So What Is Wrong With Editors Accepting Cash for Listings

<big sniiiip>

Sounds like Zeal?

Points system worked nicely since it rewarded good editing while penalizing bad one and categories application was automatic based on your points and category value instead of waiting for weeks by which time you forget why you even requested that category in the first place.

As I mentioned in one of my older post here while I was still editor that there are too few senior editors and there is big gap between them and newbies which could use "drill sergeants" to get on the right track quickly, this would be ideal position for somebody who likes working with people getting to know them etc. (so some former US marines instructors and Minstrel would be ideal for this task ). Currently newbies are lost and usually left to reading guidelines, it took me a while to figure out gold mine called creating new categories to boost my edits count instead of attempting to apply for existing ones - even applying for dead ones with two or three links can get you rejection.

BTW is interface programming at DMOZ also done by volunteers or there is dedicated AOL staff? My impression was that it is also volunteer work so that would be big bottleneck for implementing any software changes. Setting up fee for quick review like Yahoo would bring in some cash too pay for programmers and such things?

 

That would make you prime suspect, you sound way to perfect - something must be wrong! But at lest I can brag that I have listed virtually all of my "competitors" in categories I use to maintain without them ever submitting.

You mean this one here? I took it as souvenir.

 

There is no need for fees, the problem is not with fees or the number of volunteers or the time needed to add new sites. DMOZ only problem is the dead beat management team that will stop any kind of progress and insists on keeping DMOZ as private club for their own benefits.

 

I can assure you Ivan, Ishtar is one of the FEW editors that is Honest and Sincere with his work. I would not dare to say that since I find most Senior Editors Full of It. Ishfish is the few select I give my respect.

 

There's always one... not to know anyone at all with a website is very unusual these days though.

Under your scheme only ishfish would be able to list sites. He has quite a workload in front of him.

 

Darnit. Let's do a little calculation to see how long it will take me to list a site, on average. Based on the number of edits I've done in the past month, divided by 2, changed to spherical coordinates, multiplied by the correct rotation matrix... hmm... no more sites will be listed, ever. Sorry to everyone that wanted a free link.

 

What are you taking about?

Are we back to your old post that stopping corruption is not an acceptable alternatives for editors?

 

A hobbyist's club; yes! Brilliant. That is the ODP's true place on the web. I can't wait for Google to let go of it, so that webmasters stop perceiving an ODP link has having more value than any old link on a page with similar PR.

If you think of it as a hobbyist's club, then who cares how out of date it will be? No one would care.

 

I actually agree with you on this. This is probably true for 99% of webmasters that complain about Dmoz. Most seem to think Dmoz will help raise their rankings in Google, but I don't think this is true. A lot of sites in Dmoz do not have high rankings in Google.

I would say Dmoz can also be thought of a directory for research. If I need to research something I usually find it quickly in Dmoz, but with Google, a lot of times I have to find a diamond in a ruff of spammy shopping sites. (Half the time they are not even related to what I searched for)

Dmoz= great for hobby + research (whatever you choose)

Now if most webmasters can just realize this...

 

"Hobby" as in something for the old folk to do to pass the time, instead of crossword puzzles. Find websites, list them, write the descriptions, you know? Editing as a hobby. Probably only slightly more useful than sudoku.

 

So you're admitting that editing was more than a hobby for yourself?

 

If this is true then why the "senior" editors are so reluctant to let REAL volunteers and hobbyist to join?

 

Your way of stopping corruption is not an acceptable alternative. Swapping one form of dictatorship for another. Your way prevents editors choosing which part of the directory to spend their time on. Your way prevents editors going out and finding links to add on a subject of their choice. We went through this before. Your model has zero appeal for volunteers - why should anyone spend their own time on some highly prescriptive and rigid project where webmasters determine the priorities not individuals or the community as a whole. Editors are not, never will be submission processors, which is what you want to turn them into.

There are other ways of tackling abusive practices other than locking the system down so tightly no-one can breath. It is an overkill response. The vast majority of DMOZ is free from corruption and the vast majority of editors are good honest people. Why should they be subjected to your draconian measures because of the nefarious activities of a minority of crooks? DMOZ is already so paranoid that good honest people are not developed and promoted. It needs to ease up not tighten up, and find other ways of combatting abuse. Maybe be redefining some of it.

I edited because I wanted to edit - had others wanted to edit to make a few dollars, pounds or Euros, and it done it openly and within the listing rules, I wouldn't have cared - they would still be growing the directory and serving its objectives. I don't really see the ethical or moral difference between that and SEOs who are also editors listing their clients' listable sites quite legitimately. The sort of corruption that damages the project's objectives is the listing of unlistable sites for money or favours. But because specifically reviewing and listing sites, listable or not, for money is abusive regardless of whether that adds or subtracts from the project's objectives, the whole lot is sent underground.

 

Uh? What is that supposed to mean?

No - it was a hobby and a compulsion to sort and classify. And in retrospect, it was only slightly more useful an activity than sudoku. And I consider sudoku to be a form of numerical masturbation.

Does that answer your cryptic question?

 

I might suggest that if an active, contritbuting editor is in a position to be able to list one of his or her sites in a category they have a permission to edit, that there might be a procedure in place to request that a meta review said site.

In other words, no editor could list his own site without a meta holding their hand through the process.

That way, this would prevent counter-productive misunderstandings, misguided editor removals, and abuse by paranoid witch-hunters.

 

This assumes that the editor is honest about his or her affiliations. It wouldn’t make any difference to the person pretending to be a librarian from Timbuktu who is really a SEO from Shitsville Arizona.

 

I have no idea of what you are talking about gworld:

1.) I'm not a senior editor and I didn't have a problem joining

2.) There is nothing hard about joining dmoz, just read the instructions, several posters in DP from what I have seen became editors while I have been posting here.

3.) There is no way to tell who is a "real" volunteer or not unless you are a mind reader, but it is easier to figure out sometimes if there are other "reasons". If there are any such "reluctance" as you say, it is really what I would say procedures taken to prevent more of Dans from becoming a editor. No method is perfect, but it seems to be working well to me, wether or not anyone agrees with me.

4.) Gworld if you are a editor do you even consider yourself a "real" volunteer?

 

Those are much better options than a Meta who is Shit itself.

 

Gosh, sometimes I wonder why you got biffed out. You really are an asset to any community you participate in.

 

Shitsville Arizona? Isn't that just the whole state?