| 8:02 pm on Dec 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"On a daily basis" DMOZ defenders post messages in this forum saying that no corruption exists in the ODP.
| 8:21 pm on Dec 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Lets face it: DMOZ is corrupt. Many editors are using it for SEO of their own sites.
| 8:49 pm on Dec 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>"On a daily basis" DMOZ defenders post messages in
>this forum saying that no corruption exists in the ODP.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. Why would we have a mechanism for reporting bad or self-interested editing if we didn't believe it existed in the first place?
There are bad eggs everywhere. It's not true that we're not doing anything to prevent spam or biased entries at the ODP, though. If we weren't, there'd be a LOT more of it.
| 8:56 pm on Dec 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|However, this part: "i often move submissions from competitors to other (wrong and unedited) categories," makes me wonder if railman has ever actually edited in the ODP at all. If an editor moves a submission to a category with no named editor, it automatically appears in the inbox of an editor higher up that tree. |
you're almost implying that "therefore it will be edited immediately and put back where it belongs and corrupt editors will be caught out" which is just plain wrong
if i move a listing to a cat without an editor, it's unlikely to get edited for a long long time, if ever .......... that's just the way it is
| 11:23 pm on Dec 19, 2005 (gmt 0)|
and railman like other dmoz editors can play the DMOZ game to their own advantage.
And who can blame them? we are all in business to make money. If you can get any advantage over a competitor you are going to take it.
Where you have human involvement and big money keywords you are going to get corruption.
Meanwhile, to simply imply that a volume of backlinks wont help a site is plain stupid.
The fact is that all things being equal, two sites with a well structured business, both with similar page layout one with a dmoz and clone backlinks and the other without it doesnt take einstein to work out which site will rank higher in the natural google serps!
Give us a break!
| 3:27 am on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You gotta be kidding. You've never seen any one of the numerous threads that starts with an accusation that a corrupt DMOZ editor has somehow mistreated the poster and his website followed by an avalanche of posts by the DMOZ Defender Squad eviserating said poster?
It's a Black v. White, Up v. Down kind of free-for-all that happens here time and again. And it goes a little like this:
"You are corrupt!"
"We are not corrupt! You're corrupt!"
You can put the blame on one side, the other or both, but to say that you have never heard anyone say that there is no corruption in the ODP is incomprehensible considering the frequency with which it happens.
I can only conclude that you have been corrupted.
| 4:31 am on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes and we just had one here in which someone bashed DMOZ corrpution becasue a corrupt DMOZ editor is a competitor, and has removed his site. Several DMOZ editors pointed out that his site was actually orginally added by that competitor and was subsequently removed by a another senior editor unrelated to that industry for legitimate reasons (ie several editors who checked all agreed with the removal.
|You've never seen any one of the numerous threads that starts with an accusation that a corrupt DMOZ editor has somehow mistreated the poster and his website followed by an avalanche of posts by the DMOZ Defender Squad eviserating said poster? |
The facts were the opposite of the vitriol being spat ... I did notice that the original poster has not returned to apoligise for the lie he made up.
I am happy to check any facts you beleive about DMOZ corruption. Every allegation that I have the ability to look at (I am not a senior editor so have limited access), I agreed totally with the action taken by the editor. So perhaps you can give us some facts to go and check that you base your allegation on?
| 5:22 am on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Are you mad? My "allegation" is that this forum is full of vitriolic, polarized arguments about the presence of corruption (or lack of it) in the ODP.
Do you really contend that the creed of the inviolability of the Open Directory Pontificate has never been raised in this forum?
Maybe you should re-read the Letters of St. Hutcheson to the Webians, in which he discusses some of the DMOZ Myteries of Faith such as:
"At this point the people who are flogging the solution haven't pointed to any actual data even suggesting any problem." (Translation: There is no corruption in the DMOZ)
You are free to worship any web directory you want to. But to suggest that nobody has ever claimed that the DMOZ is squeeky clean and pure as mother's milk defies the common experience of those of us who read this forum specifically to get a laugh out of the thunderous dust-ups regarding DMOZ corruption.
| 5:42 am on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>>>>if i move a listing to a cat without an editor, it's unlikely to get edited for a long long time, if ever .<<<<
(Sigh) This shows that Railman is either not an editor or very incompetant. Because that's a bunch of nonsense.
(For clarification, this does not prove that there are no corrupt editors, just that any corrupt editor who is good at it is unlikley to be posting in public forums)
| 6:02 am on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I understand that even cats without listed editors can be edited by those with permission to edit cats higher in the directory structure.
However, your assertion that Railman's statement about some sites not getting reviewed for a long time is "a bunch of nonsense," makes it sound like there is no backlog whatsoever in the DMOZ.
Are you really telling us that all sites are reviewed very quickly? That there are not tens of thousands of sites which have been in the queue for months or years?
Come on, who is lying now?
| 6:43 am on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There is plenty of backlog, in some places, thousands and thousands of submitted sites remain unreviewed. But we are talking about an editor moving sites - that's not the same thing.
Meta editors constantly fish around for activity, and they would see someone moving sites, and if they were consistently moved to incorrect categories, that's a giveaway.
I unreviewed a site once, because the site owner was hassling me with repeated update requests. I was going to ask someone what to do with the site, but forgot. In less that 24 hours, a meta had republished the site and I got a warning about what I had done.
I've caught editors unreviewing sites, and leaving notes that made no sense. A little investigation and an abuse report and bye, bye.
I've also seen editors deleting sites without good reason. If I don't see an obvious proof of abuse, it's a simple thing to resubmit the site from the outside without showing I'm an editor, and see what happens next.
| 7:20 am on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Oh, I see. The meta editors have complete control over everything -- not a sparrow falls that escapes thier notice.
But they still can't manage to clear that backlog of a million unreviewed sites.
Just another one of the Mysteries of the Faith, I guess.
Praise be to Mozzie.
| 2:23 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Thanks - we all feel better for your blessings.
| 5:08 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>"At this point the people who are flogging the solution haven't pointed to any actual data even suggesting any problem." (Translation: There is no corruption in the DMOZ)
Atticus, you would do well to learn English before you attempt to translate it.
As flicker noted, and as other editors including myself have repeatedly told you, the existance of multiple ways of reporting abuse is proof that we think it extremely likely that there is corruption we haven't found yet.
So: that's the ODP attitude, and that's an end of the subject. Now, do you want to see proof that when we find corruption, we get rid of it?
Find some. Just find some. You can't. You don't know of any, and you can't find any, and you've shown no evidence that you'd recognize it if you tripped over it. That doesn't mean there isn't any. It just means you don't know anything at all.
And that's the CORRECT translation. YOU haven't contributed any actual information. You're just repeating, over and over, accusations for which you have no evidence. There are words for people like that.
Now, if you actually had any evidence of corruption -- if you could show any action ever taken that was detrimental to the directory but beneficial to the editor, then ... you'd at least have a way of seeing whether the ODP as a whole was corrupt -- you could report that evidence and see what happened.
As it is, you have mentioned no evidence of any specific corrupt acts, so you can't be in a position of knowing what the ODP as a whole thinks of corruption (if in fact there is any, which is something YOU don't know.)
That doesn't keep you from speaking as if you were omniscient. But if you speak with such confidence on a matter on which you have no knowledge whatsoever, ... what does that say about your credibility.
| 5:22 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If someone can show evidence of a persistent and serious problem, then there would be a way for DMOZ to consider changes to address the problem.
Such things have happened before! One non-editor singlehandedly forced the ODP to change its editors' guidelines by repeatedly pointing out a specific kind of abuse that was slipping into the system. It took weeks of doing ODP searches and e-mailing the spam he found to an editor -- and he was finding a dozen or so a week at the time. Then it took a few months for the community to analyze the root problem -- of course we wouldn't take the facile approach "all submitters are abusers so let's make some silly rules to punish the honest ones." And then we had to reach consensus on the proper solution.
And the directory is much better for it. Nobody knows that philanthropist -- I don't know that he ever posted in a public forum. He doesn't have an editor name. But he changed the ODP.
Anyone can do the same thing. All you have to do is find enough examples of a problem to show a pattern. Tell us about it. And do it often enough to show the problem is recurrent.
| 5:26 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>I've also seen editors deleting sites without good reason. If I don't see an obvious proof of abuse, it's a simple thing to resubmit the site from the outside without showing I'm an editor, and see what happens next.
So it is. And certainly, some corruption does get caught that way. And some corruption gets caught through the public abuse reporting system. And some gets caught by roving metas. And ... would we LOVE to have another good way of catching corruption? Absolutely!
Find some corruption. Show us how you did it. And chances are, you'd be surprised to see how much we did with your technique.
| 5:59 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Knickers and twist come to mind here! - three posts on the trot.
|Find some corruption. Show us how you did it. And chances are, you'd be surprised to see how much we did with your technique. |
This is the problem, an editor using three editor names isnt going to tell you how hes working. With all the backlinks hes happy with the way it is - why should he tell you?
1. Cut the backlink advantage and eliminate corruption - simple!
2. Make editors use their names and prove who they are rather than nick names and you eliminate duel editors.
3. Have an established accountable management tree and you eliminate, name and shame dodgy editors that hide from the public view.
4. Bring all secret notes into the open so webmasters can see exactly what is being said about them (as per the data protection act)and have the right to defend themselves if required and be able to prove the corruption involved.
The list is endless.
Alternatively, keep things the way they are until a corruption case is filed against you and google and DMOZ gets taken off line overnight!
| 6:00 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Do you look like Castro as well as speak like him?
Sorry, but I fell asleep half way through your diatribe.
| 6:34 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Atticus, I think you'll find it's Rich spewing out rules like Uncle Joe Stalin in a bad mood, and trying to set up a dictatorship over an anarchist commune.
Rich, if you can't even show there's a problem, then you obviously aren't the right person to be giving advice. First FIND YOUR PROBLEM, then try to fix it.
I do, however, recommend your diatribe to me about real names -- to all readers with a taste for low irony. But -- while you're solving the world's problems, why don't you tell PayPal the same thing? THEY don't give out real names either! (Corruption is rife! Man the barricades!)
| 6:39 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It is possible to have your editor privileges removed for gently pointing out policy decisions made by META editors that reek of corruption, in the ODP editor forum.
This without using the word "corruption" or making any remotely controversial post - the mere fact that you appear to know that something is not quite kosher, will get you booted out of the ODP.
If you know something doesn't look right with the actions and decision of some METAs, keep silent, if you value your editing privileges.
| 6:56 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
If you think there is an issue with a meta-editor, then you should take it up with an administrator -- they are the ones who choose and review the metas. Even "gently" accusatory posts in the general editor forums are generally inappropriate.
| 7:58 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You said, "Even "gently" accusatory posts in the general editor forums are generally inappropriate."
You posted this statement within half an hour of denying that you and Fidel Castro had, in fact, been separated at birth.
All I can say is, "Have a cigar..."
| 8:38 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Atticus, it was an oversight.
| 8:44 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A month ago I was offered $2k for an editor account on DMOZ. DMOZ is very corrupt and flawed.
| 9:18 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Even "gently" accusatory posts in the general editor forums are generally inappropriate. |
No one was accused, no name was given, not even in private.
All I said is, the mere fact that a lowly editor may have accidentally come across something "not quite right" may have him booted off if a META realizes that this lowly editor might unwittingly exposing something more sinister.
I do happen to know that it is quite possible for mediation request to be made, a mediator found, then the request dutifully ignored until hell freezes over (at least 9 months that I am aware of), despite the occasional polite reminder. It seems like some METAs are exempt from being subjected to mediation.
Take up the issue with the META with Management?
I laugh, I laugh.
Who is Management, but a bunch of fellow METAs?
There is no Management, since the fellow that revoked kctipton's status as a META left the ship (I forget his name, sorry).
| 9:40 pm on Dec 20, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|You posted this statement within half an hour of denying that you and Fidel Castro had, in fact, been separated at birth. |
With all due respect, it would be best if you keep politics out of the discussion. After all, I haven't seen anyone mention the leader of what I assume to be your country, and he could be used equally well as a negative comparison in many topics on WW.
| This 146 message thread spans 5 pages: < < 146 ( 1 2 3 4  ) |