Forum Moderators: open
Asking around, I was pretty stunned by some of the other editors and old pro's here when they told me this was now the standard MO for alot of tight categories.
Is this what the ODP has come too?
Have you ever:
- offered cash to edit or include a listing?
- offered cash and thtey accepted to edit a listing?
- as an editor been offered cash to edit a listing?
- taken cash to edit a listing?
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 4:50 pm (utc) on June 23, 2004]
This can be verified by everyone on this thread.
I said: "hutchenson, who admitted he joined DMOZ to promote his own incipient site"
Okay, explain my lie.
So, I am a liar, a jerk, a clinical paranoid, and I forget all the other names you called me.
I am also a user of DMOZ. And I offered a suggestion to improve DMOZ. Did you take the time to understand what I was suggesting? No, you quickly and repeatedly mischaracterized what I said for 13 pages and did it yet again.
I never said deny DMOZ editors the right to edit ANY directory. I said JUST ONE. The one they have a financial interest in. Is that so hard to keep focused on?
I know you dont want to understand what I am suggesting because you are against it. But it would be nice to debate the merits of what I am suggesting and not whatever you decide to pull out of your hat.
I am aware of the importance of a listing in the ODP specially because Google feeds on it to some extent. I was just amused at a post in this thread saying how irrelevant a listing was, but complaining about not getting in. It seemed disingenuous.
Fact is the ODP could be much better as it is seriously understaffed. However, the primary customers of the directory are and should be the searchers and not the webmasters. The fact that the number of searches per day is not 1% of what Google’s searches are is really irrelevant IMHO.
bhd735:
If you feel so strongly about it, why don’t you apply to become an editor in a category in which you don’t have a financial interest?
There IS one item in the editors' guidelines that says "you may not cool your own site." This may appear to fit the form of "we don't trust you to be fair". As I show below, it actually doesn't. And it caused both social and technical problems until we fixed it.
The effect on dishonest editors is exactly as would be expected by the thought experiment I described.
(1) The really stupid dishonest editors cool their own site. The fairly stupid dishonest editors lie about which sites are theirs, thinking nobody can catch them. Both sets get removed, as anyone who was less than slightly stupid would expect. No problem, man, "they drink, they get drunk, they fall down."
(2) Honest editors have reacted as I described. There was considerable heated discussion about "how can this be fair?" Under fire, the accepted interpretation evolved so the guideline is treated as "an editor's site can't be cooled" -- that is, we agree to lean over backward not to show favoritism to our own sites. And we agree that what one editor shouldn't do, another editor shouldn't do either -- because the surfers can't tell which editor did it. The real problem is not inadequate straitjackets for editors but protecting the directory from something that looks bat. And it looks just as bad either way.
The result is that some sites worthy of being cooled aren't. There are several categories where my own contributions comprise 50 to 90% of all the available material on the web, with multiple e-texts of primary and/or scholarly value: that is, dominating all other sites put together by any measure in breadth, authoritiveness, and depth. Yet they will not be cooled.
The lesson, I think, is clear. "express your mission; trust your editors; and save an audit trail." You don't have to try to predict every form of abuse that might occur; you don't waste time monitoring things that don't happen, or that don't cause problems if they do; but ex-post-facto oversight is always possible. So we don't have to assign motives to editors based on the depths of our own depravity; we don't have project the foetidity of our worst nightmares into our fellow-workers. We can just say to each editor (from the newbie to the most senior meta): you are responsible to the community for everything you do. Anyone can always ask about anything that seems inappropriate, and you'll be expected to justify or fix it."
That privilege of oversight is extended to the community. Oh, you can't impose your silly regulations on editors. And you can't engage in pilpul about the minutaia of "paragraph 16.1.156a subsection 14.3 of the internal ODP code as amended by the supplemental code for elimination of editor discretion." But ANY directory surfer can point to ANY editorial action and say, "this editorial action harmed the directory: this site should not have been added, that one should not have been removed, this is in the wrong category, one description is inaccurate, another is unfair." And the community WILL investigate it quickly.
So, for an editor, saying "but I complied with par. 16.1.156a in the original code because I figured out a NEW way to abuse" is no justification for any kind of abuse. Put another way, we don't need your silly regulation. Any editor that harms the directory, we can handle under our current rules. Any editor that is helping the directory, we don't WANT to interfere with.
The gist of the discussion always boils down to the same gist: we free the honest editors, and remove the dishonest ones. You limit the honest editors, and are blithely ignorant of the actions of the dishonest ones.
The ODP ideal is well worth defending at any length. And the more people understand the ODP ideal, the more potential editors and potential overseers the ODP will have. And that is all to the good.
You seem to be misunderstanding exactly what we're doing over at ODP, BettyB. We're not giving insider stock tips. In fact, we're not even ranking websites. We are categorizing them. We are a library, not a brokerage. If a children's author donated 100 new books to your local library, and one of them was a book she had written herself, would you consider it a "conflict of interest" for the librarian to gratefully shelve the donated books? I certainly hope not. That's all we're actually talking about here: an editor donating hundreds of entries, including one site written by himself, all of which we place as outgoing links from OUR OWN WEBSITE.
>I am wondering if you would care to share your personal answers to my
>previous questions. If you personally were not allowed to manage the
>one directory that you have a financial interest in, would you quit editing?
bhd735, I didn't answer that directly because it doesn't really pertain to me. I don't have a financial interest in any category. That was why I kept using your hypothetical bicycle manufacturer as an example. Would he quit, if we instead insisted that he edit the skateboard or linguistics or France category? I'd hope not, but I can guarantee you he'd edit less efficiently.
Part of the problem here is you're having trouble thinking outside a very narrow set of circumstances. Hutcheson and I both maintain NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL WEBSITES. We already link to our "competitors" (less cutthroat people generally call them "colleagues") from our own websites; why wouldn't we also link to them from the ODP categories? That's exactly what I was doing when I added those hundred or so "competitor" sites to the category my site was already listed in. (It's also exactly what Hutcheson was doing when you accused him of some sort of bizarre bias, by the way: entering his formidable collection of links into our database rather than hosting it himself.) For some reason you find it unethical for us to do this, I know, but luckily you aren't the one who gets to make those rules. This is, in the long run, our website. We may add sites in whatever manner benefits our users the most. Me using my specialized expertise to add many sites to this particular category is one of them.
[edited by: flicker at 8:37 pm (utc) on July 8, 2004]
>>If you feel so strongly about it, why don’t you apply to become an editor in a category in which you don’t have a financial interest?
That is a good suggestion. Then I will have done my part to keep one directory unbiased by financial interests.
I would prefer to get *all* of DMOZ to be unbiased by financial interest. That is why I continue to explain my simple, single little point again and again.
As others have said, having rules to prevent conflict of interest is standard business practice. It is not gestapo truth squad or triple checking peoples work for honesty or making extra work. It is standard business practice. It is assigning resources in the most effective way while avoiding a natural temptation.
Besides, do you really think these DMOZ folks would accept me as an editor after this thread? A strong bias has been shown against me personally by DMOZ personnel because of my view point.
As others have said, having rules to prevent conflict of interest is standard business practice.
I don't think of the ODP as a business. If it is, it certainly isn't profitable :)
Besides, do you really think these DMOZ folks would accept me as an editor after this thread?
Please, I don't think anyone knows who you are.....
Edit: Yeph, you are anonymous. The only one that could probably find out who you are is Brett.
I wouldn't imagine you'd enjoy volunteering your time for a directory you viewed in such raw commercial terms, but I've been wrong before...
>>"The gist of the discussion always boils down to the same gist: we free the honest editors, and remove the dishonest ones. You limit the honest editors, and are blithely ignorant of the actions of the dishonest ones."
No, that is not the gist of the discussion and never was. The gist of the discussion was conflict of interest.
I never suggested to remove any safeguards that prevent dishonest editors. Several of you have already said your mechanisms handle that fine.
Your example is irrelevant again. Try an example that is about a directory managed by a DMOZ editor that has a financial interest (site listed in that directory).
That is what the discussion was about.
That is what the discussion was about.
Hmmm, I thought it was about an editor asking for money to list one of Brett's sites. I hope it wasn't someone spoofing that editor's email to get him in trouble, but really how dumb can you be.
>>I wouldn't imagine you'd enjoy volunteering your time for a directory you viewed in such raw commercial terms, but I've been wrong before...
What does that mean? I am volunteering my time right now to try and change a problem I see in DMOZ.
How would you suggest I approach the DMOZ staff with an issue that is important to me and I believe the end user? Obviously, suggesting ideas on a forum such as this is considered "pure evil" among other descriptive insults.
By your posting a sad face, you imply that you would have liked to reject my application based solely on my posts here. I find that counter to what you DMOZ editors have been claiming.
No. But if the librarian was the author and she shelved the books that she had written but stuck those from other authors in her genre in a box in the back room I would consider that a conflict. Wouldn't you?
Doesn't matter that she is a volunteer, doesn't matter that the library is offering free book borrowing. Her biased actions have hurt the library and its patrons.
BettyB
I think you would be better able to answer which books are left in the back.
You are an editor, you can see the queue, and you can see which sites are left in that queue unreviewed. Take a look at any directory that has an editor with a site of his own in that directory.
Will there be more of his competitors in the queue (unreviewed) or in the directory (reviewed).
The silliest speculation of this thread to date. That's a smiley face, friend. "(-:"
>But if the librarian was the author and she shelved the books that she had
>written but stuck those from other authors in her genre in a box in the
>back room I would consider that a conflict.
Not what's happening. The editors being complained about are reviewing their own sites AS WELL AS MANY OTHER SITES. So it's more like they're giving us a big ol' box of books, of which they have a stake in one (but not all), and we are gratefully shelving ALL of them. Of course, we're not shelving *other* books that they *haven't* (yet) donated to us. But that's hardly a reason to slap them in the face and yell at them for donating only 100 books and not 1000, is it?
You are an editor, you can see the queue, and you can see which sites are left in that queue unreviewed.....
I knew someone would respond with that. You were the first.
You said you were interested. I provided you a mechanism to find the answer and you promptly said never mind. Same as every other editor in this thread.
My mistake flicker. I stand corrected. :-)
Wow!
> I stand corrected.
Wow!
>Not what's happening. The editors being complained >about are reviewing their own sites AS WELL AS MANY >OTHER SITES. So it's more like they're giving us a big >ol' box of books, of which they have a stake in one >(but not all), and we are gratefully shelving ALL of >them. Of course, we're not shelving *other* books that >they *haven't* (yet) donated to us. But that's hardly >a reason to slap them in the face and yell at them for >donating only 100 books and not 1000, is it?
I'm not worried about the author's own books that are donated. I'm worried about those books that I mentioned which end up in the back room.
Why are you now saying that's not happening when you and your colleagues (colleagues = coworkers not competitors) have said that not only does it happen, you rather have them put the books in the back room (the queue) then give bad/incorrect shelf placement?
Can you not -- even just a little teeny weeny bit -- see how the library and its patrons are hurt if the librarian/author purposely puts the competitors books in the back room (queue)?
BettyB
Now you have me curious. Did you add your commercial site to DMOZ yourself? Do you moderate the directory that your site is in? Is that where your 300 site backlog is?
I'll ask you the same questions I asked flicker. Would you quit editing DMOZ if you couldnt manage the directory that your commercial site is in?
Educate me on your situation and how you have no financial conflict of interest.
Having people knowledgable edit categories is plainly sensible and frankly anyone who suggests otherwise needs to examine their motivations in suggesting otherwise.
What any directory doesn't want is editors who act abusively, and it doesn't matter one tiny bit if they have sites in a category. In fact, again, it's plain irrational to link these two. People can act abusively out of direct competitive interest; they can do it for a bribe; they can do it just because they are plain mean. It doesn't matter why someone is naughty. Cops don't ask why a person broke in a store, whether it was because they were a competitor or not!
The ODP should have qualified people editing categories. The ODP should do its best to minimize abuse. If you care about this, then contribute and help achieve a fair directory.
You said you were interested. I provided you a mechanism to find the answer and you promptly said never mind. Same as every other editor in this thread.If one makes a point regarding something one should be able to back it up. Really, don't you think is a bit arrogant to say something, which other people with more experience in the subject have at best not noticed, and then ask them to find the supporting evidence?
I think only my boss could tell me to do that, and that is because he pays me.
Regarding the question about my site and cat. I would first like to know who you are and your sites then I will answer.
>>If one makes a point regarding something one should be able to back it up. Really, don't you think is a bit arrogant to say something, which other people with more experience in the subject have at best not noticed, and then ask them to find the supporting evidence?
Yes, I do think one should be able to back it up. Hutchinson has more experience than me on the inner workings of DMOZ and I believe he said something to the effect that "the most common abuse" in DMOZ was listing your own site and leaving other sites unreviewed. I will find the exact quote in this thread if you want.
Do you have supporting evidence to the contrary? If so, lets see it. You expressed interest in examples, but I guess that was just your way of scoring a point for the DMOZ editors.
>>Regarding the question about my site and cat. I would first like to know who you are and your sites then I will answer.
No need. I found the answer myself. You are the listed editor for the directory where your site is listed. Your site comes up second to DMOZ in google for the search terms in your description on DMOZ. Competitors on the first page of that google search are not listed in DMOZ at all.
So, you personally asked for an example of sites that are left unreviewed by editors with competing sites. Here is your example. Why are the top competitors to your site (according to google) not listed in the directory that you manage?
As a sometime volunteer in the local library, I can tell you how that works also.
Anyone can donate any book to the library. The librarian has the choice of accepting the donation and putting it in the open shelves, putting it in the back shelves, selling it immediately, or packing it away for possible future action. Does this sound at all familiar?
That "future action" may involve simply throwing it away, selling it for the library's profit, or placing it somewhere in the collection. Who decides? The librarians; the (largely volunteer) helpers make some decisions under guidelines laid down by the librarians. Who doesn't get a vote? The book author. Does this sound at all familiar?
If you have a problem with the guidelines, you would obviously berate whichever one of the volunteers you next saw in the mall. And I presume you think this would cause the board of trustees of the library to change their policies.
I don't know about your town, but it doesn't seem to work that way here.
No need. I found the answer myself. You are the listed editor for the directory where your site is listed. Your site comes up second to DMOZ in google for the search terms in your description on DMOZ....LOL You are a regular Sherlock Holmes :) It is dissapointing to hear that I only come up #2 when the darn anchor text is the actual site name :)
/maybe I should move it to widget-widget-redwidget.com
The person making the donation to us is the EDITOR, not the webmasters. It is the EDITOR who has provided us with a free donation of hundreds of listings to add to our directory at his own expense, just as the book donor in my example has provided the library with a free donation of hundreds of books. The fact that the book or the website exists in the first place isn't what matters to the library or the ODP, it's whether WE have a copy of it. And our copy is provided by the book donor, or the volunteer editor.
The book donor, just like the ODP editor, has improved the library by hundreds of new resources at no cost to them. The only proper response of the library is to thank him gratefully, not to kvetch about the hundreds of other books he didn't donate today or instruct him not to give us novels anymore since he is a novelist and cannot be impartial about the donation of novels. The donor hasn't caused any books to be hidden in any back rooms. There are many thousands of books he didn't give us himself, it's true, and he may have chosen books to donate based on which style of book he likes better. Or maybe he even took his ex-wife's novel about their relationship out of the box before he gave it to the library. It doesn't really matter. That's hundreds of books the library wouldn't have at all if not for that kind donor, and the library can even re-allocate their own funding to buy more books of a different sort now. Even the ex-wife's novel, if they want to.
It's just the same for us. An editor cannot hide a listing in some musty back room someplace: he can either provide us with a listing (by checking a site for functionality and quality, ensuring that it is not already listed in our directory under that or some other name, writing a title and description for it, and placing it at the proper location in our taxonomy), or he can not. Just like the book donor can either give the library a book or not. But even if the book owner doesn't choose to donate his own copy of his ex-wife's novel, he *hasn't destroyed the novel itself* nor has he lessened the chance that the library will purchase a copy of it someday. And even if an ODP editor doesn't add his ex-wife's personal page about him, he hasn't harmed her website itself nor lessened the chance that the ODP will add it someday.
Every time an editor creates a site listing, it is a donation of his or her time to the Open Directory Project. And as long as it's a quality listing, it is greatly appreciated, just as I'd welcome the donation of a quality book to the library. It can only enrich, never detract, from the collection. And if it turns out that no one ever donates a Luis de Camoes book or a Luis de Camoes website, that may be a bias of sorts, but it's no reason to reject the Harry Potter books or Harry Potter websites. It just means the library will have to spend its own money on books that aren't donated frequently enough, and that editalls and metas will have to spend more of their time and effort on sites that aren't listed frequently enough. Either way, the donations that DO happen make that easier and more possible.
Why would we -ever- want to turn down a valid site listing by a competent editor? It's a gift-wrapped present that enriches our project! Far from trying to think up ways to stop people from donating such things in the interest of some external and not-very-accurate concept of "fairness", I positively WELCOME anyone with sufficient writing, Internet, and library science skills, as well as the will to edit according to our guidelines (neutral descriptions and so forth), to do just that. Every quality site listing improves our directory. That's really all there is to it.
I positively WELCOME anyone with sufficient writing, Internet, and library science skills, as well as the will to edit according to our guidelines (neutral descriptions and so forth), to do just that. Every quality site listing improves our directory.
I second that! The more people involved the better the product. You might even be able to detect instances of "Editors Getting Offered or Expecting Compensation?" quicker.
/tries to get back in topic
Feel free to explain to me how the specific, concrete, real world example I just gave does not hurt the end user. Explain to me how the absence of top competitors to a DMOZ editor managed directory is not financially biased and does not harm the end user.
You all argued that this does not exist in DMOZ. I have now looked at a total of 2 directories and found similar bias in both. That is 2 for 2.
I await your explanation with interest.
I have now looked at a total of 2 directories and found similar bias in both.Hmmm no you haven't.
My advice, apply for an editorial position and make a difference. You are running against windmills thinking they are dragons. You have proven nothing, but the rethoric is getting us nowhere. So I am just going to use the couple of hours left in the afternoon trying to make a dent in my backlog.
I thank you for giving me the resolve to work on my cat. today. I wasn't planning to log in until the weekend.
Did I miss this? Which is the other one, Zeal?
Is this supposed to get us all up in arms, the fact that his own site appears 2/3 of the way down a page full of 150 links to his competitors? Most webmasters don't even add *one* of their competitors to a public directory, and now you're going to get on someone's case because he has listed "only" 148 competitors in his category?
I'll tell you what, I wish we had 2000 more editors with that sort of "bias." Our directory would be a lot bigger, and a lot of webmasters would see their sites listed a lot more quickly.
