Resigned -

Editors can add their own site that's a fact. When adding their own site they are expected to clear other submissions at the same time. If they don't then that is abuse and will be dealt with as such. There are reasons why first in first served does not work practically or conceptually. It gives preference to spammers and those who haven't followed guidelines in submitting just because they hit submit first. That is patently unfair on honest webmasters who religiously follow the guidelines. Secondly DMOZ is not a webmaster listing service and submissions are only one possible, and quite unproductive, source of sites. Editors do not exist to process submission queues/lists/pools. The answer is the monitoring of additions by editors to ensure they do not list only their own site without listing others at the same time. And that already happens.

Since they are required to declare their own site to meta editors should they then add that site and it contravenes guidelines they will be jumped on from a great height. The act of adding the site is a good indicator of a potentially bad editor, a test if you like, and a very useful anti-corruption weapon. Multiple links? Editors' sites can have as many and no more than any other site. If it falls into a category where deeplinking is permitted then it will get the same treatment as other sites and be deeplinked. But you can bet your life that anything of the nature is very closely watched. Remember that editors' sites are all declared so can be monitored closely. Inappropriate deeplinking is abuse and again can be dealt with under existing processes.

Again, this is already covered by existing processes. Every edit, addition or deletion or modification is permanently logged for all time and visible to every other editor. Every deletion must be justified by reference to a part of the guidelines that the site breaches. The system does not allow a deletion without a cause being recorded and stamped with date, time, and editor. These logs are reviewed regularly by metas mentoring new editors and every time an editor asks for their rights to be extended. Plus at any time by any editor for any reason. The fact that every action is permanently recorded is firstly a deterrent and secondly a solid trail of evidence for removal of an editor should that be needed.

Submissions are assigned to a category not an editor and each category has hundreds of editors with rights to edit there. Some editors do 1 edit every 3 months, others do 1 edit every 3 minutes. Assigning a specific workload to an editor is completely impractical and unnecessary given existing monitoring of editor activities. And easily got around. 50% of listings are not submitted at all, editors go out and find them - they could simply "find" their own site. And it is an appalling idea from a quality control aspect. Currently I will go into a category and clean up submissions, removing all the spam and leaving what is left for another editor with less experience of spotting them. The "system" would randomly give inexperienced editors spam sites they have no chance of detecting. And finally, those hundreds of editall and meta editors who roam DMOZ tidying up categories without editors - how would they be assigned submissions? They do 90%+ of the edits between them.

Well apart from editor logs every category has a set of logs detailing every action taken within the category. I can look at any category and see exactly how it has changed since yesterday, last week, last month, and so on. I can see if a decent site has been deleted and the reason given for the deletion. I then have a variety of actions possible if abuse is suspected. Or are you suggesting we somehow index each listed site and automatically re-review every site if it changes every 3-6 months? My guess is that millions of sites will get caught by that and it would simply be impossible to do. I don't see how that is possibly any more effective than monitoring of logs for editors and categories.

I think you are failing to take into account the processes that are already in place that deal with each of your points effectively. Your starting points appear to be a combination of assigning specific workloads to editors, something that is impractical and unacceptable to editors and DMOZ owners, and changing the concept to one of only reviewing suggested sites in a way that favours spammers and those who ignore guidelines, thereby harming honest webmasters. If you want to make constructive suggestions then work within the reality of what we are, what we do, and what we already have in place to deter and trap corrupt editors.

 

While the rest of post is the usual blah,blah of DMOZ "just trust us, we are honest", the last section reveals the true reason why editors are against any action that stops corruption. If the editors can not pass the line and add their site to the directory then what is the motivation for being an editor and DMOZ will probably have 200 editors instead of 10,000.
I suppose we don't need to discuss the rest and how the submission problem can be fixed since from your posting is quite obvious that editors have no intention of stopping the corruption and will fight any such effort as hard as they can.
Your reasoning kind of reminds me of Bush standpoint:

"We don't torture people but I will stop any law that makes torture illegal"

DMOZ editors version is:

"We are honest but we will fight any action that tries to stop corruption"

 

As eloquent as Bizzie is...I have to agree with gworld about the perception of corruption. It just appears that DMOZ is now an institution for dishonest webmasters to pawn their own sites when they can.

 

The amount of corruption is probably pretty low in Dmoz, except in certain areas where corruption is probably the name of the game anyways. Like a thief made that someone stole his goods. LOL

 

I doubt corruption exists in any category where it's keywords are worthless. But how about an SEO, webmaster, VOIP, Hosting or other high paying keywords?

Here is the rub...if I got into one of those keywords and I was some free schmuck I would feel it's my right to have my sites listed..I might even delete good competition as a kicker. Are there any rules at DMOZ to stop this? Isn't adding and deleting sites at the discretion of the editor?

 

When a new editor is accepted, their actions are watched by the meta that accepted them, as well as by other editors in that branch - along with any other editor who might have an interest.

An editor can delete any site where they have permission - but a log is kept of every action taken (add, move, delete, unreview). If that deletion was incorrect, the site will be added back and the editor will be educated. If education doesn't work, the editor will become an ex-editor.

Internal investigations are conducted on a continuous basis - by a large number of editors. Anytime something catches someone's eye, it's looked into. If the editor looking at something isn't sure about what they see, they'll ask someone else with more experience to look into the situation.

 

DMOZ editors keep repeating, blah,blah, blah, we are honest, trust us but don't ask us to implement any procedure that stops corruption.

 

How would you know whether any were implemented or not? There have been many procedures implemented, but just because you can't see them, they don't exist.

 

Sorry Minstrel I said I wasn't gonna... but

OK smartass, tell us how you personally would stop any 'potential ' ( notice the potential bit please ) corruption from happening within dmoz if it was up to you ?

I'm wide eyed with anticipation,

And the first few steps towards that would be ????

I'll jot it down, don't worry just tell us ALL, editors and webmasters alike..

The ANSWER to all our prayers and the complete nail in the coffin towards threads like these. You seem to know better than any of us so...

Please do, take the floor sweetie, we're all waiting on the answer to all our troubles !

And your first solution is ...

 

If you stopped for a minute your posting about I am psychologist, I am editor, I am so great and actually read what was posted, you would have seen that I have already answered your question in my previous post:

How to stop corruption in DMOZ

 

We have processes to deter and prevent corruption but you don't want to acknowledge them for some unknown reason. Your suggestions do not work on any level, which is understandable since you have no clue as to how DMOZ really works or why it exists.

I guess you would have to become an editor to find out. Not everyone is like you and motivated by profit, greed, corruption. The purpose of DMOZ is not to be a webmaster marketing tool. If it were then it would be quite understandable to think someone would only become an editor to market their site and destroy the competition. Since editors believe it is not a webmaster marketing tool that motivation doesn't enter the equation.

Perceptions are not reality but the image is widespread and we need to set the record straight. We can try and explain in general terms the processes but we would be stupid to go into detail as this just hands useful information to those who are tempted to corruption about how to avoid detection. I realise that just adds to gworld's paranoia but I don't think anything will satisfy him so there is no point trying.

 

No sweetcheeks that's a webmaster's take on things not an editors really. If you'd ever been one you might know. But to answer you. Very idealistic BUT..

You fall down on, and just pulling one point you've made, out of the above :

And how exactly do you secure multiple editors for each category without opening yourself up to the possibility to even more 'potential' corruption ? And in turn... more critism of 'potential' corruption ??

Can you tell me 1) How exactly you'd get all these editors in ?

And answer why it would lead to less accusations of potential corruption ?

You for one being a point in question with your moans and groans NOW ! With so many more editors, and in turn, perhaps more chances of 'potential' corruption (obviously) do you think Dmoz would be :

a) More likely to be open to potential abuse ?

OR

b) Less likely to be open to potential abuse ?

Your points taken as a whole may seem easily implemented. But delve a little deeper, as in, just one of the points you've so blithely trotted out.

And unless you can give me an answer to the ONE point I've raised above. Every single one of your other revelations on 'how things should' be run.

Kinda falls flat it's face.

So, yes.. interesting points, but answer me how you'd get all these 'multiple editors' for every category in, in a secure, controlled fashion with little chance of them being corrupt :

Once again, all ears and noting.

( Went a little ott with the italics thing )

 

You never said why it won't work, may be because there is no reason. I think I have a very good clue on how it operates and why. It operates on corruption and the reason for it's existence seems to be to feed it's editors greed.

I agree, the purpose of DMOZ is not to be webmasters marketing tool, only DMOZ editors marketing tool. You talk about me being motivated by profit or greed, can you tell us why you think so. How am i motivated by greed to stop corruption?
On the other hand DMOZ editors are famous for greed and corruption every where.

Just keep on your blah, blah, blah, and repeat that you are honest. The only important thing for DMOZ editors is that there should not be any procedure that stops the corruption, right?

 

You never said why it WOULD !

 

Maybe as an experiment I will try to become a bleeming dmoz editor in an offbeat category and then be as corrupt as possible. Let's see how long it takes for them to catch on.

Wish me luck.

 

Again, being that I personally don't have any bones with dmoz, this is just an observation:

many (I didn't say all) of the dmoz editors posting sound like they are in some sort of cult like scientology or something... is dmoz a cult? Is that why it is hard to get 'in'?

 

How did you get in the present 10,000 editors? If you can have 10,000 (according to you mostly honest), how does having proper procedure makes it more difficult to recruit more?
Have you ever worked in a business or big organization? How do you think big organization with hundreds of thousands of employee and billions of dollars moving in the corporation keep the employees honest?

The answer is simple, having proper procedures which is what I suggested for DMOZ.

Sweetie go play with your girl friends that may be are impressed by you telling them that you are psychologist since obviously even university failed to teach you to think.

 

I thought cults were easy to get into and hard to get out of.

However, if you define a cult as an organization where people think alike - then I would agree that it could be - but you could say the same thing about 4-H, the United States Army, the Red Cross, my college Alumni association, etc. etc.

 

Cheers for that

but

a) I am not a psychologist

b) Personal attacks are kind of boring ( see above )

and

c) You didn't answer my question.

Crap on and rant all you like about Dmoz procedures as they are ( well you have ! ). But I asked you a few specific questions.

Not to much at ask for a polite and realistic reply is it. (Is it ?)

Read my post again and this time, try and answer what you've been asked. You expect the same courtesy from others here.

So you'd secure lots and lots of non-corrupt non-paid volunteers (forget the big business baloney).. in every single dmoz category and 'save the day' for us all by...

 

I explained in great detail in my previous answer.

Boring... how many times have you said that? How many times has it been countered? It is as much crap as it was the first time. Your only evidence was some legacy stuff in Adult with the editors long since gone, proving that abuse is dealt with. You have no clues, no credibility, nothing except an extraordinary ability to troll and waste everyone's time repeating over and over and over the same sad tired nonsense.

Famous amongst a group of about 50 who circulate around the Internet making a lot of noise with little to substantiate their claims. I am more than happy to have constructive discussions with the likes of Minstrel who does at least listen to points and has contributed to my understanding of real issues of perception not the fantasy world you inhabit beneath the bridge.

The important thing is that we learn from genuine detractors and address incorrect perceptions. I have explained our procedures to deter and prevent corruption. They already exist, despite what you may believe. And what you believe is important to no-one bar yourself.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm finished feeding the troll for a while. If anyone wants to take over be my guest.