Forum Moderators: open
Don´t really know what it´s worth. Reads like an inside report ("Julian McCreary is a pseudonym for a high-ranking ODP editor"], suggests serious trouble inside ODP.
ODP is open about its' submission policies. Honesty and taking the time to fill out the application completely - error free with sites appropriate for the category works well when applying.
Regarding the facts as stated: If you looked at the original 5 staff members in mid 1999 compared to the total number of active editors then, and at the currently 25 staff members compared to the total number of active editors of today, what would you expect to find?
You do the math ;)
It was an important article in several respects. One; it points out to many people that there are paid staff at dmoz. That is not a well known fact. Two, that it is all not necc heaven behind the scenes.
I chaulk most of it up to growing pains. The rate at with which Dmoz has expanded has been breath taking. You can't grow a organization that fast without some problems. If it wasn't this, it could have been something else.
The only question I have outstanding is: why is aol paying the salary of 25 people?
Even at $25k a year each, thats $650,000 a year just for salaries, let alone support and resource dedication. This is squarly out of character for AOL. It's bothered me for some time.
Could very well be Eric, but it might be based on issues with further implications than might meet the eye. There's just no way to tell.
For all practical purposes, we can look at the ODP as a large volunteer community involved in putting the directory together. Some of the same issues possibly can, have and will continue to come up as with any other staff/volunteer situations.
What's publicly seen on the net as volunteer-based, visible online communities is only the tip of the iceberg when compared to the size and scope of the "online" interactive facilitation industry, the greater portion of which is never seen by the public. It's a whole industry in and of itself, with some people pursuing it professionally, with university studies on it, books written about it, specific networking "communities" comprised of people involved with it, and even conferences held. It reaches to the level of universities, corporate intranets, corporate communities that administer their own or hire one of the numerous companies that professionally administer them, to pre-live conference interactive communities set up and professionally run prior to the events. All of which are closed and totally invisible to the public. These are manned by professional, paid staff, whether in-house or contracted out.
There are a whole different set of issues with what's publicly visible and accessible, where it's all volunteer or where there is a combination of paid staff and volunteers, both at the functional and the administrative levels.
A factor to consider is that it's rumored that AOL will be having layoffs in the not too distant future. AOL is not fully paid staff to begin with. They've already got interactivity largely manned by a great number of volunteers, although administratively managed by staff with policy dictated down through the ranks. So when we're thinking about ODP/AOL we're facing the issue that AOL is dealing with a staff/volunteer situation on two fronts - the Directory and their AOL community functions. To think that they'd deal with one differently from the other would be highly unrealistic.
That being said, I believe the article holds much truth and was almost certainly written by an editor -- or perhaps more than one editors. The level of knowledge leads me to believe that said editor is indeed high ranking.
With the exception of the statement about IP addresses, I will say that I agree entirely with the content (though not the slant) of the article. Those things are indeed occurring. I would very likely agree with the IP statement if I were in a position to know whether or not it is true. Unfortunately, only staff and metas are in that position. If, however, I were to guess as to its veracity based on all I do know about the "inner workings" of ODP, I would guess that it is indeed an accurate statement. If it is indeed accurate, then that is one more thing that I believe should not be happening.
The fact that ODP guidelines prohibit editors from "talking out of school" has led to an atmosphere where information about the flaws of ODP and its working is extremely rare. In fact, in most forums, we have seen ODP editors deny vehemently statements which are indeed factual. Hence, for the most part, those who complain are written off as whackos ranting about ODP without foundation.
Just another guess, based on my experience, is that the metas and staff are currently more concerned with tracking down the leak than they are with fixing the glaring and now-public shortcomings.
In short, even if it is a "temper tantrum," it still appears to be truthful, and denying that would be silly.
When made namelessly, they are diminished in value. I agree with laisha to the extent that those comments are truthful, they are easily dismissed by virtue of the fact that they are anonymous.
Judging by the specific issues commented on and the perspective of the writer, I have my own opinion (guess) as to who authored the article and I would also agree with laisha that a great deal of energy is probably being expended inside ODP to try and expose the culprit.
It is true that not everyone agrees (meta, editall, or, line editor) with the direction given by staff, but, just like with your parents, they are *still* staff.
I don't believe that ever squelched healthy debate over the "right way" to do things at ODP. Regardless of what you may think, you won't be ousted as a volunteer at ODP for disagreeing civilly with ODP paid staff members, but, that doesn't mean that you will win your arguments.
I think there is one thing we have overlooked.
Due to the *tremendous* growth of the Open Directory Project in the last year or two, it is functioning remarkably well.
How many other places do you know have thousands of volunteers, and for the most part, few really serious issues with which to contend?
Like any other large organization, there are politics. Considering the circumstances of ODP, I think it is still doing very well.
-G
It's clear that people are wondering, "Who wrote it?" I think I saw a post at another forum (XODP at yahoo) where someone was soliciting comments (confidentiality guaranteed) for an upcoming exposé. Wouldn't surprise me at all if this author is that same person.
Although that is probably true, it is certainly not the focus of this thread, as far as I can tell.
I think this thread is more focused on the truth of the article, not who wrote it. Most people who read and participate in this forum are not ODP insiders and don't really know the "players" at all, so I doubt that it's a big concern.
Of course, I could be wrong.
This is not the first site to announce that the "article" was published. Actually, almost simultaneously, it's publication was announced by one of ODP's most discredited antagonists in his X-ODP e-group.
I have an opinion that some of the letter is true, and, some is not. I base that on what I do know of my own personal knowledge and experience about the situations that were described. I don't know the percentage of readers in this forum who double as ODP volunteer editors even though I suspect there are a fair number. Webmasters tend to be attracted to ODP editorship because of their connection to the industry.
As to the comments contained in the article itself, I find them largely unimportant to the whole scheme of the project - which is to organize the reviewed websites available to users of the directory. The fact that AOL staff members step into discussions from time to time and dictate how things have to work in "big picture" can hardley be characterized as "falling prey to AOL".
Does that get the collective noses of line editors, editalls, catmods, and meta editors out of joint? Some times. ODP paid staff does not outnumber the volunteer army of editors who make the directory happen. 5, 25, or, 55 paid staff editors could not equal the volunteer contribution. Everybody knows that, including ODP staff. So long as ODP is to remain a human-edited directory, that "balance of editorial power" is likely to remain as it has since the begining of the project.
The fallout will continue to be occasional disgruntled ramblings, veiled and unenforceable threats to exact retribution, usually authored by people who have nothing more important to do with their time.
But I am curious about things related to the internet and to searchengines and directories, and I think this is a very good place to discuss them openmindedly.
As I said in my opening post, I do not really know what that article is worth, but from the discussion so far I think it´s fair to say that not everybody shares your point of view. And those people are not just anti ODP, but rather concerned and interested in the ODP.
I appreciate the fact that some people do not share my opinions about how things work at ODP. They are entiled to their opinions, too.
I simply don't come away from reading this "article", knowing what I do know about how the ODP community operates, with the impression that AOL has any plans to allow the "balance of editorial power" to be shifted away from the volunteer editors in favor of a few paid staff editors.
I agree that ODP staff editors have pulled their share of boners. So have all of the rest of us. Some editors feel that ODP staff is overbearing in their mandate of how things need to be done. That does not mean that all ODP volunteers are afraid to argue with ODP staff if they hold opposing points of view - it happens regularly. Don't think that I have always agreed with everything that ODP staff has directed, because I have not.
As a non-editor webmaster, you should have no fear that anything ODP staff would do is likely to jeopardize your ability to continue to build great websites and submit to appropriate categories for review and inclusion in the directory. AOL is not going to abandon Netscape's sponsorship of the Open Directory Project.
I would also encourage those others who are "concerned and interested in the ODP" to volunteer to become an editor. It is a great way to show your support regardless of whether or not you agree with me :)
Within about 30 seconds, I received an email rejecting me based on their "evaluation". Their reason given was a list that covered every bit of their guidelines.
Why bother accepting apps if they aren't looking at them? Perhaps this is part of the new management.
As noted in the article that was referenced in the first post of this thread, the person rejecting an application to become an ODP editor is not required to send you a "Dear John" letter. As such, it's highly unlikely that your rejection has anything to do with ODP staff and/or ODP politics. Rather, based upon what you have set forth here, it seems that whoever reviewed your application simply came to a very quick decision that there was a very basic problem with your application; by directing you to the ODP Guidelines, said person was probably indicating that whatever was wrong with your application should be quite obvious.
Please understand that I am not suggesting that any of the above was necessarily true regarding your application, as I have no way of knowing.
Please don't be discouraged. Review your submissions as they may relate to our editing guidelines, and try again. I am sorry for the inconvenience.
I cannot argue your specific application, nor would I want to, but our objective in reviewing an application is to determine, with limited information available, whether the applicant is likely to benefit our primary purpose - which is to put together the most comprehensive directory of useful sites on the Internet.
That's it. It's not a social program, nor does anyone have a right to become an editor, yet when it appears likely that an applicant will further our interests, as opposed to his own, then it is not in our interests to decline the applicant.
Again, I will suggest that you review our editing guidelines and reapply, making sure that you are not applying for a large category, or one that has subcategories that might be more appropriate for a new editor. Be sure that the words you have used are spelled correctly, that you have used proper sentence structure, and that the 2-3 sample URLs you have provided are appropriate for the category you're applying for.
We have recently made a concerted effort to reduce the size of our new applicant queue, so you can expect that your application will be acted upon, perhaps more quickly than it would have been last week. There are no guarantees as to how long we'll be able to keep this up, however.
Please understand that we do receive new applications each minute, and that we cannot send long letters of explanation to those of which we are unable to approve, for whatever reason.
If this is unsatisfactory, then I don't know what else I could tell you.
