Read about "Team ODP"

I read it Ok, and I do have one advantage, I am an editor you were rejected.

 

earth calling dharmarucci: in the real world, webmasters ARE content creators... you and the rest of your dmoz misfits are not going to be of much value to web surfers without that fundamental understanding.

Qryztufre(wtf does that mean, btw), it's not realistic to believe that somebody could hold a grudge over nothing for 8 years as for changing the dmoz, it ain't gonna happen... do any of these people sound like they are listening to anything that has been said in the last 8 years? if you think that something has changed, why please let us know... all i can see is that there are now over 7,000 links in google for "dmoz bribery", and that wasn't there 8 years ago!

i know that you are feeling pretty sorry for yourself, but try not to let your lack of personal morality get in the way of doing your job as a dmoz editor ;-)

that's not an advantage, lol, i can't imagine why anybody would want to be associated with an organzation that is surrounded by rumours of corruption and bribery.

but i guess that it's a lot easier when you are hiding behind a name like Anonymously

 

Dont argue with him - he is ex-marine. But his friends are marines

BTW, have tried to understood what you want to tell us with your posts, but no success. Can you write what your point is, without several quotations ?

 

That my friend is honesty and integrity of a person that runs around the forum talking bull while on the other side of the coin having a religious career.

What's wrong with Semper-Fi.

 

maybe somebody can translate that into english? and who out here is a marine, and why would it matter? meaningless gibberish.

Qryztufre, we are still waiting for you or anybody else to tell us what has changed for the better at the dmoz... funny how everybody clammed up when it was time to deliver the goods, lol

 

Inside jokes, you'd never understand, you only applied to be an editor once, got rejected, and gave up.

No, no. You claimed that NOTHING changed. I pointed out that changes have happened, and then you said nothing again. I did deliver

 

What is that you want to hear has changed? This past year we have seen an improvement in the hardware (servers) that AOL hosts DMOZ on as well as the additional communication through the Official Blog. New editors and sites are still added daily and sometimes the changes aren't readily visible on the public side. Remember some changes are meant to facilitate helping the editors work on the project too. There are still things that most of us would like to see fixed or updated (the problematic CAPTCHA system and the lack of regular updates to the blog come to mind) but things are always changing and mostly improving.

 

oh yeah, you said: "some change has happened and new changes are taking place daily", lol... it appears that you don't know squat about the dmoz.

lets review the facts here: the dmoz kicked your sorry ass out, you told us that they called you a "troll", and you are perpetually whining about it all over the internet... i can't imagine why the dmoz booted you out you seem like such a good fit for their organization.

get over yourself, and make up your mind whether or not you like the dmoz, o.k.?

shadow, i'm looking for SUBSTANCE here... for instance, exactly what has the dmoz done to refute these allegations of bribery and corruption? what new procedures are in place? for instance, did you add an appeals process for sites or editors that didn't make the "cut"?

 

OK, let us review the facts.

You only gave half of what I said. Didn't I mention the blog & Captcha? Nothing like giving half a quote to prove a point, lol.

I quit. So if you'd like to review the facts at least get them right... OK?

I'll stop posting about me when you stop bringing me up

And I do like DMOZ, it just needs a little tweaking. If you'd have read more then three of my 2k posts maybe you'd have figured it out.

Thanks for finally asking for what specific changes you are looking for. They are some of the questions I've asked myself... though generally I am more to the point then saying NOTHING when I'm talking specifics.

Though, there is a process for editors that didn't make the cut. You can always re-apply.

 

oh, like that is real relevant to all of your whining you need to get yourself a life, and figure out what is really wrong with the dmoz.

why, so that you can be rejected again by the same editor who asked you for a bribe in the first place? you aren't seeing the big picture here at all.

if the dmoz was serious, there would be changes taking place that mitigated the bribery allegations and charges of incompetence that have ruined the reputation of the dmoz.

 

I am not sure any answer that I can give would make a difference but I will try. I would say that the vast majority (probably most of the loudest publicly cried cases) of the allegations of bribery and corruption are unfounded, false and/or malicious. The small percentage that turn out to be actual abuse are dealt with swiftly and terminally. The majority of those are not public reports but rather editors finding it and reporting it themselves. The cases that are reported from the public side that are indeed abuse, all have one thing in common. They are thorough reports with actual facts and evidence supporting the claim, rather than the vast majority of them that are "the editor in my category must be a competitor because they haven't added my site and nothing has been updated in 6 months" kind.

As for appeals processes for rejected sites or editors, that has always been in place (and frankly gets taken advantage of far too often). Editors that are not accepted are welcome to rethink their application and try again. In fact most of us failed more than once before being accepted, personally I think it took me three times to get close enough to take a chance. Looking back with from this side of things, I can see where the accepting meta of the third application was taking a chance. I am not sure that I wouldn't have sent it back, for me to try again. Unless the rejection letter says "Thanks but no thanks, best wishes on your future endeavors" the applicant is not only free to re-apply but we hope they do.

Sites are a little different in this respect, as there really is no way to know if its has been rejected. Of course its really not rocket science to look at the guidelines and the category description and weigh them against a sites content, but thats neither here nor there. There is nothing to stop someone to re-suggest a URL that may have already been rejected, should they feel it may now be listable. However in almost all cases, a site that is not listable could not be made listable without firing the web-designer, firing the content providers, scrapping the existing site and starting over from scratch.

The directory's policies and procedures have changed considerably since its inception in 1998 (from what I have seen). The standards used to justify listing a site have been raised by the number of quality sites available, tools and strategies have been added to aide in abuse hunting/removal, and the actual procedures for removing an editor have improved since the early days.

There are always new ideas in the works, some may be implemented and others may be discarded. They are always going to be focused on helping the editors build the directory in accordance with the guidelines though.

 

That has nothing to do with all my whining, but has everything to do with yours. You said NOTHING I pointed out SOMETHING.

I was never rejected, so I really have no clue why you are saying that...

You are not seeing the little picture here. My application was accepted on the first try and I quit. If the picture is bigger then that, then please do let us know.

Again, thanks for giving people something to work on other then NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

 

The concept is "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty until we prove otherwise". If nonetheless we're guilty in your eyes just because we've been accused... well, guess we'll just have to learn to live with it.

Have a nice day, Happy New Year, and all that stuff. ~ RJ

 

Furthermore , if you are really interested n helping anyone ( dmoz , surfers, webmasters and so forth) , you would be HERE. Each and every category has that option .
But by posting here , you are not only wasting your time , you are also wasting the time of several volunteer editors , the time which could easily have gone to minimizing the submission que .

 

A non-editor complaining is wasting their own time. An editor bothering to reply is the one that is doing something that could be better spent minimizing the queue.

I do agree with the first part of your reply though...

 

Since when? DMOZ removes editors without ever giving them a chance to defended themselves or even know the reason. But when DMOZ becomes accused then it screams to show the evidence... I could use DMOZ example and fabricate tons of it but I'm just to lazy to do it.

 

An editors edit history, quality and communications are their defense. Editors are not removed lightly, and you know that. In most cases, there are plenty of warnings to the editor to change their ways. In some cases, the edit history, their personal behavior, and the severity of their actions call for removal.

In ALL cases the task of removing an editor is not taken lightly and requires the consensus of the Meta community (with the exception of cateditall+ editors which is an Admin/staff decision not the Meta's). In the cases where the evidence is unclear and meta consensus cannot be reached, the editor will not be removed. If an editor wants to avoid being removed, they need to edit with in the guidelines (all the guidelines, which includes Communications, Privacy, and Conflicts of Interest), work as a team member, and be receptive and responsive to feedback received.

 

Other guidelines might be true but that of a legal action is baloney.

 

It could be. Its certainly not enforced to the disappointment of most editors, but whether or not its baloney or truly enforceable yet chosen to be disregarded, is the sole choice of AOL's legal department. Regardless, violating (or repeatedly violating) them can result in the restriction or removal of editor privileges.

An editor with 1 month and 10 edits under their belt violating the guidelines is going to be warned (often several times) before anyone considers removal. An editor on the other hand that has a couple of years and a few hundred edits, should already know the guidelines and is expected to keep themselves up to date with them.

 

None applied to me. But that's ok