exactly the case. Especially in the more competitive and lucrative categories. It doesn't take a great leap of imagination for some to wonder where and what exactly 'personal preference' may entail and where it stops. There are surely enough fevered imaginings around already concerning why particular sites have or have not been included. Lets not add to them ?

It doesn't look good for Dmoz however you want to pitch it.

( And to be absolutely clear here I am talking about SITES here and not the category structures/guidelines/privilidge model etc as referred to above ).

I'll leave this for now.

 

Then maybe you misread my first post, the one you were/are so upset about. I made it very clear that I was referring to the entire Tobacco category, not one site in particular. I know you misread the green rep I gave you. I offered you a brief explanation and offered you help. Editalls also offer help to less experiend editors. We do it all the time.

Shygirl, it's obvious that you have a problem with anything I say. I don't know why that is, but rather than allow yourself to be needlessly upset you should figure out the reason and then either file an abuse report, request mediation, ignore me, or take the help as offered.

Consider this, everyone in the world has a personal bias about something, it doesn't matter what. Do you really expect a dmoz editor to lie about it once they are given editall or meta permissions? Honesty is a valued trait in an editor, we're expected be be honest about our bias and avoid areas that are affected. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'm also allowed to edit in World, but I never will. I have the sense to know I should stick to my own language. If you don't like me that's fine. It's a big directory and you don't have to have anything to do with me, but if you attack me in a forum thread you should assume I will reply. I hope you can understand that.