First, the premise that having a few duplicate submissions is what is clogging the system is absolute BS and you must know that - you simply cannot be dumb enough to believe it. It takes but a second or two to recognize two similar or identical URLs and delete the duplicates. So let's move on from that little bit of bafflegab. What is more serious is the rest of your post following on lmocr's allusion to a minimum 3 edits ("and edits don't mean adds") per year. If you and the other DMOZ editors don't see a problem with stats like these, you ARE the problem... Even the public service (or at least parts of it) does better than that. Talk about underachievers. Yikes!
LOL. Let's not get into playing "rep war" here fellas. This started as a civil convesation, so let's keep it that way. I hate to say it, since so many people are awaiting reviews and expecting to be listed BUT....if someone can't abide the guidelines set forth by DMOZ then don't review them. Just delete! Give the people who actually take the time to do things right a chance to be reviewed. Just an opinion, I know I'm kind of an as*hole.
And let's also not get into whining about it. I get all colors these days in just about every thread I post in that is even slightly controversial. So what? That's all part of having an opinion at D-P... forget about it and move on.
I am confused here (no surprise). Am I to believe that a huge organization such as DMOZ doesn't have filters in place to prohibit duplicate submissions? I would expect that DMOZ would have some seriously powerful filters to weed out all kinds of junk. Any editor care to clue us in on this?
The better question is how many of this 7000 won't edit because they are lazy and don't want to and how many don't do it because they can't? How many of this multiple submission is because webmasters are spammers and how many is the result of an incompetent organization that can not manage submissions and communicate with the submitters? Do you really believe that people just like to spam DMOZ because it is fun or do you think they do it because they are frustrated for not getting any answer and not knowing what is happening with their submissions? Do you think the corrupt people just like to become an editor because they wake up one morning and think "oh, today is a nice day to be a corrupt DMOZ editor" and then apply to be editor or because they feel this is the only way to get their site listed?
DMOZ doesn't seem to encourage any discussion at all about automation. Now that I am seeing more about (1) how long it takes some DMOZ editors to do 3 edits and (2) how long it takes DMOZ to make a decision about whether or not to endorse and promote pro-pedophilia and similar sleaze sites, I'm beginning to get a clearer picture about why this is the case. I'm sure the sheer weight of utter mind-numbing incompetence in the inner sanctum must convince many of the the best and most enthusiastic to leave quickly before it drains their brains...
Excellent point! If DMOZ accepted more editor applications and reviewed sites in timely manner, the corruption would all but disappear. Why bribe an editor if your site is going to be reviewed in a couple weeks anyway? Why sabatoge the competition if they can just resubmit and get listed in a couple weeks? So much of the really scummy techniques that people complain about would not be a viable option to corrupt editors anymore. DMOZ is simply feeding fuel to the fire of corruption.
Let's say if the 3 stooges were alive, they could have done much better job managing DMOZ. The problem is the few smart ones like the situation as it is and depend on it to keep DMOZ for themselves.
Do what they are supposed to do. Build the directory. As has been stated many times before: the pool of suggested sites is only one of many ways editors can find sites to be listed. Some of the other ways we use are much more usefull than the pool of suggested sites. There is a very clear procedure available for everybody (also non-editors) to read http://dmoz.org/newperms.html It is the same as siginging up as a new editor. But now the editor will also be judged on his previous actings within DMOZ.
They already run DMOZ. They just go by the names of pagode, sidjf, and vulcano. If you include the fourth stooge, Shemp, you can add Jim Noble to my list.
An opinion some editors share with you. But under current guidelines deleting a suggestion made in the wrong category must be send to a more appropriate category. Not doing so is editor abuse.
I agree...to an extent. An editor that does 1 edit every 120 days (the minimum), should not be allowed to continue being an editor. 1) The contributions is so minimal that the loss will not be felt and 2) they are often up to something not good anyways. But what about an editor that does 1 edit every 10 days? That's better than not having them at all isn't it? If half of the editors only do 36 edits a year and we removed all of them, that would be 126,000 edits a year...I think a loss that large would be noticed. I'm not sure I understand how people can be complaining about how slow it is to get listed and at the same time promoting the removal of editors who do not keep a certain quote...That doesn't add up to me. If we did that there would be even more complaints about corruption... I bet the vast majority of them don't edit because they just don't want to or they don't have time to obsess over dmoz. they maintain their little corner and are happy with it. How many don't edit because they can't? Very few from my experience. It's very rare (although I'm sure it does happen) that an editor has a category with absolutely nothing to do or no sites to add. I have however seen people complaining that they can't get accepted to larger categories when they have piles of greens they are ignoring. So they have plenty to do if they wanted to. Almost all editors who can't get accepted to additional categories are either applying for categories that are much too large for them or their editing is just plain awfull and they will not correct it. Most are probably from webmasters that are frustrated or just don't know any better. that doesn't change the fact that they are there. I wouldn't personally call it spam when a submitter subits his site twice in 6 months though. Neither. I think the real spam comes from people trying to make money. Neither. Corrupt editors are trying to make money.
Deleting a submission that was submitted to a wrong category is abuse, but listing pro-pedophilia sites is OK. I get it now. Makes sense.
I actually use to have a bit of respect for you. Your posts are usually relevant and insightful. I see now that I was wrong...my mistake.
The problem is not building a directory, there are many of those and any cheap script will do a better job than DMOZ, the problem of importance of DMOZ for Google and search engines. Can you tell me why should the incompetent and corrupt have control over such a big directory instead of serving the Internet community? The other pool is their own, family, friends and anybody else beneficial to them. I am sure it is much more useful but the question is for who, DMOZ and Internet users or themselves? blah, blah, blah. The policies in DMOZ are a joke, it sounds good on paper, the same as DMOZ social contract but it is a fantasy that got nothing to do with reality. For example DMOZ policies mentions illegal sites but it fails to specify in what jurisdiction, can anybody take such crap seriously? It also mentions policies about corruption, conflict of interest but in the same time you defend such actions in this forum as "norm" and "adult guideline". Can you explain for me, how can an editor except a complete moron be caught for corruption at present time? You know that and I know that but if you like to close your eye and live in your fantasy world, that is your choice.
Sorry. Couldn't resist. I was just setup too well by gworld on that one. I thought everyone would get a laugh but I see I have hurt your feelings. I take back all the negative things I've said about you in the past. Still friends?
We do have some very powerfull filters but they can't trap everything. I'll give a small insight in the number of suggested sites. Each day DMOZ receives between 8000 and 15000 suggestions. Of these between 3000 and 10000 are directly filtered out as violating DMOZ guidelines or for being banned. The total pool of suggested sites is not growing and we are adding netto just over 1000 sites a day. So of the 5000 suggestions that made it through the filter about 4000 are not listable. On top of that a part of the suggested sites must be moved to the correct category. So the combined editors are reviewing around 5000 suggestions each day and only list 1000 of them. Can you imagine what we could do if all those spammers (*) would not suggest their crap. All 5000 suggestions could be listed. Now, who do you think is the real problem. DMOZ editors only listing about 1000 sites each day or the webmasters sending us all their spam. * spam: all sites suggested which do not comply to DMOZ guidelines
A while back I got tired of hearing about how corrupt DMOZ was, so I applied. I found a category that had 2 listings, that I had some interest in the subject matter, and submitted. I ran my application through a spell and grammatic program, added 3 websites [yes - one was of a commercial interest to me] and noted "every single website that I was associated with". I was accepted. I cleared the quene, found a bunch more websites and included, and applied to another category [rejected] hmmm... applied again [rejected], applied to a different category [rejected] - gave up and continued to edit in the one I had for over a year. I recently noticed a new category that was based of the same subject matter as my moniker - applied [accepted], edited there and then realized the difference [between rejected and accepted]. Motive. Submarines are a true passion for me as well as "subsea anything". If your 'sole interest' in DMOZ is purely commercialism rarely do you go very far. [Honestly, there are exceptions to everything... including here at DP and at DMOZ - but honestly any world wide organization has that in common]. I quoted your phrase for a reason... the greatest problem with DMOZ [IMHO] - too many "individuals" apply [as I] for the wrong reason, too many "individuals" start their editorship [as I] for the wrong reason, and too many "individuals" never grow out of it... fortunately "I believe I did". I cannot speak for anyone else - and like here I am merely a "Peon" but I do review, edit, and include submissions [I try daily but I do have a business to run] and "without bias of commercial aspects". I truly don't care if you believe I am a moron nor do I care if you believe I am power hunger - I volunteer my time - which is far more than you do. That isn't to say you don't volunteer time in anything... just that your belief of corruption is so vivid - I can't believe you have zero interest in "making a difference".
Well in your previous post, you admitted that you don't know very much about anything, so I can't blame you for this nonsense. The problem is a lot of those who are in DMOZ purely for commercialism, will go on and become metas, a lot of those who are just after to find a purpose for their life and power that they lack in their daily life, go on and become metas even they have absolutely no qualification or competence. Do you even know if you are a meta, how easy it is to be 10 different editor at the same time?
gee thanks! I hate being blamed. You are a Spirit Walker and your qualification or competence are? hmmm... I am positive I am not a Meta. as to the latter... I am fathom - and that won't change any time soon so I can have a sockpuppet here or there.