Dante_Maure
msg:482568 | 12:48 pm on Dec 4, 2002 (gmt 0) |
Disclaimer: I am not an editor at the ODP, and while I do feel there are areas that could be improved... I don't believe that this is the best solution. | I would think that for DMOZ to have credibility there would be a policy against self-dealing. |
|
This would rule out some of the directory's most valuable editors. It is often webmasters of sites devoted to a given topic that have the greatest contribution to make to the directory due to their intimate insights on their subject of choice. | The organization should immediately institute a policy of requiring all sites affiliated with an editor to be submitted to a highly placed person to be reviewed. |
|
It is already ODP policy that any editor applying for a category must disclose any website affiliations related to the subject. Any editor found being dishonest in this matter or clearly abusing their privileges is supposedly shown the door in short order. The following is an excerpt from ODP's Guidelines [dmoz.org] for applying to edit additional categories... Your application will be denied, and you will risk reduction or loss of editing privileges, if you: Demonstrate self-serving editing. (You have cooled your site, you are manipulating descriptions by deleting keywords from competition or keyword padding your own or an affiliate site to improve search ranking, or you are deleting good, valid and working URLs that belong to competitors). Create vanity categories to highlight your own website or serve your own interests. Mirror another portion of the directory because you don't have permission to edit there. |
|
|
rfgdxm1
msg:482569 | 2:13 pm on Dec 4, 2002 (gmt 0) |
One obvious problem with a policy preventing an editor from listing a site of theirs is that if they are dishonest, all they'd do is hide their affiliation with the site. If someone is intent on abusing their position of power, then they'll find a way to do it.
|
choster
msg:482570 | 10:09 pm on Dec 5, 2002 (gmt 0) |
There is an official policy on conflicts of interest [dmoz.org]. There is of course the consideration that the ODP exists in the online world and not the physical one, so confirming whether or not someone has dared to touch some site is not as simple as issuing a subpoena or search warrant to see whether he or she is affiliated with it. Consider also that unethical editing is not merely someone unfairly promoting his or her business interests. An editor may not own or derive income from a site, but perhaps in her eyes it's the best site for The True Religion and she manipulates the keywords so that it appears first on any search for "snuggly kittens" or "raindrops on roses." Maybe an editor is an avowed libertarian and decides that he is morally obligated to delete any pro-socialism submissions he encounters. Neither would have been stopped by any affiliation disclosure requirement. In fact, under the existing broad guidelines, we have removed not a few editors whose religious, political, or social biases or hatreds were distorting the directory. It is the spirit of the ODP guidelines [dmoz.org] and the social contract [dmoz.org] that is enforced, not merely rules. We don't require that editors be altruistic, merely philanthropic. So an editor who adds "his" site to a category, but in a way that makes it indistinguishable from any other listing, and who conscientiously handles other submissions, will do well. Someone else who does nothing but log in once a month and change the keywords in the description of one site is not likely to remain long once discovered.
|
milkman
msg:482571 | 9:23 pm on Dec 8, 2002 (gmt 0) |
I am having MAJOR problems attempting to become an editor with ODP - seriously..
I have tried about 4-5 times now, by filling in the app form. , for an area I specialise in. I found that initially the senior editor that replied was really helpful, and gave some pointers on re-applying - fine. After following these tips and coming up with an application i thought was perfect - it was again rejected with no reason (and a different editor reviewed it). The original editor told me he was not sure why it was rejected, but to perhaps to try the category below it (smaller category) - I did, and guess what rejected. Apparently the sample site was listed elsewhere. Now I KNOW that the sample site I suggested was GREAT for the category I had chosen.
I then sent an email off directly to ODP, as well as an editor asking for some help....and have also reapplied to be an editor again.....it has been over a week - have not heard back from anyone...
I simply wanted to get involved with this great concpet I thought ODP was - no hidden agenda - just wanted to share some of my knowldge freely, and spend some of my free-time helping out....I am now getting a little upset at the whole thing! CAN ANYONE HELP ME?
|
coconutz
msg:482572 | 9:50 pm on Dec 8, 2002 (gmt 0) |
Try the ODP Resource ZoneYou can inquiry about the status of your application in the "Becoming an Editor" forum. [edited by: Laisha at 5:19 am (utc) on Dec. 19, 2002]
|
EliteWeb
msg:482573 | 10:26 pm on Dec 8, 2002 (gmt 0) |
I feel that 80% of the time people become editors is because they have a site they want submitted. Thats the reason I became an editor for all my categories is because I had something to offer and in return Ill edit the category and submit more sites to it and so forth.
|
milkman
msg:482574 | 8:46 am on Dec 9, 2002 (gmt 0) |
Well ,Im attempting to make a posting on the ODP resource-zone forum, to find out about the application, but I keep getting an error message!, arrrrrggghh
it is:
"
We cannot proceed.
The host you are trying to send the input from is not a valid host. Please use your back button to return to the previous page.
"
|
steveb
msg:482575 | 11:14 am on Dec 9, 2002 (gmt 0) |
Milkman, disable your firewall when you post the message.
|
milkman
msg:482576 | 5:43 am on Dec 10, 2002 (gmt 0) |
What a loooser (me I mean) should have checked that first!
thx for the help!, Milt
|
|
