Wikipedia on OPD (this ought to be fun)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory

 

Let's see how long it takes for an editor to come here and whine "boo hoo... we are just volunteers... why doesn't anyone like us?"

 

Boo hoo... we are just volunteers... why doesn't anyone like us?

er I'm just an inactive editor with about 600 edits, in the Video Games category!!!!

IMO any listing that's been around for six months, or even better, just one month, should just be dumped and webmasters told to re-submit, like at Yahoo. Then there wouldn't be a billion sites just siting around!!!! As soon as I got access to the video game category as a Greenbuster, I just about fliped!!! Some categories had more sites to review than were currently listed!!!!! I deleted a few dead links and left and have hardly even touched it, hince I became one of those billion inactive editors.

 

You mispelled - it should be Wikipedia on ODP

Nothing new there - it's been around for a while - well written opinion.

Of course one could also could ask - who long does it take for an ex-editor to come here and whine "boo hoo... I was just a volunteer" LOL

That's covered in the above page under "ODP's paid staff has imposed controversial policies from time to time, and volunteer editors who dissent in ways staff considers uncivil may find their editing privileges removed." - It's probably only controversial to those who get removed.

and also under "According to ODP's official editorial guidelines, editors are removed for abusive editing practices or uncivil behaviour."

Ok guys this is only post #4, let's see if we can get this thread into the Guiness Book of Records.

 

Oh I think it is quite obvious why the webmasters and SEOs do not like the ODP. That discussion has been had many times on this very forum.

At the risk of being sued for plagiarism: "The main problem I have with posts like yours is the assumption that if the ODP doesn't produce the result you want (i.e. the right sites being listed), whether it involves your personal sites or not, you immediately go to the "ODP Is Broken" song. You might learn a lot more and be a lot less annoying if you simply asked, "Why is the ODP like this?" instead -- that would be much more likely to elicit some analysis and insights than that same old tired song."

 

Just as the article says, there is a controversy surrounding the editing practices that began very early due to a lack of structure, and to this day editors "give favorable treatment to their own websites while concomitantly thwarting the good faith efforts of their competition". In addition, it seems attempts to have a democratic system have failed, leaving a "stratified hierarchy of duties and privileges among ODP editors".

The big thing I would add to this article is the ODP is based on a system where members are supposed to be volunteering their time for free, yet their actions can create profit for themselves and others. There are enough examples, allegations, discussions and controversies to show the ODP is clearly "tainted".

There is no shortage of people who know there is a problem, and I think we will be continuing talk about this issue for the forseeable future.

 

They have quite an amazing discussion going on here too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Directory_Project
I really like the way they work over their.
(even if some of the "juicy" parts get removed)

 

dvduval

You quote all of this as if it is fact. The Controversy consists of a lot of allegations, many of which remain just that - unproven. If you look at the people who are throwing the biggest rocks, and look at their history with the ODP, you will see that a lot of them have very personal axes to grind. You need to be aware of what their motivations are.

I am the last one to say that the ODP is perfect, but simply restating allegations and implying that just because they get spread from website to website makes them somehow true is contrary to most people's idea of "good research".

Ask yourself - if people can really make as much money from the ODP as alleged - why does anyone ever say anything about it? Most of those that are preaching about it right now are themselves admitting that they are/were corrupt.

Most editors are making nothing from the ODP. I know that that is hard to believe, but all the circumstantial evidence I have shows that to be true.

And before you say "why should I believe you, you're biased" - I agree - but I would hope you'd give just as much credibility to me as to these other people who you also don't know that are making the opposite allegations.

 

Alucard, I don't dispute the idea that many editors, such as yourself, are honest.
Because there is so much secrecy in the upper ranks of the ODP, it is true that much of the evidence will remain circumstantial. There are indeed many former editors who were corrupt, and it just shows how easy it is to infiltrate the ODP.

We both know, however, there are MANY unresolved issues for which there is no clear answer, and there will continue to be allegations as a result.

 

No company will ever release information about personnel decisions. Does that mean that there is some huge conspiracy going on?

OK, so it makes people uneasy - but you come across this is all aspects of life - and it is there for a reason.

There are some people I know by editing reputation and e-contacts who are in those "upper echelons". If it was anywhere near as bad as they make out, those people would have got the hell out. For me, that's confirmation enough that things aren't as bad as some would like to make you believe.

This "infiltration" thing amazes me - you have a bunch of people complaining about how difficult it is to become an ODP editor, and yet, somehow infiltration is easy.... something doesn't quite parse, there, for me. Yes, there are people who get in for less than honest reasons. Some are caught and kicked out (and then create websites exposing the "corruption") - some may still be lurking.

No-one is perfect - we justhave to sniff them out as best we can - that's all you can do.

Actually, I'm not so sure that there are truly that many "unresolved" issues. I would agree with you if you said that there are a lot of people out there who are upset with the ODP. Most of them have a reason - most of them feel personally wronged by the ODP.

I read some of the Wiki discussion - most from 2003 and before. There have been disgruntled people for as long as the directory has existed - I really don't think that a project like the ODP will ever make everyone happy - I'm not sure that that is its goal, either.

I just ask everyone that reads these sorts of allegations to be as conscientious as a good journalist and to question motive of the poster before just jumping to believe.

 

Thanks for the anonymous red rep, whoever: "ODP isn't a useful resource any more, just for backlinks." - so you are red-repping me because you don't believe the ODP is a useful resource any more?

 

Oh, I'll bite. I'm not gonna whine about this nor am I gonna sing the praises of dmoz or dmoz editors. I am a dmoz editor. I can tell you that the policing seems to be quite random.

As a for instance I signed up to take on a category recently that has been left dormant. No one was editing it so I figured, what the heck. Here is the note I got last time I tried to log in:

"Hello Jeremy
I'm writing about two things; the quality of some of your work, and also about interests that you may have in websites listed in the categories you edit.

Many of your entries are not in accordance with the guidelines. You are supposed to describe the website in plain English, without promotional language, without unnecessary repetition between title and description. The title is supposed to be the website title. Such entries as this one

Ancient Antiquities, fine Modern Jewelry, Ancient Coins and Eclectic Gifts at The Alexandria Col - Authentic ancient art and ancient antiquities from around the world, fine Jewelry and eclectic Gifts, Antiques, fine art, Period antiquities and roman glass.

with which you added the url http://thealexandriacollection.com , are not acceptable (I've unreviewed it). Other examples of non compliance are frequent in your work. Alhough you have done some rewriting based on previous notes left you by other editors, they are often still non compliant. Please take the time to read through the guidelines, and to apply them."

Let's not forget about that fact that this friggin category has not been edited in 4 years. Many of the entries I had to nuke because the sites no longer exist, or those who lied in wait for dmoz could wait no longer.

I find it hard to believe that we spend more time and detail moderating the editors than we do actually approving entries. I took it upon myself to go through this particular category and approve all listings that met certain criteria, and fit within the category they were listed in, or moved to by other editors. As such I've been scolded.

If someone has the time to go through and double check your work, why then did they not have the time to approve hundreds of listings dating back 4 years? I cleaned up the crap, got rid of the dead site, moved the sites that did not belong elsewhere and then made a few changes to various listings, mainly spelling and grammar and approved what was left. It took a coulple weeks.

I am a firm believer that a site should be approved/disapproved in 24 hours at best.

Either way do realize that editors are policed. Many times however those doing the policing are the ones not being policed

my 2 pennies!

 

Jeremy,

There are editing guidelines. They are available on your dashboard. If you feel you were being "policed" then I'm sorry - that may have come across as too harsh. (I didn't write that note, by the way). The example you gave in your post had the title lined with keywords - that's expressly against the ODP guidelines, and an editor was right to point that out to you. If (and I don't know one way or the other) that was your own site, then again, the editor was more than right to point that out to you. Giving your own site preferential treatment (I'm not talking about a review here, but listing it with keywords) is a no-no.

The guidelines on how to list sites is pretty strict.

They are trying to make sure you edit according to the guidelines, so that you can become a useful self-policing member of the editing community.

Part of monitoring new editors is to help mentor them and teach them the editing processes in the ODP. Part is also to try to catch someone who has come in to try to cause damage. I hope that in your case it was the former, and that your editing career will be long.

Thanks for the work you have done thus far for the ODP. It is appreciated.

Oh, as for the comment about moderating rather than doing the work, I fall back on the give a man a fish, vs teach a man to fish thing.

P.S. If you would like me to take a look over some of your edits, to give you more CONSTRUCTIVE advice, send me editor feedback, ok?

 

Do you have any proof?
Honest people do not support corrupt organizations for no reason at all.

 

That was not my site. The implication was a bit bothersome.

Understood

I would appreciate that, because there are parts of the process that are a bit difficult to grasp. For instance, when you update a site what exactly happens to it? How can you get back to it? I've had a couple issues were slippery fingers clicked the wrong button, and getting back to something was not possible.

 

I find that to be a very interesting point, and I would love to know more about just who is doing the policing, as well as the exact entries they have listed in DMOZ so we can be sure the police are themselves following the rules. How would one know go about assessing whether or not an editall was ethical in their decisions?

 

ok, this is a very very easy one.

Any editor is free to "keep an eye" on any other editor. There is no formal "policing". The objective is primarily to help that editor out - to learn their way through the slightly convoluted process of editing.

If they find an editor that is abusing their privs, they have an abuse report tool. If the evidence is strong, that editor is usually removed quite quickly.

Similarly, any editor can mentor another - there is a sort of "editor-mentor"-finding service that tries to pair people up for this purpose.

I have been known to have a talk to editors that are "higher up", to ask them why they made the edits they did. Usually it was an honest mistake, and they corrected it.

So no editor is truly "above the law", except for the paid staff, I guess - but they don't take part in the day-to-day running of the directory.

 

Hehe...one interesting thing to do is to look up sites that we know are run by editors, and then cross reference the ip address or nameserver to see what other sites are found there, and finally, take a look at the DMOZ listings for those sites.

VERY INTERESTING

(no question that being an editor is self serving, and carries financial benefits)

Anybody want to help setup a site dedicated to cross referencing ips and nameservers with DMOZ listings?
I have the tools.

 

Interesting point... since DMOZ is just a pile of mud now, it makes you wonder why some people still think they can make a difference. DMOZ's good days have passed, they couldn't have a worse reputation right now and it sinks more every day

 

fryman, if your premise is true, then I completely agree - I would come to the same conclusion.

So either the premise is wrong, or I am corrupt.

So go ahead and wonder if you want to. If you want answers, you are more than welcome to listen. But I know at least one of the posters in this thread doesn't really want real answers.