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]
We list most commercial sites only once, in the single most appropriate category. Many of these sites are listed in a higher-level DMOZ category than the one you're looking at, because they offer more services than just this one. But they all have listings. You can find them by using the ODP search function.
So none of these "missing" sites are actually missing from our directory at all, except for the two which don't meet our quality standards. *bonks head* ...Look, you're welcome to private-mail me with more examples if you find them, but I doubt I'm going to be responding to them with a tremendous amount of urgency after this particular bout of wolf-crying.
Actually, what he said was "Webmaster joins a category, concealing his association with site. Adds site, leaves other sites in unreviewed. (in reality this is the most common form of abuse in the ODP system; it works just the same in yours.)". You keep overlooking the "concealing his association with site" part of that comment.
… because he has listed "only" 148 competitors in his category?
Look, you're welcome to private-mail me with more examples…..
As a sometime volunteer in the local library, I can tell you how that works also. <<<
I think I must be in the twilight zone. I don't need to hear how a library runs. I was responding to Flicker's analogy.
Am I the only one who thinks this thread has outlived its usefulness?
A suggestions was made. Certain ODP editors don't feel the suggestion is necessary and somehow feel threatened that the suggestion was even made. Lots of name calling because the suggestions apparently not welcome. Anyone who agrees with the suggestion also attacked. Doesn't look like any minds are going to be changed here.
BettyB
Flicker, the only reason I singled out the example I did was because he said I was arrogant for not posting an example. So I did. You all said I was making it up and Flicker you, yourself, said if I posted a specific example you would personally look into it.
Do you want me to post the exact urls I am referring to? I doubt it, you just want to defend your position.
Fine, you all believe conflict of interest, even in an obvious financially lucrative example is a perk of the job at DMOZ. So be it.
I made my suggestion in good faith. It was constructive and it was clear. You all chose to go into attack mode from the start.
Flicker, I asked you for a suggestion as to how to communicate my suggestions to DMOZ staff in a way that wouldnt get your hackles up. You chose to go on attack mode instead of answering that as well.
Well I am done. DMOZ is biased and proud of it. I stand by my claim that it is overrun by financial interests. I can prove it with exact URLs and the waybackmachine. DMOZ editors can easily do the same and choose not to.
LoanUniverse, I already responded to your supposed advice. You chose to call me a liar instead of answering my questions.
Motsa, I didnt overlook anything. You dont have to conceal your affiliation to your site. You can have conflict of interest all you want according to this thread. It is welcome. So that distinction is irrelevant and your point is moot.
BettyB
I >did<. I spent about twenty minutes finding and booting up that category, looking up the Google results, and running each one through the ODP search From your complaints, I expected to find a small category with few competitors listed in it, a huge backlog of good sites, and a Google page full of results that were missing from our directory. Instead I found a large category brimming with competitors, with no apparent bias towards the editor's site, and a Google page full of results that were ALL LISTED IN OUR DIRECTORY except for two sites which did not conform to our guidelines. You apparently hadn't even bothered to CHECK them before screaming about their absence!
What a colossal waste of twenty minutes. I said I would personally look into your concerns with the thought in mind that you were going to be truthfully presenting a problem, not inventing problems out of thin air and innuendo. I guess if that's really the worst you can say about our directory--that we have a commercial category with only 150 options for our users in it--oh, yes, and a statement about Google results that isn't true--that we're doing all right after all.
Anyone who has a *real* abuse issue, please report it via our public abuse report system (search for those four words on Google to find it). We care a lot about good sites being deleted, bad sites being added, biased descriptions, biased categories (i.e. all the sites in an issue category present only one side of the issue), and anything to do with an editor accepting bribes or issuing extortion threats.
We *don't* care much about empty wastes of our time complaining about full and well-maintained categories and top-ranking Google sites missing from our directory when they aren't missing.
To this point I have not insulted; I have not threatened; I have disagreed, but civilly, and have been trying to act with good faith in this thread, and now I find that good faith abused with spurious and time-wasting accusations about nonexistent problems crafted from half-truths in an attempt to 'win' an argument Usenet style.
I'll think twice before taking seriously any future complaints of yours, believe that.
Doesn't look like any minds are going to be changed here.
They never are with these types of threads. One side insists everything is working fine, the other claims the end product is not one of quality or is missing key sites.
It's probably not going to change anytime soon, so no sense stressing over it.
...I will take your advice and steer clear of these turkeys.
I told you not to encourage him, flicker. Back in my misspent youth, I wanted to make people understand and change. Now, I realize that you can try once or twice, but then it is best to walk away.
/I also used to be much more liberal... Darn I am getting old.
P.S: I did not call anybody a liar. That is a complete lie! :)
P.S.2: skibum get out of my mind
I will take your advice and steer clear of these turkeys.
Good to see you have admitted defeat, by resorting to personal attacks.
Confucious say "when in hole... stop digging".
The reason I said you keep overlooking it is that you keep quoting hutcheson as saying that the most common abuse was people signing up to be editors and only listing their own site when what he said was much more specific, that the most common abuse is people signing up to be editors without declaring their affiliations and only listing their own site. An editor having a affiliation with a site or sites in a category they can edit is not considered abuse unless they are hiding that affiliation or treating the site unfairly. I wasn't addressing any of the other comments you'd made in this entire thread.
The above is a key point that you and the ODP editors don't/won't agree upon -- you think anyone signing up to be an editor and listing their own site is abuse and the ODP doesn't, unless they hide their affiliation. The simple fact that an editor lists their own site doesn't make it abuse from an ODP point of view (and that really is the only point of view that matters here) unless and until said editor starts treating that site unfairly.
It seems like something we're just going to have to agree to disagree about because you won't likely ever see our point of view and we're not going to change our policies in this regard anytime soon (because we don't consider it broken).
