Is design of a submission procedure and feedback system for a directory state secret? I forgot that DMOZ is the result of combining CIA and MI6 and then putting the 3 stooges in charge.
I apologize, I really should stay out of technical discussions. I was under the impression that you were suggesting a complete database redesign that would also require all tools and utilites to be re-written. My mistake.
No. You can report back here regularly, choosing words that don't breach confidentiality guidelines, i.e. paraphrasing without identifying other editors. But a project of the nature you want requires (a) editor agreement, and (b) technical assistance. You can't get either here, it must be proposed and developed internally using the "Projects" environment. That means you need a sponsor and orlady did seem open to considering that. Ah, but that would mean revealing your identity. If your only offence is being a pain in the butt then amongst editors you are nowhere near being alone - they even promoted me to editall/catmv - and it would not be easy to remove you on that score. If you really have multiple accounts or have lied on the editor application or been involved in corruption yourself then maybe you need to negotiate immunity first. Or do you enjoy the deception?
Why does this need to be inside DMOZ and in secret where they can close threads and disable accounts or gang up on one person? Why does it need to be editor "agreement" and how long has DMOZ worked in that way? Do you mean that there was an editor agreement to list pedophile sites? What kind of technical assistance are they going to supply us with? Do you mean the technical assistance from the same people who invented non-search-able database? Why does it need a "sponsor" to do a free work, doesn't DMOZ want to use the help that is offered by free volunteers? I prefer to do this work in a free, democratic environment and in the full view of web community where it is not as easy for powers in DMOZ to close down the project with ridiculous excuses. Anything wrong with public scrutiny?
Because you can't get the support you would need technically and in terms of change here, it has to be internal. And internal doesn't mean secret - you are allowed to paraphrase here. It is a major change that requires editors to generally assent to it since it would impact on them. Consensus has been a feature of major decisions and I personally feel the Admin system has eroded that - what, are you supporting complete disbanding of consensus because this is *your* baby and you don't think you would get it? For f***'s sake this is not about pedophile sites and you know those listings were done against AOL staff rulings. You don't get consensus on every site listed, pedophile or not. You do get consensus on major issues and decisions, at least that is how it should be. You need to know how it works now, how all the interfaces, features and tools connect to it, etc. And it is highly unlikely to be the same people who put the original database in place when DMOZ started off back in the late '90s. As you well know. To facilitate. To ensure that you are not wasting your time and that the solution you arrive at is (a) workable, (b) acceptable to the owners, (c) will be implemented. By which you mean you prefer to work without editor consensus which is clearly not democratic - you don't want to put your ideas and solutions to editors only to a tiny handful of editors and non-editors that check in here. And you have no project to close down unless you do it internally - without consensus and sponsorship and agreement of those who own DMOZ (AOL) via a sponsor, anything you do is completely futile. And as I have said twice before you can do it openly by reporting back here on progress. Thrice - you can do it openly by reporting back here on progress. You know all I am hearing are feeble excuses and BS why you don't want to raise this matter where it can be debated properly and possibly adopted. The truth is you don't want your identity discovered as you have breached DMOZ guidelines to such an extent there is a strong possibility you will be removed. And that doesn't mean for dissent or being a pain in the butt. You know full well that nothing will be agreed via this forum, it cannot be agreed via this forum, so why do you persist? Negotiate immunity and go where a project of this nature could be progressed. Or take the RDF, put it into your own database, and produce your own version of DMOZ complete with all the features you want along with Google ads - make a fortune.
Because his goal is to get people riled up and to argue with him, not to actually change or improve anything.
Do you mean like when you tried to move the pedophile sites to test and got spanked by admin? Those sites would have been there to this day, if it was not for the public pressure.
They would probably still be there if someone hadn't of raised the issue, but pressure from DP played little to no role in the matter. And either way, moving those sites was not your goal, as you proved time and time again. Your goal was to troll.
Why are you so sour? You were so happy in internal forum when you thought I was banned in DP and the precious deep links in adult were safe.
Obviously that's why I'm sour! You're back to shed light on my precious deeplinking in Adult. Damn your all-seeing eyes...damn them!
I believe you. Actually I am pulling your leg. I haven't made up my mind yet if you are corrupt, too naive or just plain ambitious.
Yep, because we all know how responsive DMOZ is to public pressure. Wasn't it an editor who first brought that to everyone's attention?
Yes, a DP thread first brought it to my attention and it was pagode, an editor, who found the pro-pedophilia categories and raised that part of issue in that thread. IMO it was a combination of pressure from both inside and outside that brought about the change. I'm sorry, but I don't believe DMOZ will do much, if anything because of public pressure alone. I can almost guarantee you that DMOZ will not make database changes based on public pressure.
As I said before, I don't think the DMOZ powers themselves have any interest in doing anything except what they choose to do, which mostly involves maintaining the status quo, but they aren't the only ones involved any more - it is about AOL, Google, police agencies, and the court of public opinion. DMOZ Admins and senior editors may not care about what is being said here but at least some of them care enough about what AOL and others think that they will act because there is no other choice. I agree that that doesn't include making any changes to the database, however. That won't come if it comes from public pressure but from increasing problems for editors accessing the data they need and keeping the directory pruned.
The question is 2 folds. In a matter of pedophile listings, it is the public pressure that forces them to act but in a question of database and internal procedures, the real purpose is to educate the editors that do not know all the facts , so they will not as easily be fooled by some editors BS about why nothing can be done to improve the situation.