Missing the point again, fathom... By the way, I missed the UK page but this similar Canadian page by macdesign is still live... has been for about a year now, with the only change being to remove "proicing for single listings", as far as I can tell...
I get their point - I disagree with it. Is that wrong? I don't see the parallel? Where is it listed? A quick look at the content the owner is suggesting [I think] a better alternative for status check. As I understand DMOZ does not entertain status checks anymore - but I suppose if someone comes up with a superb 'non-labor intensive plan' maybe it will be looked at. But I don't believe it is endorsed by DMOZ?
Where is what listed? macdesign is a DMOZ editor who has been offering information on DMOZ submissions for a fee for some time. How is this different than the UK site offering information on DMOZ submissions for a fee?
1. site isn't listed 2. I don't know who the editor is... "macdesign"? 3. if not an editor - I suppose they can offer consulting advice for a fee - but I highly doubt they'll get rich on it. with a Frontpage template they can't be doing too good.
4. The information offered by macdesign's site is readily available to the public. 5. No editor notes are used by macdesign's site. 6. Anyone who wants to take the time to design a program and utilize the RDF dumps in this manner is more than able to.
7. apparently, making a profit by selling information to webmasters about their DMOZ submissions is OK for some editors and not OK for others
9. This site is not giving out any confidential material (at least, it isn't claiming to). The arclid site was selling the content of editor notes - that is against ODP guidelines. This site uses the publicly available rdf information - http://open-directory-status.com/background.htm macdesign could provide this service whether he were an editor or not.
I've heard all the excuses before. He's still profiting from his position as an editor and apparently a lot of other editors see nothing wrong with that. Oh well... that's not the biggest problem with DMOZ by any means, but it's one of the many...
For all clients I submit their websites to the appropriate category, use an appropriate title, description, and help enhance their website to the point that 'someday' when they get reviewed - their chances of inclusion might be better. I don't guarantee any results nor guaranntee any inclusion - I do guarantee "I will do my homework and I will do the work"... Is it wrong for me to be an editor? Is it wrong for me to submit websites? Is it wrong for me to use by editing skills? I did note this though on the site in question: That pretty much covers everything.
Based on the evidence we both have (unless you know something about the site that isn't apparent), that's just not true. The information he is providing is from the rdf which is available to anyone that wants it. he is not providing any information that is available to editors only, therefor any profit he makes is not related to his being an editor. This is, of course, based on the only information I have available to me, and that's what is on the site. Based on that, you're simply wrong on this minstrel. But it looked mighty suspicious to me at first too. Someone else had to point out to me the "background" page as well.
As said, this covers everything minstrel. The ODP has fully explained this on its Disclaimer / Limitation of Liability. The ODP has no part in this. Hence, what is wrong here is that if the site owner is an editor or has an inside editor who gives information, a co-relation of corruption is visible. They are making money on information they supply from the ODP whether accurate information or not. Technically no information shall be given with regards to site statuses. This situation is unfair for honest editors who make editing as part of their hobby. A hobby is what you do on your precious free time regardless of circumstances but when you are giving out information that overshadows the purity of a hobby and sells or distributes somebody's rights it is considered business and a corrupt editor. By law ODP and its internal information is its property and should not be distributed whether in whole or in part.
As said, this covers everything minstrel. The ODP has fully explained this on its Disclaimer / Limitation of Liability. The ODP has no part in this. Hence, what is wrong here is that if the site owner is an editor or has an inside editor who gives information, a co-relation of corruption is visible. They are making money on information they supply from the ODP whether accurate information or not. Technically no information shall be given with regards to site statuses. This situation is unfair for honest editors who make editing as part of their hobby. A hobby is what you do on your precious free time regardless of circumstances but when you are giving out information that overshadows the purity of a hobby and sells or distributes somebody's rights it is considered business and a corrupt editor. By law ODP and its internal information is its property and should not be distributed whether in whole or in part.
Finally, an editor who gets it. macdesign is not giving this information away for free. He is selling it. And he is a DMOZ editor.
minstrel, agree that a well known smell is there, giving a certain impression. From what I saw in his signature here at DP, I was always wondering what you were talking about, when complaining, though. Thanks for providing that information.
The only reason that anyone would think corruption is because minstrel keeps harping on it (harping seems to be one of his favorite activities). The FACT that the information is available to individuals who are not editors, doesn't prevent an editor from being able to use it. That this editor makes any amount of money from this service is no different than the fact that any editor makes any amount of money. There is a significant difference between the site the OP found and macdesign's site - the first used internal information and the second uses information available publicly.
This is a very important distinction. Granted it's on the edge, and personally I wouldn't go that close to the edge, but imo macdesign does not cross the line. I looked very closely at his service and at him as an editor because of this site but honestly, I can't find a single thing that points to corruption. He uses NO confidential information at all and therefore is not relying on his position as editor to offer this service. I'll go as far as to say I think macdesign's service is totally worthless since he doesn't use any inside information and therefore isn't providing anything useful. Basically, he's offering to gather public information for anyone too lazy to go look themselves. If he wasn't an editor he could still offer the same service. The difference would be that instead of accusations of corruption, his service would be dismissed as worthless. (Sorry macdesign, just my humble opinion.)