new dmoz announcement (no longer accepting status checks)

I'm not certain that it's really respectful to be talking about Annie's ass that way...

 

LOL, OK... Annie is not a hardass. She is a stickler and is unrelenting in quality control issues.

Reguardless of what I call her, you get my meaning

Later,
Rob

 

I'll take it as a compliment in this case. Yes, I'm very big on quality control. I hate abuse like you wouldn't believe. I spent about 7 months working full time to clean up after a couple of abusive editors that were caught and removed. Another editor worked just as hard on the clean up... that's a year of full time editing to reverse the damage! That time could have, and should have been spent building the directory and reviewing sites.

I'm not a meta, I'm a regular editor with tens of thousands of edits. I have two websites listed, and 5 more that I wouldn't even consider listing. I edit full time since acquiring a lung condition that keeps me from doing much else. Editing keeps me sane, I'd be useless without it. So, that's who I am.

gworld, I give you my word; show me the slimy abusive editor and I'll be on him till one of us is gone. (and it won't be me!)

[added] I've been an editor since March 2001. I believe in the project, corrupt editors really piss me off. I'm not new but probably naive. I'm still shocked when I find abuse. Then there's the mourning process... disbelief turns to anger, which turns to a feeling of betrayal, and finally you have a good long cry. Then the clean up comes and you just get on with it.

 

Compostannie, please check this post out and tell me its not editor abuse - http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=179903&postcount=69

 

Please do not attack Annie. She's the only dmoz editor who's ever shown enough interest in abuse to send a PM...!

PS> If there was a good system for warning abusing editors early, I suspect many of them would turn around and help undo the damage they've done. Not all, but at least a few...

 

BTW here's an example of a site with WAY too many listings:
allcarpictures.com
http://search.dmoz.org/cgi-bin/sear...cat=Recreation/Autos/Makes_and_Models/Bentley

31 different listings for the same exact site

carsurvey.org

78 different listings for the same exact site

2carpros.com

8 different listings

Autos/Makes and Models is a mess...it took me three minutes to come up with those! But it does illustrate as gworld says one solution - scripts that find sites witih multiple listings and flag 'em for personal review.

 

Who's attacking Annie?

 

Post 178, "Oh, God save us from another DMOZ editor here. May I ask how long you have been an editor? If you still believe in what you posted, you must be new or naive."

 

Ahh... okay... I thought you were referring to my comment about her... errr... physiology

 

What is this attitude of sugar coating everything, doesn't anybody talk straight to the point anymore?

What part of that sentence is personal attack?

1- Have we seen a parade of meaning less DMOZ editors posting here that ask for proof of corruption? Yes, we have and when you give it to them, what happens? they run away.

2- How can some one believe in DMOZ mission and honesty when just a simple search in Google will bring tons of different material about DMOZ corruption?
Therefore, the logical conclusion is either the person is new and doesn't know about the subject or the person is naive and doesn't get it.

We are all adults, let's talk straight.

 

A doctor friend of mine said the many medicine students will start to experience all the symptoms of the diseases that they study in the class room.

Have you been talking to any paranoid patient lately?

 

What happens is that they investigate it themselves to the best of their abilities and, if they find something fishy, they file an abuse report.

As for "running away" some of them don't care much for the so-called "straight-talk" that goes on around here. The bitching and moaning that goes on about how editors "don't listen" and "won't act in a civilised manner" seems to apply to both sides.

This is your profession and so you go ahead and act the way you feel is appropriate, but I for one am a volunteer, and this is supposed to be fun. Why should I stick around to get treated like a punching bag for your frustrations with the ODP? It seems to me that you are doing exactly what you accuse the ODP editors of doing - not listening, or only listening when it suits you. I can't give you the answers you want, because they don't exist. So I'm not going to just repeat myself.

You want to have a civilised conversation with ODP editors without sarcasm? Then that has to go both ways. You ask editors to understand your point of view - then try just a little to understand theirs, too, without dismissing it. Respect has to be mutual. And it has to be earned. I knew when I started posting here that it was an uphill battle, because in general there is little respect for ODP editors (and given your experiences with them that is understandable). But after I spent a week trying to show you that at least one editor is making an effort, and understands your issues, I realised from the tone of your post that it wasn't an uphill battle I was up against, but a brick wall.

So "running away" was merely the recognition of that, and realising that I can spend my time more constructively (i.e. editing). I have made the points I can make about these issues - I am not going to endlessly repeat myself.

Thanks

 

Why? What have you heard?

 

WOW, They file an abuse report, I think around of applause is in order.

Haven't you heard that DMOZ abuse reporting is one of the biggest joke around?

I don't need meaningless conversation about DMOZ and the philosophical view on how all things in life are relative and abuse really is not abuse.

There is concrete and defined problem with DMOZ and either you are part of the problem by supporting and defending it or part of the solution which at present time seems to be the destruction of DMOZ as the only viable alternative.

 

Neither do I.

 

I am glad that we agree, so do something about it and I don't mean filing abuse report.

 

Annie:

Does NewAdvent.org really deserve 13,882 listings at DMOZ?


More fun here: http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/dmoz-listings.html

 

Check Minstrel's sig...

There are two kinds of conflicts:

1. Conflicts of misunderstanding

Conflicts of misunderstanding can me mitigated and/or eliminated completely by communications.

2. Conflicts of varied point of view

Conflicts of varied point of view are only made worse by communications.

Now, not only do you disagree with your opponent, you have that fact thrown up into your face.

You attempted to apply the remedy for the first type of conflict to the second type of conflict.

This effort was doomed to failure. The only possible good that could come from this is that you educated yourself on the nature of the conflict and you now understand it better and can emotionally "let yourself off the hook" as being part of the problem.

You can't change the needs of webmasters. You can't change the fact that DMOZ isn't fulfilling them. The gap is huge and DMOZ does not see attempting to meet the needs of webmasters in its strategic goals. This is beyond repair. DMOZ must die and be replaced by an organization which is more in tune with its Universe.


I hope you do feel better. I always feel better when I (eventually) stop beating my head against the wall.

 

Did you notice Yahoo has 661 listings of this site also? Yes...661 is alot smaller than 13,882...but Yahoo isn't nearly as big as Dmoz either.

Just out of curiousity does anyone know how many sites Yahoo directory has listed? I am interested in seeing how close or how far off the ratio of total sites listed to number of NewAdvent.org listings.

13,882
----------- Dmoz vs.
4,654,934

661
----- Y!
X?

I personally am not a big fan of listing deeplinks to articles, but if those categories are smaller in size...then maybe those encyclopedia pages added value as a source of information on that specific topic.


Did you see the spread for CNN? 231777 vs. Y! 3189. More informational articles.

I really don't think that these particular instances are grounds for any kind of abuse accusations. They are deeplinks to informational articles that add informational value to the categories they are listed in. And all those listings were not made by a single editor, but a variety of editors with varying experience and at different times. This is not an editor abusing their privs by adding a listing for every page of their website. But I could be wrong, maybe the webmaster is an editor at Dmoz and at Yahoo and is deeplinking his little heart out for the last coupe years?


Later,
Rob

 

This reminds me of Homer Simpson when he said, "Yes, Lisa... two wrongs DO make a right."...