| 11:42 pm on Nov 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>99% are webmasters with it's own business and interests.
Total rubbish. Why did you make this up?
| 12:30 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The idea that competitors in Dmoz are blocking your sites is a popular myth. So much more colourful than the boring reality...
Stuff usually doesn't get listed because
a) It doesn't fit the guidelines, or
b) Nobody has got around to reviewing it.
| 9:21 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> >99% are webmasters with it's own business and interests.
It's not true, but it's true that most of Meta are webmaster and SEO.
It's like in a big company: you do not need 51 % of the shares; several time you can have the power with just 10 %....
| 9:50 am on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Often dmoz editors abuse it's privileges, and 99% are webmasters with it's own business and interests |
You've just made a very unpleasant accusation towards pretty much everyone who could anwser your question.
Give me the statistical evidence for your 99% assertion (easiest way may be to download an RDF, extract all editor names, and then analyse their profile pages) and I'll suggest a way to do the analysis you want.
| 4:29 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> It's not true, but it's true that most of Meta are webmaster and SEO. <<
And you got those "facts" from the same place that silverbytes got theirs?
| 4:46 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
One thing I have noticed there are many SEO companies that claim to have a DMOZ editor on staff. I have met many editors that own or control a website. I have never met one that didn't. (but I hang out mostly with webmasters) That does not mean they are all webmasters. Even if they are all webmasters I am sure there are several niches where the ediotr has a site but has no idea that links have any value. You have to realize how many catagories there are. There are many editors that are hobbiests and just truely love their subject and it was just natural that they run their catagory.
Now to say that the 99% figure would piss off those who could answer is a bit off. This is a webmaster forum and there is no way somebody that read that and was an editor could say they have no websites they control. I agree the number is just made up and is probably way off. Remember that 85% of all statistics are made up. :)
| 5:44 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> I have met many editors that own or control a website. I have never met one that didn't. <<
I don't know many people who *aren't* editors who don't have a least one website so it would hardly be surprising for the same to be true of editors as well.
| 9:27 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have only met 3 editors in real life (plenty more online).
Of the 3 I met, one was a school teacher who edits as part of an ongoing class project (the students find sites for her - i really like this and wish more could do it); another was a university academic who edited in his specialist area (I assume the university has a website that is nothing to do with him) and the 3rd was a MD who edited in the area of his discipline (I assume the hospital has a website that is nothing to do with him).
2 of them did not know what 'SEO' stood for!
| 11:13 pm on Nov 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>It's not true, but it's true that most of Meta are webmaster and SEO.
Well, first of all, I can see how you got the opposite impression, but in reality: webmastering, in and of itself, is not a dishonest or contemptible activity!
I don't do it (much), but that's not because I think it's evil: it's just that people have wanted to pay me more for doing other things, and other people have been willing to provide me all the webmastering I've needed for free.
[Here's where webmastering (like lawyering) gets such a bad name, though: there are far more webmasters out there than society needs -- or that society can supply content for. So a lot of webmasters end up (like lawyers) drumming up business with faux content, preying on society with spams and scams.]
But there are genuine, honest businesses that didn't have websites -- and either hired one done, or did it themselves. There's no evil in that. There are people and organizations with genuine interests to share -- I mean natural interests, interests nobody had to pay them to have. There's no evil in sharing them.
Secondly, some editors became editall by LISTING the competition: political activists trying to make a complete catalog of political organizations (even ones that they personally found repugnant), real estate agents who wanted to list all the businesses in their hometown (then their state or province, then country, then continent...), religious people trying to catalog all kinds of religious activity (including the heretical forms!), ...
Thirdly, some editors by definition don't HAVE competition. I'm trying to place a small (tightly focussed) part of human experience and creativity online. Who is my competition? Who COULD be my competition? Anyone who announces their intention to do the work of publishing some content in my area of emphasis will find out -- what I've done that overlaps their work is theirs for the taking (with or without asking)! What they do, I'll leave for them to do, and more power to them, and any help I can give is theirs for the asking! I'll go on to the next item in my list. No point in duplicating effort, we're all cooperating. And the more effectively we cooperate, the more successful my efforts will be.
| 7:39 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Ok forget the 99% percentage. Let's simply say many (I think the majority of editors) are people related to websites (often webmasters, often SEOs) and have their own interests wether they do the job fairly or not.
It's a fact that many, some, or whatever you want to call it, abuse it's privileges. The fact that DMOZ removes editors is a good factor to consider.
So beyond your hurted feelings the original question was:
"Find out DMOZ meta editor affiliations possible?"
| 8:32 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Self-declared affiliations for all editors, including meta-editors, are available to ODP administration, for investigation of allegations of editor misconduct. They aren't available to editors in general, and certainly aren't publicly available.
You can't use affiliations to investigate abuse on your own account, because you don't have the editor logs, so you don't know who did the edit(s) that you consider inappropriate.
| 9:15 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I agree with most of your assertions!
ODP is a great resource, but there are areas where few meta SEOs act in a manner that is close to be unfair.
Sometimes they act in a way that comply with the DMOZ guidelines but in fact do collateral damages....
I do not want to be polemic here... If you like I can send you a sticki mail...
| 9:56 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
> act in a way that comply with the DMOZ
> guidelines but in fact do collateral damages
Which would actually be an issue of the appropriateness of 1, 2 or more specific guidelines. If adherence to guidelines creates, to use your phrase, collateral damage, then it should be completely irrelevant who followed the guidelines, and equally irrelevant whether he or she was a new editor, experienced editor, meta editor or some other editor level, and thus equally irrelevant to the original Q in this thread.
However, there are several other Shreadin' in the Threadin' 11/05 Events on tap this week, and many, some or whatever you wish to describe it do feature the same
tag teams. :)
| 10:30 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, sticky me if you like. But I warn you, "collateral damage" sounds like a thing that should be a non-concern for an editor, though. Think about it. Everytime we add a site, it hurts the PR of every other site ever listed. That would be collateral damage. Category reorgs affect site placement (positively or negatively) and even temporarily park sites out-of-sight -- but are absolutely necessary for continued growth. Other decisions about deeplinking policies affect sites, including "SEO Forum" sites like this one. People have alluded to cnn.com, and at some point a decision may change how visible it is. Will we care about how that affects CNN versus ABC or Reuters? No. Should we? I don't think so.
| 11:09 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A great test would be to add no follow tags to all the links in DMOZ. See how many "editors" stay on. =)
| 11:59 pm on Nov 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I doubt if many corrupt editors would leave -- after all, it's pretty obvious how little actual effect that would have.
You might run some honest editors off -- it's never a good management idea to make stupid rules with no justification other than to show your people you da boss and you don't trust them anymore.