Dmoz submission

If you remove all the venomous, power-mad bully and outright crazy losers then the number of DMOZ editors who can actively edit will be significantly lower than 300 or so which is at present time.

 

I am saying it takes all sorts to make a world, and all sorts to make a successful directory. One of the key skills of a manager is to work out how you can usefully make use of the experience and abilities of those resources available to you. As a psychologist Minstrel you more than anyone should know that negative impact behaviour can be changed if you manage a person correctly. The former Staff editor in chief was intolerant of bullying and I believe progress was made in curtailing some excesses. The guidelines forbid meta bullying of other editors too. But to do anything about bullying in DMOZ, as in other walks of life, the victim has to report it and it is not so easy to get people to do that.

Like so many things it is not a difficult thing to solve - an Admin only has to post a thread and/or email all editors explaining the official position and ask for editors to report incidents confidentially. And then be seen to act on any reports received. Not doing anything, or not indicating that it is taken seriously, carries the risk of losing a potentially very active and productive editor or several. One problem is that Admins are not welfare officers and taking a more active stance in this area is adding yet more to their volunteer workloads. But they can delegate if they so chose and within the ranks of senior editors there are no doubt more than a few with the right background who could and would take on such a role with enthusiasm. This goes full circle to my initial point that Admins do not manage the resources they have at their disposal effectively, are appalling at delegation, in solving the problems faced by DMOZ but instead let them fester.

 

It's not really difficult to solve at all. All it takes is an Administration that is willing to spell out clearly what is and is not acceptable and then enforce those rules consistently.

As long as DMOZ tolerates a weak, inconsistent, gutless, or disinterested administration, the directory and all those editors (all three of them, according to gworld) who actually care about DMOZ will continue to suffer.

 

That's what I said wasn't it.

DMOZ, the community, has no choice over the administration. Once more it is a failure of putting the right people and skills in the right place but this time it is on the part of AOL by choosing managers with no background in managing projects. Excellence in terms of editing and a reputation for incorruptibility does not necessary mean the individual is capable of translating that into managing people and issues whilst holding down a full time job and devoting time to family and friends.

 

That's a cop-out. If enough editors complain loudly enough and long enough, in all likelihood something will happen. Just giving up and saying nothing can be done only guarantees that nothing will be done.

 

DMOZ is not a culture that encourages a great deal of rebellion against authority given it has a fairly rigid hierarchical structure, and never has done. Internal outlets for expressing discontent are very limited, there is not even a PM service on the internal forums, and external outlets carry the risk of breaching guidelines on confidentiality. How long and loud was the shouting about a handful of pro-pedophile sites before they were removed.

 

Again, that's not an explanation or an excuse - that's just another restatement of the problem.

The Communist party in Czechoslovakia didn't exactly encourage "rebellion against authority" in the 60s. Neither did the USSR or China. But that didn't stop people from pointing out the wrongs and in the end things changed in spite of the resistance of "authority" to change.

I don't want to turn this into a philosophical debate but the reality is that the problems with DMOZ start at the top, not the bottom.

 

It is not in all likelihood, it is with 100% certainty that something will happen.
The editors who complain, will very soon notice that their login for DMOZ is not functioning anymore.

The corruption and abuse in DMOZ is manged by admins and Metas and as long as AOL do not step in and change the present management, there is no chance for editors to make the smallest dent in DMOZ abuse and corruption culture.

 

One question friend. Do the personal sites of editors get listed faster then the normal webmasters???

 

Truth is No. There are some editors who's sites are not even listed. My experience was one of my site has been there before I joined (I am not an editor anymore) and was removed by a Meta. The site has been on top or visible in the first pages for its keywords. No change in its rankings.

 

Raising my hand.

 

And the solutions must start at the top not the bottom.

The answer is actually yes and no. If an editor has a listable site and the editing rights in the category where it belongs then they can list it. A large proportion of editors list their own site on their first day as long as they have they have become editor for a category where it fits. Listing their own site is probably the primary reason people become editors. The rule is that you don't give favouritism to your own sites so if you do list your own then you are obliged to list your competitors at the same time. But life's a bitch and many new editors list their own and disappear.

If your own site is not in a category you have editing rights in, then to ask another editor to do you a favour and list it ahead of others is considered abuse and you can be removed. An editor who does such a favour for another editor would also be acting abusively and can be removed. So if an editor cannot list their own site themselves then it will not get quicker treatment.

Despite the impressions given by some, most decent honest editors are far harsher judges of the quality of their own sites than of their competitors. I tagged sites I had a connection with that I did not think were up to standard to ensure I would not be embarrassed by another editor accidentally listing it.

A removal of a an editor (below editall) requires the unanimous agreement of a quorum of meta editors. It is extremely unlikely that such unanimity could be achieved on a charge of dissent. ODPSS (ODP Suicide Syndrome) does occasionally result in an editor removal - but it takes a hell of a lot of moronic ranting and personal attacks to achieve.

 

That will not happen. That's akin to hoping the Kremlin would willingly yield to change in the days before the collapse of the USSR.

It is clear to me that the "top" is quite happy with the status quo and has no interest in change whatsoever - in fact, it is clear that their interest lies in preserving the status quo and their own power status.

That tells me that the only way to effect change in DMOZ is to exert pressure from the bottom up and from outside the directory.

 

The corruption and abuse culture is so strong that there is no way to exert pressure from the bottom up, the only way to change is to exert pressure from outside and force AOL and times warner to deal with cancerous management.

 

You may well be right, gworld...

 

AOL has bigger fish to fry at the moment. They are selling the UK arm and the fact they released large amounts of highly dangerous search data is about to hit the mainstream press. AOL users are naturally worried about the internet and this will cause an uproar.

 

What does this mean? What "highly dangerous search data"?

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=120476
http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6102793.html?tag=nefd.top

Its dangerous if your personal stuff is on the list, even more dangerous if you are the search engine that made it public.

 

Okay... but how is this related to anything to do with DMOZ? This isn't DMOZ data you're talking about - it's AOL/Google search data...

 

gworld talked about exerting pressure on AOL, I was pointing out they have bigger things to worry about this week.