1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Why do you seem so concerned with ODP?

Discussion in 'ODP / DMOZ' started by jjwill, Aug 15, 2006.

  1. brizzie

    brizzie Peon

    Messages:
    1,724
    Likes Received:
    178
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #221
    I'm reasonably certain I know the reason too now. But I stand by what I said - that no-one knows if the reason was justified or not, not even the Admins or metas who can see the reasons in black and white. I say that because no-one has told helleborine those reasons and asked her to explain herself. Forget obvious, it was obvious there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all. I have also reported abuse that I thought clearly obvious to all and after investigation the editor and their listings remained. Conclusion, obvious is not always obvious.

    Before judging an editor with 11,000 edits, most of which must have been good ones because her record was checked time and again as she was promoted, I personally believe she has the right to respond to an allegation. And that is all it is, an allegation. Real accused criminals get an opportunity to examine the evidence and defend themselves before being found guilty in all but tin-pot dictatorships and DMOZ does itself no good whatsoever by putting itself in that class. As I said earlier it is shooting itself in the foot. If the evidence is convincing and helleborine's explanations feeble then the whole world can see and she loses the propoganda battle. Whilst editors continue to snipe and accuse without presenting any evidence they do exactly what those who accuse DMOZ of corruption without any corroboration do. Who has more credibility? Neither.
    SEMrush
    I don't see, from my time as a very active editor, any evidence of widespread corruption at higher levels. But I find the DMOZ technique of discrediting former editors through innuendo very distasteful and not befitting an organisation that holds itself to a high standard of integrity. I may be wrong because I can't personally revisit the logs but my guess is that if the reasons were disclosed it would open up a very awkward line of questioning that DMOZ would rather not answer.
     
    brizzie, Aug 23, 2006 IP
    SEMrush
  2. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #222
    "High standard of integrity", thanks for the laugh, it was a good joke. :rolleyes:

    It is becoming increasingly easier to name the categories that are free from corruption than naming those that are abused. I suppose when you are on borrowed time then maximizing the profit is the only solution.

    In regards to that you didn't see it, I don't know if you know this fact or not but it is very hard to see anything when you decide to keep your eyes closed. ;)
     
    gworld, Aug 23, 2006 IP
  3. ishfish

    ishfish Peon

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    28
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #223
    I sort of agree with brizzie. I think there are times when it is important that there be secrecy, but ODP has taken it to the extreme. Everything is considered secret unless it gets approval to be released. Editor removals annoy me. Mostly because I don't think they remove enough editors for "minor" abuse and "really bad" editing. C'est la vie.

    But I also don't like that removed editors always get the last word because of these privacy rules. Once in a while, I wish metas/admins would respond to a removed editor, "This is what you did, we know you did it, you know you did it, now sit down and shut up."
     
    ishfish, Aug 23, 2006 IP
  4. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #224
    You are a smart man, ask yourself this question:

    Why a MON-PROFIT organization which uses VOLUNTEERS have to be so SECRETIVE? ;)

    Don't worry about "minor" abuse and "really bad" editing since these are the kind of people who are removed but the "MAJOR" abusive editors will stay on year after year with full support of "senior" editors. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Aug 23, 2006 IP
  5. helleborine

    helleborine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    70
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    #225
    That post is a gem! It's like the Hope Diamond.

    With so few editors remaining, and their number ever shrinking, it's good to remember that beggars shan't be choosers. I agree that abuse should not be tolerated, anymore than senior editors with pshychiatric problems harassing junior editors that aren't even playing in their turf, but I have seen some truly awful editing that was allowed to grace the ODP's pages for years. Huge! Fantastic! The best of! One of a kind! God knows how many descriptions I've had to tone down. But I think for the sake of your own survival, you'll have to tolerate many writers of hyperbole, or risk dying out. Nah. That wouldn't save the ODP from itself, either.

    Removed editors get the last world? That's a funny thing to say, when many editors with kctipton's interpersonal skills will automatically hop on the "discredit and villify" the ex-editor, without taking a critical look at the evidence.
     
    helleborine, Aug 23, 2006 IP
  6. sidjf

    sidjf Peon

    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #226
    Since we're on the topic...

    I think one of the largest problems in the ODP (aside from abusive editors like gworld and popotalk obviously) is the ongoing trend of uber anal retentive description writing and expectations. As is obvious, editor numbers are declining while the size of the web is growing. At this point in the game, should the ODP really be concerned with perfection in every single edit (ie harrassing new editors non stop about every little mistake until they give up, or removing editors for "bad editing"), or should it be more concerned with "the big picture" (the big picture being finding a way to keep up with the growth of the net instead of falling father and farther behind)?

    More of an effort should be made to improve the quality of the sites listed rather than the quality of the descriptions.

    Of course, first they need to tackle the promotion system and the overall state of the leadership...
     
    sidjf, Aug 23, 2006 IP
    Alucard likes this.
  7. ishfish

    ishfish Peon

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    28
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #227
    When I said "really bad" editing, I was referring to editors who add every submitted site with their submitted title and description for over 6 years. It does not refer to people who try.
     
    ishfish, Aug 23, 2006 IP
  8. sidjf

    sidjf Peon

    Messages:
    465
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #228
    Well yeah, that's way beyond bad editing...lol
     
    sidjf, Aug 24, 2006 IP
  9. Ivan Bajlo

    Ivan Bajlo Peon

    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    92
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #229
    You got be kidding me! There are such editors and they are tolerated for 6 years!?? :confused:

    Why the hell did I waste on average 5-10 minutes when writing each title and description? Searched English dictionary to get things right when I could have simply listed sites as they were submitted and probably wouldn't end up being removed even for listing non-English sites in wrong categories which I always tried to move to proper category instead of simply rejecting them as truly "bad" editor would do. :cool:
     
    Ivan Bajlo, Aug 24, 2006 IP
  10. helleborine

    helleborine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    70
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    #230
    Yes! That's another stellar feature about the Google Co-Op. No fretting about the quality and tone of the descriptions. You don't need to write descriptions!

    At Google Co-Op, Ivan wouldn't need to pore over his dictionary.

    Another great thing is you don't have to apply for categories.

    For instance, I decided I was going to tackle the topic of Molecular Biology, sometime in September. I can just go right ahead and do it as I please, I don't need anyone's permission.
     
    helleborine, Aug 24, 2006 IP
  11. Ivan Bajlo

    Ivan Bajlo Peon

    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    92
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #231
    But I like going through dictionary, that way I can discover stupid things I use to write when I started my site back in 1998 - I don't even want to know how many more "were" and "where" there is to fix! :D

    Zeal had nice automated system and points worked nicely.

    I get so much traffic from Google that I don't know if I can handle any more, something like 99% is Google, remaining 1% are all other SE. :D

    I want to increase them not Google. :rolleyes:

    But yes Google Co-Op could use for dummies manual. ;)
     
    Ivan Bajlo, Aug 24, 2006 IP
  12. helleborine

    helleborine Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    70
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    #232
    It's incredibly easy once you can past the initial hurdle of producing a topic .xml file.

    Far less arcane than ODP.

    I can help you if you're interested.
     
    helleborine, Aug 24, 2006 IP
  13. jjwill

    jjwill Peon

    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #233
    Ok, let me ask this to bring us back to topic.

    I see so many posts here saying how irrelevant DMOZ is to Google pr and search engine rankings, how DMOZ is on its way out, almost dead, etc. So why are there so many complaints about it and its editors? Don’t give me the lame excuse of “because we are such giving and caring individuals and just want to see justice done” please.

    Seriously, I agree that DMOZ does not help that much with search engine ranking so there is no argument there. My point is that the ones that say this don’t act like it when constantly complaining and ranting about ODP corruption every chance they get. One could only conclude that ODP is relevant to them, very much so. The subject of there own post constantly contradict themselves.
     
    jjwill, Aug 28, 2006 IP
  14. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #234
    There are 2 type of complains:

    1) Those who think that DMOZ is beneficial to their web site and dislike being excluded for variety of reason.

    2) Those who are inside DMOZ and as editor dislike that the organization they are volunteering for is run by a joint committee of morons and crooks.

    There are also different type of editors:

    1) Those who are happy to be in and either are not informed or don't care about abuse and stay quite to stay in.

    2) Those who are crooks and benefit from corruption and fight to keep it that way.

    3) Those who dislike what is happening and fight to stop the abuse.

    4) Apologists that defend the abuse because either they are too happy with their editor rank or they believe that it will help them to advance by supporting the corrupt power group.
     
    gworld, Aug 28, 2006 IP
  15. minstrel

    minstrel Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    15,082
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    480
    #235
    You're right, of course. We're all just spammers and disgruntled webmasters. Please ignore everything any of us has said about DMOZ and just continue doing whatever the hell it is you do. :rolleyes:
     
    minstrel, Aug 28, 2006 IP
  16. jjwill

    jjwill Peon

    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #236
    I knew it! :D
     
    jjwill, Aug 28, 2006 IP
  17. nebuchadrezzar

    nebuchadrezzar Peon

    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    59
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #237
    Oh yeah don't forget fired editors as well. They seem to like to hangout here.
     
    nebuchadrezzar, Aug 28, 2006 IP
  18. gworld

    gworld Prominent Member

    Messages:
    11,324
    Likes Received:
    615
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    310
    #238
    At least you don't need to worry. Just continue to be a little good boy and Meta will not spank you for not behaving. :rolleyes:
     
    gworld, Aug 28, 2006 IP
  19. nebuchadrezzar

    nebuchadrezzar Peon

    Messages:
    645
    Likes Received:
    59
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #239
    I knew you were a porno webmaster, but some of your posts hint at a S&M bent. Do you enjoy a good thrashing do you?
     
    nebuchadrezzar, Aug 28, 2006 IP
  20. popotalk

    popotalk Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    Likes Received:
    522
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #240
    We have this place to talk crap about DMOZ you have RZ. Question is why you also hang out here and defend DMOZ when you know there is nothing to defend as you know it is too perfect ?:rolleyes:
     
    popotalk, Aug 28, 2006 IP