That's a reasonable concern, and I'm sure reasonable people would have no problem keeping the editors' identities private. I'm more interested in the process being open, not having an unpaid and dedicated volunteer to point a finger at. This is exactly the kind of disclosure I think DMOZ would benefit from. First, I think the benefits of seeing a huge backlog in a specific area, outweigh the certain negative press such data would result in. For example, my site is boating related...and as much as it would be great to be listed, I'm equally interested in seeing other quality sites in that portion of the directory. Were the data available to show there's a huge backlog there, I might be inclined to volunteer to help out in an area I'm familiar with. As it is now, I've no idea whether such assistance is needed, or whether my and other's submissions to that category have been silently refused. RE the whiners and naysayers - who cares what they come up with next? I've no doubt all of the examples you listed would happen, but the goal should not be to please 100% of the people. It should be to give reasonable people, some indication of status - even if the status isn't something positive. Bad news is far better than none. Email #1 - your entry has been successfully submitted, and is in the queue. Email #2 - your entry has been reviewed, and the status is "x". Perhaps have automated emails sent at 6 months if an entry is still in a queue, but beyond that - what more info would be necessary to a submitter? And how could such info be used to compromise the system? You're right - I don't care for that attitude. It's the same attitude I see at many forums, from the owners. "We're providing YOU a free service - stop complaining." Well guess what? Without the submitters, without all the site content at sites DMOZ is accumulating, they would be nothing. DMOZ is dependent on good site content, provided by others, in order to make their product desirable. Some of these sites - mine included - get absolutely nothing other than exposure when listed; we're non-profit, and contribute tons of time and effort of our own, simply to provide content freely to others. As mentioned above - I've dedicated countless hours, in building a successful and informative community, with zero financial incentive. I know I'm not alone - I've seen many sites listed in DMOZ that fit this description. So, the question cuts both ways...where does DMOZ get the idea that such efforts were undertaken, simply to give them valuable entries in a directory? Volunteering should never be undertaken, with any expectation of anything in return. Between the time spent at my site, and non-computer related activities I donate my time to, I'm a little familiar with the concept. I never expect thanks, although it's certainly welcome when it comes. Additionally, volunteering does not, and should not insulate one from constructive criticism. There are far too many reasonable people, who have a problem with how DMOZ treats submitters. Simple suggestions have been made, and discounted or ignored. That's DMOZ's prerogative, but it doesn't make it right.
DMOZ isn't mafia trial, threats, edit wars are constant at Wikipedia but abusers should be dealt by their ISP and more persistent ones can be reported to cops or thrown to AOL legal team who would probably love to crucify some loser, besides true identity of editors are mostly secret unless they reveal it themselves. Excuses, excuses... anything to prevent change. Odd how wiki editors have no problems with that and there are lot more of them then DMOZ, everyone editing logs are in plain view of everyone else, even if your not logged in. Your joking right? Black hats are most probably in DMOZ since day one and becoming editor and getting full view of editor logs isn't something that needs lot of effort... http://www.seoninjas.net/ninjas-become-dmoz-editors.html Secrecy only allows SEO's to bash DMOZ so removing it would give it a lot more credibility... How to be accepted as a Dmoz editor http://www.seoninjas.net/how-to-be-accepted-as-a-dmoz-editor.html
I think with the closed system as it is now improves the odds of getting in under black hat pretenses. With the number of proxy sites, the only eyes are the paranoid eyes of the Meta team. Loosen their load and allow the world to see... it'll certainly cut down on the conspiracy theories... unless of course the meta team has something to hide Prove it No you prove it I don't have to prove it! You prove it! No you have to prove it. If it was out in the open, the proof would be there, then many of us ex-editors would have to shut our traps... You think I did something wrong? Well, come on show my edit history (OOPS, Robjones already did that, never mind). Speaking of that, what's the deal with people giving my edit history if its such a big deal to keep it behind closed doors? Why is it my edit counts got put in the open but it's against policy to do such things?
Hey I'm listening Qryztufre, what is it you propose? We should let everyone know how we detect the cheats? Perhaps we could release a list of the banned IP's that would really screw them wouldn't it? Perhaps if we had no scrutiny of applicants then only the honest ones would get apply. Lets hear your plans for the brave new world.
You missed my points. Editors can find the sites and list them, without any of them being submitted at all, and many of us do and prefer it that way. And again, you're very mistaken, we don't provide a service, that's one of the biggest misunderstandings the public has. We provide a product to serve web surfers looking for information, but not a service to submitters/site owners. On one side, you have site owners/webmasters building websites for various purposes and topics. That's the supply side/creative side of the Internet. Those sites get built and put out on the Internet, they are already out there. On the other side, you have web surfers/customers/searchers looking for specific information. In between those two, you have search engines and directories. A search engine finds the information the web surfer is searching for and presents it by offering various terms for the searcher to search for it with. To find the sites, they'll often look in Directories for the data. A Directory is a catalog of websites organized by category and it's a huge spiderweb of related links that lead from category to category. A Directory collects data and organizes it. The data is used by both web surfers and search engines. In our case, the work is done by volunteers, so, it can be offered freely to anyone who wants to use it, including search engines and other directories. As editors, we have various ways of finding this data to list, one of them is by allowing the public to suggest sites to us, that they think should be in the Directory, for our consideration. That is not a service, it's an opportunity for the public to be helpful to us. We also find sites by following links that are on existing sites, using search engines, looking in other directories, looking in phone books, on advertisements, in newspapers, and at establishments. There are a huge number of website addresses scattered all over the place, and free for the picking. Following links that are on sites is really fun to do because it's like a spiderweb, leading off in all kinds of directions, very much like going on a scavenger hunt. You never know where it will lead you, or what kind of gold mine of sites it will lead you to. And the nice thing about finding sites that way is that you know there is no ulterior motive, they don't know you're looking at them, you know they aren't a mirror, redirect to some porn site, or an afilliate. They're clean sites. I'm afraid the same can't be said of submitted site suggestions. So, you're misunderstanding what it is we do, and why. It's very likely, that even on your own site, you have links to other charitable sites that we'd be interested in listing, and that those sites would have links to even more sites, and on and on, until the bread crumbs finally ran out, . Many sites get listed without ever having been submitted to the Directory, .
Maybe we could start by your giving your name? lol. Though, I guess you must be one of those meta team members with something to hide. Honestly, read the posts before mine, then troll them. Openness is key, and if you are honest then you'd have nothing to hide. To me it sounds like you are against DMOZ being Open... I'd love to hear the point of view on someone that hides behind a false name. Give your reasoning for secrecy, rather then just asking for mine. It's already clear you don't care about what I've said. Paid listings maybe? That would certainly be a good reason to hide... it would also certainly be easier to catch if things were open. Maybe you could give me a reason that my confidential edits got shown to the public, while it's still against the guidelines? Oh wait, you are just here to troll, not to actually add to the conversation. I gave my opinion here... what did you give?
Cheats seems to be constantly getting in (How to be accepted as a Dmoz editor), at the same time Wikipedia is reaching 9,5 million articles - more then twice the number of links in DMOZ - editor number is almost ridicules to compare, DMOZ management model is obviously hopelessly flawed... but any change would threaten the existing power structure and they will oppose it. To quote Benjamin Franklin which perfectly reflects situation inside DMOZ: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I would say that if you really like the Wiki model, by all means, please submit there, and stop bothering us.
They do not want your ideas. If they wanted to hear what you had to say they would have asked. The only voices that are heard are the voices of editors... but not just any editors...editors with a certain edit count. Any other questioning internally is considered trolling. As you are no longer an editor your input is simply no longer needed. Then again, I'm no longer an editor either, so my word on the matter is a bit less then official. Have you tried the "contact us" link from DMOZ to send in your two bits?
Its just sad to see so many people wasting so much time on something and then not carrying what happens to it. There are probably more metas lurking here reading every word which is written here then on internal meta forum.
Sure my name is no great secret, I tell anyone who asks, on the proviso that they do not share it with the crazies. Since you have not been told it would seem that my wishes have been respected. Why are you so obsessed with this? Sure I’d love to share them with you my dear Christopher. I think the ODP should be much more open. For example I think that edit logs should be publicly available. This would not only prevent abuse but also cut down on many of the wild accusations we hear. I think that an automated system should let webmasters track their submissions. I also think that a lot of the ODP secrecy is counter productive. However there is a point where the ODP needs to protect itself from clowns like the SEOninja. And we have many years of experience at it, and well developed tools to detect folks like that, and by and large they don't get to do too much damage to the directory. And openness would do nothing to aid this fight. To a large extent the ODP gets a bad rap for not tolerating dissent under the guise of confidentiality. You are a case in point. Prior to becoming an editor you made it quite clear you would like the directory destroyed, you then apply to be an editor with BS story and you get accepted because potentially you had something to offer in a very specialized area. However after that unfortunately you then show little interest in editing, make an ass of yourself in the forums and quit in a tantrum. If you ever applied for reinstatement your edits would be scrutinized and it is conceivable that you would be reinstated unless some abuse is found. Actually such an application would quite interesting. The dilemma would be that you are clearly not playing with a full deck, but you have also done nothing against the guidelines.
I'd like you to point out any 'tantrum' posts I had internally, or any points of actual trolling. It never happened...but then, that is not what I was talking about. I'm talking about "To a large extent the ODP gets a bad rap for not tolerating dissent under the guise of confidentiality. " My edits were made public, so if there is anything about confidentiality, then it is only a guise...as it only applies on a case by case basis. Look at the editor that got canned that prompted me (and other editors) to quit. Were her edits made public... after all, it was her edits that got her canned. Funny that I quit and the people here know my edit counts, and just how many sites I added. Time & time again the ODP shows its double standards, and time and time again editors come in to defend it with personal attacks. So yeah, go on, call me crazy... the ODP is bipolar.
I would get a real kick out of you becoming an editor again, Q, I happen to like you, , though I think you'd probably self distruct again, lol. You do make things interesting. Any editor can speak up, despite edit count, but most with low edit counts don't have enough experience to understand what's happening. I've got over 20,000 and I still don't understand the whole picture because I haven't edited in a lot of areas of the Directory, so there are things I'm just not aware of, and you really need to look at the whole Directory, not just parts of it, to make sense.
Golly gosh Christopher, you really take the cake. You ask my opinion on secrecy, I tell you where I think the ODP should lighten up, where it needs to remain tight and so on. You respond with a puerile tirade on what you did and didn't do when you were an editor. You don’t grasp the concept of discussion so well, do you?