Forum Moderators: open
In fact many (like me) were fired NOT for what they did editorially, but for what they said about ODP outside of ODP. Yet I am on that list - Basically for airing ODP's dirty laundry in public.
You're on that list for a very specific reason, and it has absolutely nothing to do with "airing dirty laundry."
They are totally different.
As per the ODP Guidelines the two sites in question are fraternal mirror sites. Your second site was removed from the index before you were fired.
I know many editors that quit, gave up, or were banned for reasons OTHER than your so-called abuse.
Those that quit on their own accord don't have their sites listed. Only editors with a track record of abuse have their sites listed.
And what, exactly, IS that reason?
After more than a year, I have yet to hear it. And you have to be aware also that one of the reasons was a personal conflict with a very sarcastic and personally abusive Meta, who also was probably the one that wrote any reasons for dismissal. Some grains of salt might be called for.
Since I was fired after publicly complaining in THIS forum, that leads me to be somewhat skeptical of your claims. In fact, it was less than an hour after I had posted...
"As per the ODP Guidelines the two sites in question are fraternal mirror sites.."
Ah, now THAT is a new term.
Then how do you explain the fact that there are over 20 OTHER sites with similar products that are treated differently? How do you explain why our competitors have been able to get both a category listing AND a regional listing, but our sites were turned down?
Of course, I would never accuse any editors of petty vindictiveness.....
[edited by: WindSun at 7:16 pm (utc) on Jan. 27, 2003]
Whjat good reason is there? What good reason is there that outweighs the value of open democracy?
>>Ex-editors can't be trusted. Period. They have a proven track record of abusing ODP policies and harming the directory for their personal gain. They have also shown a great willingness to try to do it again.<<
I am an ex editor, and I dare say I am insulted by that statement. I was removed because of a personal conflict. It had nothing to do with my editing. I found and submitted more competitor sites, and listed them, than most ODP editors. If it is Official ODP policy to stroke Marisa's ego, you should state that somewhere on the editor control panel.
As has been noted many times here, ODP is nothing like a democracy. It is an oligarchy, run by a few select people pretty much at their own whim.
IMO, the word "open" should be deleted from the name. It is far from open.
But that makes for good PR, so it will not be.
"I found and submitted more competitor sites, and listed them, than most ODP editors.."
As did I. In fact, I added over 100 of our competitors sites. Yet, now I am accused of "abuse"?
There are many possible kinds of abuse, most of which are not at all incompatible with adding sites.
Ah, you mean like this statement from one of your senior editors just a few messages back:
"Ex-editors can't be trusted. Period. They have a proven track record of abusing ODP policies and harming the directory for their personal gain..."
The truth is that removal is rare and one must either be abusing their privelages, be a terrible editor (who doesn't improve) or pull a pilotchase.
Posting "As per the ODP Guidelines the two sites in question are fraternal mirror sites.." would not lead to removal ever. EVER. It sounds like an interesting thread, why not post a link to it so all can see the full context?
While your at it, why not post your editor handles here so that any editor who cares to do so can explore your editing histories (and see what lead up to removal)?. I have yet to review a removed editor's edits and come away with the opinion that they were victimized.
That is what should be, but is not always the case. Just before my removal several editors I emailed with on a regular basis applauded my editing and recommended I apply to other cats. I did so. When they ask, "What affiliation you have with the sites?" I responded none. I didn't own any of them, and I derived no financial gain from any. A female editor (the notorious one) wrote me saying it was a lie. I know a lot of ODP editors are kids, but I am an adult and I earned the respect of my peers. I wrote back chiding her on her manners and assumption, and stated, again, that I do not have a profitable relationship with any of the sites.
I was then removed.
<snip>
Although I have a huge amount of respect for the ODP, I think it may have grown into a closed, private club of sorts. If it continues down this road, another directory project may take its place. But, I don't think this will happen soon.
I've seen notes on top of notes, of editors tracking my activity in webmaster forums. Even with this sort of thing going on, a meta editor chose to list the webmaster forum I administer. That went a long ways to restoring my faith in the integrity of the ODP. Just because an editor doesn't like the webmaster should not prevent the site from being listed. And in this case, I was impressed with the ODP.
[edited by: NFFC at 3:58 pm (utc) on Jan. 30, 2003]
[edit reason] Specifics removed [/edit]
Even with this sort of thing going on, a meta editor chose to list the webmaster forum I administer.
That meta happened to be me, BTW. ;)
Which I think should go a long way toward calming the fears of those who believe that the ex-editor list is a blacklist.
From reading this thread it appears that all ex-eds were removed due to conflicts with abusive meta editors with bloated egos.
Many were. It is also true that many were abusive. But I will tell you this from experience: If an editor has made enough edits, anyone who wants to can go through their edits and make a case for abuse. When I was an meta editor, a friend and I demonstrated that for our own amusement by doing so with the edits of the founder and 5 different staff members.
If you think ODP is apolitical, you are wrong. Not only have people been removed for speaking/acting/editing counter to ODP politics, but many have been removed for their stance on "real world" politics. And yes, I have documentation.
The truth is that removal is rare and one must either be abusing their privelages, be a terrible editor (who doesn't improve) or pull a pilotchase.
Unless things have changed drastically in the past couple of years, that is completely wrong. It is not rare at all, as you will see if you go back and read old ODP forum posts.
People who fly far below the radar are removed all the time. Even well-known or outspoken editors are removed with some frequency.
There was a time -- a pretty long time -- when we would remove abusive editors but take huge pains to keep any useful listings, even if the editor's abuse was extensive. After all, if you are looking after the interests of the directory, you keep that which enhances it.
Granted times have changed, but I mention the above only to say that this was how it used to be.
While perhaps it was unintended, there is the one effect that the ex-editors list has on other editors, and only a foolish editor would deny it.
If a line editor goes to list a site and sees that it was listed by a meta or long-time editor in the Ex-Editors category, and no doubt with derogatory notes, the chances that the line editor will risk his or her editorship by listing it are slim.
To a large extent that is true. Obviously not all - I am sure that the majority of editors that have been fired DID abuse their powers. On the other hand, they are not likely to be the ones that show up in forums like this.
I think you can safely say that any of the editors complaining about ODP in this and other public forums feels they have been wronged somehow.
"removal is rare and one must either be abusing their privelages, be a terrible editor (who doesn't improve) or pull a pilotchase..."
Unfortunately, removal is NOT rare. That in part explains why there is such a shortage of editors that give a damn. The ones that DO (or did) care tend to be outspoken and upset the applecart. Although there is around 5000 editors still listed as active, the actual number of active editors is far less.
"Posting "As per the ODP Guidelines the two sites in question are fraternal mirror sites.." would not lead to removal ever. EVER. It sounds like an interesting thread, why not post a link.."
That was a side issue while I was still an editor. Even the senior catall that I worked under at the time agreed that both sites should be listed, but she was over ridden by another that red-listed every one of our URL's - and even some I was not associated with. Since nearly all took place via email and within ODP, I cannot post any links. I was also refused a listing in any of the regional categories, even though many of our competitors have listings in both places. Once a URL is red or yellow flagged, your chances of ever getting it listed are just about zero, no matter how petty or vindictive the reasons for having them tagged was.
And I am still wondering about that term "Fraternal Mirror Site". I would like to see exactly where in the guidelines that term shows up. From Google: Your search - "fraternal mirror site" - did not match any documents.
We cannot get two totally different sites listed, yet if you dig around a bit on ODP, you will see things like Epinions.com having nearly 2400. ODP is down (again) now so I can't check, but at one time Barnaby also had thousands.
"why not post your editor handles here so that any editor who cares to do so can explore your editing histories (and see what lead up to removal)?..."
Mine was wlauzon. Feel free to check any of my edits. I have forgotten the exact number I had, but I believe it was in the 20,000+ range. If you check, you will also see that 90% of my edits were in non-related categories - such as all the Lightning,much of the Forestry, most of the Alternative Science cats, all the wire and cable cats, and several other main and subcats. Since as far as I can tell, nearly all of those sections have been without an editor, feel free to look at any or all of them.
I don't think this forum allows the posting of websites or URL's, but you can check the websites in question in my profile - there are only two.
Editors removed for lack of editing skills don't post in these forums. Most editors removed for behavior issues don't, when they do it becomes clear pretty quickly that the root of their issues isn't related to the ODP. If someone is here proclaiming their innocence, it is a safe assumption that they were removed for abusing their privileges, even if they don't think they did.
Wlauzon, I know I asked for it but there is no way I am gonna check 20,000 edits to try and spot what happened, even if I did, I couldn't share it. It is quite possible that in your opinion none of your edits seemed abusive, so wondering why you were removed seems natural, as would having bitter feelings. On the other hand, to those who debated the case, it may have been obvious. Perhaps part of the issue is that there are differing opinions on what constitutes abuse, but the bottom line is that the responsibility of KNOWING what is abuse falls on each editor.
Could a case be made for abuse against any editor with enough edits? I suppose, but it would require a very selective evaluation to make such a case and it would collapse as soon as one had a look at the whole picture. I don't know why anyone would do it, and believe twisting and manipulating facts to try would be abuse in and of itself.
The days when a (small) group of skull cracking metas briefly seemed powerful at the ODP are long gone, ancient in fact. Any opinion on the subject of editor removal offered by any ex-meta from long ago is unlikely to reflect the opinion offered by contemporary meta editors.
[edited by: crunchy_cajun at 7:22 pm (utc) on Jan. 29, 2003]
You don't have to. Just look up my history and you can see what I have been involved with.
I have never gotten any explanation at all as to why I was removed, BTW, but it was within an hour of posting a long message on here criticising ODP policies.
Abuse of editing privilages is not restricted to how one edits sites, so your post may have been the reason, if it shared information that was inappropriate for an editor to share in public forums.
I would think this is more likely given 20,000+ edits. Without knowing which thread/post, I couldn't even venture a guess, but it wouldn't be the first time.
However, a long critical post is a far cry from mosley700's insinuation that "As per the ODP Guidelines the two sites in question are fraternal mirror sites.." may have been the reason why he was cut loose.
The 2nd site was never listed, however I did go around for about 3 weeks internally questioning the 2 metas involved (sometimes in the forums) as to WHY it was rejected. It was basically the whole issue of our sites being red-flagged that triggered all else that followed.
BTW, but it was within an hour of posting a long message on here criticising ODP policies.
Once a decision has been reached to remove an editor, it is customary for the voting metas to wait a set amount of time for any objections to removal to be posted. Therefore the decision to terminate your account came a long time before you made that post.
Not me!. I think Hutch (?) or Rafalk said that. I'm not at all familiar with your editing.
@Rafalk, Yes, I'm aware that it was you. And it restored a large amount of faith in the ODP, and made me look twice at it.
I hope all ODP editors have the balance of judgement you have. Unfortunately, I'm aware that some have their own personal agenda, and wouldn't even list Google if my name was on the whois. (BTW, I'm not referring to KC.)
I was confused as to why windsun responded to this specific phrase, but now realize it was due to my own shhtuuupidity and confusion regarding who posted it.
Since then, I have been doing some digging, and found this thread also, which sheds a tiny amount of light on it:
[webmasterworld.com...]
A quote from one message there reads "An site that uses the same ecommerece site that many other sites use".
Now, I could be wrong, but it appears to me that what that is referring to is some sort of affiliate site. Yet our two sites in question are not even hosted on the same server or by the same company. In fact, one is not even an ecommerce site.
Now, that definition could also apply to the thousands of stores hosted by Yahoo. Since I have seen senior editors state things that are grossly wrong or misleading, such as stating that Yahoo stores are free, and that "only affiliate sites use Yahoo" (Sony, Barnes and Noble, and Dell would be disappointed to find that out).
The term is fascinating in itself, as it appears to have appeared out of thin air on the resource zone a few months back, to explain why some sites could not get listed to irate posters. Hutcheson apparently coined the phrase as an alternative to "affiliate site", and it was later picked up by other editors.
Of course, all this may be moot with the news just now coming over the wires, since ODP is an AOL subsidiary:
"AOL Time Warner Inc. (NYSE:AOL - news) on Wednesday posted a 2002 net loss of nearly $100 billion -- the largest annual loss in U.S. corporate history...."
Fraternal mirrors, in the context used by ODP editors, are two sites that, while not identical, provide overwhelming similar content. Oftentimes affiliate sites try using fraternal mirrors in order to dupe editors into accepting the same content twice (i.e. the graphics, font, and layout may be different but the written content is identical). That having been said not all fraternal mirrors are affiliate sites.
There is also a larger latitude of sites that would be considered "fraternal mirrors" - as opposed to simply mirror sites which are identical carbon copies of each other.
Fraternal twins, fraternal mirrors, they look different but for all intents and purposes are very similar in most other ways.
It isn't about who hosts a site, fraternal twins living in different homes are still fraternal twins, fraternal mirrors hosted by different hosts are still fraternal mirrors.
And therein lies the problem.
"...but the written content is identical"
That is the kicker - the two sites are not even close. In fact they are different enough that we get questions from customers asking why our competitor links to our store.
Feel free to look at the two websites in question and see if you think they fall under that definition. The main is listed in my profile, there is a link from there to the other one.
"I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to see that there's gambling being done in here!"
'Your winnings, sir.'
Hmm.
"Searched the web for "fraternal mirror". Results 1 - 7 of 7. Search took 0.13 seconds "
I just did a Google search, and it came up with 7 returns on that phrase.
5 of them refer to twins (as in people), one of them refers to this thread. One is a French site.
Next shot.
Sometimes those quotes can mess up a search. ;)
Yes. <cry />
Check out the Google cache.
I don't know why you felt the need to separate out your company information like that. The fact that it confuses even your customers should be an indication that maybe you should think about amalgamating all of your company information in one place.
