Do DMOZ editors list their own sites?

*smirk*

Yeah, I have a generator, though have only used it once. I am at a friends house on their computer.

 

Sure they list their own sites!

 

Not only can an editor list his own site, if it is a site that will be of value to the overall category, he's obligated to list it. Not doing so would be a reverse discrimination.

The object is to build a good category/resource for anyone interested in that particular topic, in an unbiased way.

Not listing your own site, because it is your site (if it will add value to the category) would be considered a reverse bias.

Editors are expected to list good sites, wherever they happen to find them, whether it's from a newspaper ad, yellow pages, the side of a truck, on a website, a site they've built, or one that the public has submitted.

All of those sources are perfectly legitimate to use, and it is totally up to the editor to use or not use, whichever ones he wants to use. Our focus is on building the category for someones use, and we could really give a rats ass about your desires and needs. Neither has any bearing on what we do.

 

I fully agree with you Crowbar, but heh...

I found that funny, as when I read it I pictured some random editor getting a dashboard warning or even canned with the reason: For not listing your affiliated sites.

*shrug*

I HIGHLY doubt that would ever happen, but I would love to see the face of the editor it happened too

 

You're right, it's not likely in that scenario, but adding your own site, or giving it preferential treatment would absolutely get noticed, and be cause for a very strong warning, or possibly removal of editing privileges.
A warning (and removal of the site) might be justified if the editor was brand new.

 

Well, I will indirectly answer your question with another question. Is every person honest, law abiding and ethical? Nothing further.

 

How can you associate an editor with any site if the editor takes steps to keep that information hidden?

 

The information that can be obtained is amazing Winifred. Links, ip address, registration details and numerous other things........probably heaps i dont know about due to lack of knowledge.

Not hard to identify if you know what to look for.

 

Well, as noted, adding your own isnt against the rules to start with, and giving ANY site preferential treatment is gonna raise a huge red flag. It's not hard to spot preferential treatment, and it doesnt matter *who* the site belongs to if the editor is seen doing that.

Bear in mind they see new eds come in every year thinking they're the guy that is smarter than everyone else... but the people doing the QC checks have more experience at catching it than the new offenders have experience working around the system. Have seen plenty of young phenoms go down for trying it.

 

It's natura, they have their right! However, their sites are quite good!

 

This is claimed all the time - how easy it is but I just don't get it.

How would dmoz use ip addresses to associate a web site with an editor?

And as far as registration, can't a site owner just use privacy registration?

Even if they don't use privacy registration, how would you know the real name of the editor so that you could match it to the registration details?

 

I have to disagree, unless you are editing a top level category of which there are few, it is easy to give preferential treatment to sites and no one will ever even notice.

For example you can put a competitor in unrev with a note saying "site down I'll check it later" then forget to check - there is nothing wrong with that so it will never raise a red flag. Who will know the site wasn't down when you checked it? No one. A site can be down for 60 seconds...

You can only add sites from your own network, no one can associate the sites to the editor, so that will never raise a red flag.

You can only make certain types of edits and only very rarely - every four months, so that no new sites ever make it in. This is common.

And the list goes on...

 

Winnifred.....your arguements have more holes than swiss cheese (lol)

Its just a shame that when comments like yours are posted, some one is now going to believe it and consider it "a fact", or "proof".

....and the crap goes on.

 

Then please excuse my ignorance. Would you be so kind as to explain it to me?

How would dmoz use ip addresses to associate a web site with an editor?

And as far as registration, can't a site owner just use privacy registration?

Even if they don't use privacy registration, how would you know the real name of the editor so that you could match it to the registration details?

And don't just say it's crap, actually tell us why it's crap.

 

I personally turned in people I caught doing the stuff you're talking about, as did many of my friends (eds with integrity don't like the other kind giving the place a bad name)... but I'll admit my opinion is tainted by over eight and a half years of hands-on experience inside an organization that's only been around for ten years... maybe you know more than I do about it.

 

And these are facts:

Putting a site in unrev because you think it's "down" will NOT raise a huge red flag.

There is no way to associate a site with an editor.

Editors are not required to add sites - they are only required to make one edit every four months and that edit does not have to be adding a site.

 

I'm just curious, how would you catch them doing the things I am talking about?

For example, if someone puts their competitor in unrev and gives the reason that the site is down, and then "forgets" to check it later.

How would even know that the site is the editors competitor in the first place?

Then how would you know that the site wasn't actually down when the editor checked it?

I'm sure you have caught plenty of people there are lots of ways to cheat and get caught, all I'm saying is that there are also countless ways to cheat and not only never get caught but never even be suspected.

People do it all the time.

 

Half the newbies that thought they had the key to how to secretly commit abuse use the same routines as the guys that tried before 'em. Suffice it to say they routinely get caught. Explaining how they get caught isn't productive. You just think people are getting away with it all the time. The people nailing them have a lot more experience and tools than you think.

 

No disrespect intended but I simply don't believe that.

I'm an editor it would be productive to explain it within dmoz, why don't you point me to that then?

Right, well I've been a webmaster for over 10 years and an editor for 5 and I've never been able to find a single tool or method that can associate an editor with a site if the editor wants to keep that information hidden.

I'm sure there are people with more experience than me, just show me where they are so I can find and use these tools and methods.

 

No disrespect, but I dont really care if you do or not, simply telling you what I know to be true.

If you're an editor you've seen it said many times in the dmoz forum that they aren't going to pass on the details for the same reasons I've pointed out. Don't take my word, do a forum search.