Resigned -

No way brizzie, that beast bites and he has no ears. If you want him you have to take care of him.

Besides, we have that can of worms to keep us busy for awhile.

 

You never explained any reason, you just keep repeating, blah,blah, blah "trust us we are honest" BS.

It is a very simple question:

Why shouldn't the web sites be assigned to editors instead of letting them to chose what sites they want to add or delete?

Do you honestly want us to believe that Mr. honest, interested, volunteer editor that is so much interested in a subject that not only actively searches for sites related to specific subject but also volunteers his time to work for DMOZ to add the sites to directory, will lose all his interest and doesn't want to do anything as soon as the web sites about the same subject are assigned to him instead of he mysteriously discovers these unknown sites?

If what you say is true, don't you think that may be Mr. "volunteer" editor is really not a volunteer?

 

So what's going to happen to all the sites that editors haven't expressed an interest in? Sit there and wait for someone to volunteer with an interest in that area? Uh - hello - anyone home? That's what's happening now. Duh.

 

What method would you use to assign the sites to editors? I am allowed to edit in computers, but I don't know anything about the topic so I avoid it. I am allowed to edit in foreign languages, but I only speak English. What happens when I'm not able to edit the next site assigned to me because I don't know the topic or I don't speak the language? Let the backlog grow until I learn?

Yes, you should honestly believe that. If I feel like listing school websites in Regional categories and I'm told I have to work on sites in Automotive, well I won't be editing.

Volunteers choose where they want to volunteer and what they want to do. From everything you write, one gets the impression that you've never done any substantial volunteer work and can't understand the concept. I almost feel sorry for you.

 

One thing that DMOZ editors are good at is to find all kind of excuses to defend the corruption and fight anything that can stop it.
You already have different level for editors based on hierarchy. there are some who can edit only in one category, those who can edit in one section and those who can edit all over the directory.
For example Mr. "volunteer" can only edit in small section called X but there are others who can edit in X and Y and then we have those who can edit A,B,C,Y and X. Put everything for section X in a submission queue and based on a random generator assign the site to Mr. "volunteer", the second editor or third editor. This way the Mr. "volunteer" still gets to work with what he is interested in section X but it will not be automatically guaranteed that he will benefit personally from his "volunteer" work.

The other funny thing about DMOZ editor is their constant talk about "volunteer" work as an excuse for any kind of corruption. Well, there are many kind of volunteer work in the world but just because you volunteer for red cross, it doesn't mean that you are permitted to go to hospital and kill people. You can not take the money home, if you volunteer to collect money for Amnesty. There are rules even for volunteer work.

In truth, people like DMOZ editors give a bad name to all volunteers who do volunteer work to benefit others. Shame on you.

 

Ok - let's use a real life example: Me I have added 2,942 sites. I own/manage/run 1 site - so that means I've added 2,941 sites that I've received no benefit from (other than the enjoyment of reading them and looking at the photos).

Now lets take today. I started out at the top of Sports/Equestrian/Riding_Stables and moved about 35 sites to what I think will be the appropriate categories. Then I went through some sites I found back in July (from the links page of one of the existing listings) and added one of them and described and moved another seven to where they belong.

Let's assume that in the make believe world of assigned tasks that the next thing on my list this morning when I signed in was a submission from Business/Agricultural_and_Forestry/Livestock/Horses_and_Ponies/Sales_and_Marketing. (The first place I thought about working this morning - but when I opened the category, I changed my mind). Because I don't want to deal with that site - those 43 sites I touched today would still be sitting there waiting - as would that one I didn't want to deal with. And then tomorrow - what happens if I still don't want to work in Sales_and_Marketing? And the next day?

Is nothing really better than 43? What if your site was the one that I had added - or one of the other 42 sites that are that much closer to being listed? Would you still be wanting me to go read a book or watch TV instead of editing because I didn't want to deal with that one assigned site?

 

There's an open admission of blatant smokescreening if I ever saw one. It's amazing how far an editor will go to get her site listed...

 

How is any of this related to what I posted? Do you mean that you wouldn't do any "volunteer" work, if DMOZ didn't permit corruption and let you add your own site?
If you have authority to edit in different categories then I am sure you would have found out some site that would have interested you among all those sites that you were assigned. Do you think permitting corruption is the only solution to get volunteers?

 

After reading all the DMOZ editors stories about their volunteer work, it was funny to see this on CNN just now:


Red Cross volunteer held in debit card theft

DALLAS, Texas (CNN) -- A Red Cross volunteer and his sister are charged with stealing almost a quarter-million dollars in debit cards intended for Hurricane Katrina victims, U.S. Attorney Richard Roper said Tuesday.


2 charged with taking $230K meant for Katrina victims

It seems DMOZ editors are not the only one who like little side benefit to their "volunteer" work.

 

Give her another year of editing, and the smokescreen will be so big, she won't be able to find her own site
I think we can safely ignore gworld at this point - he was already repetitive in his nonsense assertions, and now he's getting ridiculous...

 

It seems you didn't notice that everyone who posted in this thread and is not a DMOZ editor agrees with me and who supports DMOZ editors? DMOZ editors.
It seems you have no answer to my posting on how to stop the corruption, except that you have to ignore it since clearly it is not acceptable for DMOZ editors to stop corruption.

 

Now I know why gworld seems so familiar - he must be related to this famous figure http://www.apl.org/history/mccarthy/biography.html

 

Imocr

Is it worth it to go through all these troubles just to add your 1 site to DMOZ? May be it is not only 1 site and it is hundreds but we will not know since DMOZ policy is based on permitting corruption.

Shame on you and people like you that disgrace all kind of volunteer works, so when real volunteers try to collect money for good causes, people will assume they are crooks too like DMOZ editors and other organizations like DMOZ.

 

A fair assessment. Typical of other threads he participates in.

Take this statement for example. I've been involved in volunteer work for over 30 years. Does editing for dmoz make all my other volunteer work over the years bad? Or does the same volunteer work that was once good, suddenly turn bad once we edit for dmoz? Am I actually harming my community when I contribute my time for what I consider a good cause? What about my money...am I harming an organization when I make a donation now that I'm an ODP editor? Why do these other organizations allow ODP editors to do volunteer work if we're giving them a bad name?

Oh well, I have things to do... back to reality.

 

DMOZ editors are beginning to sound like crook politicians when they are arrested. " I have done a lot of good during my public service, even if I have embezzled some money here and there."

 

gworld if you learned how to use the word "some" your posts might carry some weight.

 

DMOZ editors embezzled millions from orphaned puppies. News at 11.

 

probably from the puppy p-rn site anyways!

I knew they were up to no good at dmoz! Next they will want their leader to run for president, but then Hilary would beat him/her during the primaries. LOL

 

You finally got me! I can't resist a naked puppy.

mmm...puppy breath

wagging tails

 

I see that DMOZ editors try to be cute in their stupid way and try to change the subject by multiple postings which has got nothing to do with discussion. The topic of discussion is DMOZ editors resitance to anything that can stop the corruption, so I repeat the question from my previous posting:


"It is a very simple question:

Why shouldn't the web sites be assigned to editors instead of letting them to chose what sites they want to add or delete?

Do you honestly want us to believe that Mr. honest, interested, volunteer editor that is so much interested in a subject that not only actively searches for sites related to specific subject but also volunteers his time to work for DMOZ to add the sites to directory, will lose all his interest and doesn't want to do anything as soon as the web sites about the same subject are assigned to him instead of he mysteriously discovers these unknown sites?

If what you say is true, don't you think that may be Mr. "volunteer" editor is really not a volunteer? "