How to get listed?

It seems most of your editors income is based on being a DMOZ editor, except of course the under aged teenagers that previously were mentioned and are expert on different subjects.

 

I can certainly agree with this statement. For example, a certain troll, who shall remain nameless, recently slung around a bunch of nasty allegations, only to admit later (after I wasted 11 hours looking into the problem) that he didn't have time to read the very information he relied upon to come to his conclusions. His reaction to being confronted with this? He got abusive! And continues to be abusive. No apology, no thanks for looking, just stab, stab, stab...it's sickening

It's amazing how this troll automagically knows everything about everyone without having any facts. If he would spend less time yapping nonsense he could find time to read. But no...

Dusty, you're new here so I'll give you a heads up. Minstrel debates rationally, is reasonable, reads, considers the facts, and listens to counter arguements. Unfortunately, he has this troll that keeps following him around acting as his yes man. The vile stink of the troll is distracting. If you can resist feeding the troll you can have a good discussion here.

 

The only thing that you offered as reason for your claim that was nothing wrong with that listing was your word and your alleged 11 hours of research.
Sorry to say but as DMOZ editor, your word is worth sh*t and your credibility is zero.

I am surprised that a grand mother like you supports child porn.

 

The troll should go read what I wrote, but it's likely he can't stay focused long enough.

Ah well, if the troll does his reading and apologizes I'll continue looking into his allegations if he still believes what he alleged after checking out the facts. Otherwise, I have no intention of wasting any more of my time on his demented fantasies.

 

I highly doubt that he was selling information about DMOZ before he became an editor

 

Apologies, I'd read your accusations that he had abused his editorship by offering something that non-editors couldn't do - not that he was just using the editorship as an extra 'badge' to give his service added credibility.

It's grey ethics, yes. But in the same way, people put volunteering in a charity shop or running a not-for-profit organisation on their CV/resume. The fact they worked in the charity shop doesn't make them the only people able to apply for the job - anyone can use the DMOZ RDF dump, analyse it and offer the results of that as a service, not just a DMOZ editor. It's the same thing, and I'm not one to point my finger at an Oxfam/Red Cross weekend volunteer in a job interview and say 'shame on you for using something that's for the good of humanity for your own personal gain'. But I guess you and I are two different people.

 

mistrel,

I understand what you're getting at (to echo bradley), his being an editor does add some perceived "authority" or credibility to the report. While extending such an air might not be considered ethical by some people, it is not an abuse of his editing privileges as defined by DMOZ guidelines and that is all I was considering. Since he's using publicly available data, it's not considered a removable offense, whether or not I (or anyone else) agree with his actions on an ethical basis.

dmoz.org/guidelines/meta/abuse.html outlines the procedure for removals and while the meta community is quick to remove abusive editors, removal for external activities that do not manipulate directory listings are often more difficult to agree upon. Keep in mind, we do things by consensus.

Also, anything past self-imposed ethics is really difficult to justify, in my opinion. To me, it's like trying to regulate another person's hygiene. Besides, whose standard would we adopt? In a community as varied as DMOZ editors, what one might consider normal another might consider abhorrent.

After all, being an editor is supposed to be enjoyable, how far would these new community imposed ethics extend? Business practices outside (with no affect on) the directory? Personal expression outside DMOZ forums? Only Vegans, no meat eaters? No Nudists? (Who should care if I'm in a tux or my birthday suit while I'm editing! )

 

I am primarily asking you to consider, as I have done in conversations previously with Alucard and compostannie, that there are reasons for the animosity and hostility toward DMOZ which have nothing to do with being a "disgruntled webmaster who cannot get his site listed". This is one of them. You have repeated accusations of corruption and unethical behavior as characterizing DMOZ editors -- in addition to the Resource Zone arrogance and condescension -- and that goes way beyond personal dissatisfaction with what sites you list and don't list.

It has to do with the perception of a closed door old boy network which rewards fellow editors and closes ranks to outside criticism, turning a blind eye to excesses and (at best) "grey area" behavior with no apparent interest in taking any action to rectify it.

For those editors who deserve the criticisms, they will of course have no interest in doing anything at all. For those who believe the propaganda that only rejected webmasters will have anything negative to say about DMOZ, they too will have no interest in addressing the issues because they refuse to acknoweldge there is anything to be addressed.

For those of you who actually believe in the DMOZ mission, I would think you would wish to listen to the viewpoints of outsiders and to take whatever steps are available to you to make changes.

I don't know enough about most of you to know which camp you belong to.

 

That is exactly what we think about you.

 

That's okay with me, pagode. It's pretty obvious which camp you're in.

 

LOL, the troll gave me red rep. Thank you troll, now I'm sure I'm on the right path.

 

I think anybody who gave you a red rep made a mistake. The best way to expose DMOZ is to encourage all editors to post more, so people can see what a rotten organization it is.

 

Yes, I completely understand this and agree. There is dissatisfaction with certain aspects of DMOZ and we are working internally to improve them. I think we're all smart enough to realize the "disgruntled webmaster" is as much of a minority as is the "corrupt editor".

Just as some critics of DMOZ tend to focus on the "corrupt editor", some editors will focus on the "disgruntled webmaster". What I believe needs to happen (on both sides) is for people to look past these easy excuses and get to the heart of the matter.

I'm not suggesting there hasn't been corruption, I know very well it exists, I'm pretty active with abuse investigations. Some categories are just natural magnets for manipulation. I also know it isn't tolerated when it is found, but we have to be aware of the situation. We need specific examples, the very general, ambiguous, "there's loads of corruption" without details is near impossible to do anything about.

This sort of statement has always perplexed me personally. I'm not saying it isn't a valid perception but it just hasn't been my experience. Allow me to explain.

In my situation, just about 5 years ago I happened across a category while looking for something, I realized I was aware of a lot more sites about the topic than were listed and applied to be an editor. I didn't own any of the sites, I had no business relationships within the topic, it was nothing more than an interest of mine. I just thought it would be nice if other people looking for the same information had the resources I knew of in one spot. So I really came to DMOZ not looking for personal gain... other than the satisfaction that I might have helped someone else find something for which they were looking. I read the instructions, checked out the guidelines and filled out an application. In total about 20 minutes of my life.

About a month later (in all honesty, it was such a spur of the moment thing on my part I had completely forgotten I had applied) I was accepted. When I logged in I found a group of people who were genuinely interested in helping me learn the ropes and explaining what was expected of me as an editor. Most were like me... hobbyists that came from a wide variety of backgrounds with no monetary connection to the Internet. At that time I knew very little about website designers or search engine optimization... I was naive that people might be interested in such things as anchored text or keyword density.

A couple of months passed and I started taking on more categories with a larger range of subject topics. One day I came across something "strange" with a particular category. Being an inquisitive sort, I went to one of my mentors and started asking questions. Turns out there was something inappropriate going on. Listings were removed and eventually editors. It was then I discovered that some editors might not be there for altruistic motives. The actions of these editors really floored me. My interest in quality control issues and abuse investigations were encouraged and cultivated by senior editors.

As I rose through the ranks I found that this was happening more than I had first realized and became an active and somewhat successful abuse hunter. I have never taken the "appearance of impropriety" lightly. It has sometimes been somewhat astonishing how far people will go for nothing more than a simple link from a directory. It is also sickening how self-interested some of the editors were I have had removed. They were completely impervious to what they were doing was considered "improper." Actually I think they might have just been in denial or were so devoid of moral character that they projected their own personalities upon others. The old "everybody else is like that so, so am I" sort of thing.

In my 5 years I've seen every level of editor removed. No one is above removal proceedings. I've seen topic editors, editalls, catmods, and even fellow metas removed. I have been involved with investigating allegations with all level of editors and the higher up the chain they are the more it bothers me when abuse is found. Bothers me in a "how dare you betray our trust" sense but not once did their editor level ever shield them or slow down the train, so to speak.

So when I hear such statements as you have put forth, given my personal experience, I can't help but wonder how it was arrived at. Unfortunately, I am yet to get an answer that satisfies my curiosity. To some extent, I believe these opinions are rooted in the past and what was once perhaps more prevalent is not the way things are now.

I know I have spent countless hours cleaning out abusive editors and inappropriate listings and I know I have only encountered the same level of outrage as I have when I present my findings to the community. Basically, I just don't fully understand where this continual perception comes from.

I'm sure some of my statements will draw some fire from people who, for whatever reason, just don't like DMOZ, but I am more than willing to listen to concerns, complaints, or problems and will do my damnedest to correct any situation I can.

Just please realize that it is a little difficult to take some DMOZ detractors seriously. Especially when in one breath they are criticizing the directory about certain shortcomings and in the next breath they are talking about their efforts to "bring it down" (this last comment is not directed at you minstrel, just a general statement to a very small, very vocal, minority of less desirable sorts out there).