Remove Listing from DMOZ

I can understand for someone who advocates unenforceable guidelines, enforcement should be an unsolvable problem but in reality it is very simple.
The solution is very simple, you pass a law that forbids torture and makes a criminal act, you contact international organization and let them to visit the prisons in order to make sure that there is no torture and you make it a routine in the prison that prisoners can report the torture to authorities outside the prison. Unless these practical steps are taken, no amount of "we don't torture people" will convince anyone, except those who are "convinced" even if they see the torture by their own eyes.

You still haven't answered my question about what is the big problem if the editors have to add their independent sites findings to submission lines instead of directly adding to the directory?

 

I totally agree with Annie.

 

I did. Go back and read my reply. Apology accepted.

 

Actually, you didn't. You misunderstood the point, I think.

First in, first out. So before you add new sites from your list, you deal with the queue. Clear out ther queue - then add your sites.

 

Which queue? Do you mean individual queues on a category by category basis? Or do you mean to lump each individual editor's unreviewed from all their categories together into a first in first out sort of system?

 

The lack of answer is the result of DMOZ editors mentality:

1- Abuse is bad

2- Procedures that stop the abuse are worse.

3- Making editors accountable is worst.

 

Why should a webmaster site be in the submission line for cooking site? Don't you think the answer is obvious?

 

I would assume so, yes. Anything else would make no sense at all.

 

Gworld you forgot to answer my question in item 373. If you really believe what you just wrote I can only guess that you don't actually edit and that's why you avoided my question. You clearly lack an understanding of the mentality of a huge group of editors, and you show an unwillingness to consider the diversity of your fellow editors.

 

I answered his question exactly as it was put. Because he is trying to feed his solution to the masses piecemeal he may not have got the answer he wanted.

Actually when I added those 12 green energy sites I did clear the unreviewed pile at the same time. Most editors do. But just to be clear, they were not *my* sites, just ones I found Googling.

But most times you aren't adding new sites, just doing some maintenance on existing categories.

Consequences of a First In First Out policy directory-wide

1. Categories with lengthy unreviewed piles will never be touched by an editor ever again. Decent sites buried under the spam and other crap will be entirely lost.

2. With over a million unreviewed submissions it would in practice restrict editors only to submitted sites - they have to clear that million + first, and that will never clear. Then you lose all the great sites never submitted that editors find from a dozen or more different sources.

3. It turns the directory into a webmaster submission service in effect.

But to return to the original proposition of gworld's.

I have added the 12 sites I found to the 15 waiting, reviewed the lot and listed the listable ones. So far no difference in end result, just some extra time involved in doing some double steps. How did that prevent me adding inappropriate sites abusively or rejecting sites abusively?

 

How do you draw the conclusion that I don't edit?
You question is already answered:


http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=941207&postcount=374

 

Annie, you misspelled the word "have" above (highlighted).

 

Ok, then I don't understand the problem or what it is you're suggesting. When a editor works on a category they generally work on the whole category, not just one single listing but we aren't required to do all the unrevieweds in any particular category before moving on. That would be limited by how much time and interest the editor has to devote to any one category.

On the other hand, what happens if I'm working in one category and come across a good site that was missubmitted and just needs to be moved to the right category and listed? If I don't have time to work on that target category are you suggesting I should place a good listable site in unreviewed rather than just listing it, even though I just reviewed it? And then it should sit there and wait for another editor to come along and go through the queue and spend time reviewing each site in order, including the sites that have already been reviewed but couldn't be listed because it wasn't their turn? Do you realize what a huge waste of time that would be?

 

Why not? Without corruption the numbers of editor will increase and it will be shorter unreviewed piles. How about decent sites that are buried in submission lines?

blah, blah, excuse. Submissions are category based, there is no need to deal with a million at once. There are many categories that have 50-60 un-reviewed sites for ever, editors can deal with it fast. The submission are category based and not directory based.

No it actually help the directory to find good sites and list it instead of being editor's marketing service.

The extra time resulted in if there was any list able site to be listed. forced the editor to deal with sites that editor "might not" want to deal with and if it rejected without reason, provide a clear proof of abuse. It also takes away the image of favoritism and the notion that DMOZ is some kind or marketing arm for editors own web sites.

 

No, that doesn't answer my question at all. Doesn't even give a clue. I draw the conclusion based on your lack of basic understanding about the realities of editing through whole categories or topics. You appear to lack the knowledge that can only come from experience, so I wonder if you're one of those editors who only edits enough to keep his account active. Simple question, can you please answer it?

 

Sorry to butt in with a problem at this early stage of the game but how do you do the following:

I did an exercise to list every school in one particular state, taking them from the state link list, adding them to the appropriate locality category. Obviously skipping over the beauty parlours, web designers, hotels, and politician's sites already waiting in each of those localities as I went. How would I do that, what I think was a worthy exercise and very useful too, without wading through hundreds of sites on subjects I haven't the least interest in.

 

We don't list schools, beauty parlors and politicians in the same category unless I suppose it is a politician who has a school that also is a beauty parlour.

You just need to add your school list to that category and go through waiting submissions in school category.

 

Force is not something that really works with volunteers operating honestly. I get to the one I don't want to make a decision on so I stop there. Anything below it is lost. An abusive editor trying to get to their one at the end will plough on.

Every rejection has to have a reason and provides evidence of abuse if inappropriate. It wouldn't stop anyone rejecting a site inappropriately any more than it does now. But your proposal means I can't not make a decision one way or another I suppose. What if I can't? I want a second opinion? I am not sure about it?

How would I do one of my most common editall tasks - scanning though entire categories looking for related spam and removing it - duplicates and inappropriate deeplinks - leaving paths clear for other editors?

 

Gworld - you are an editor aren't you? Regional localities are often not broken down into topical sub-categories. Talk sense man.

 

Unfortunately one of the hassles of working in any organization, volunteer or not is the fact that you have to work with rules. No organization can function without any rules. it seems to me, many editors have no problems with rules independent of how crazy it is, as long as it doesn't limit their ability to bypass the lines or put restriction on what they can list.