Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.159.50.111

Forum Moderators: Webwork & skibum

Message Too Old, No Replies

Will dmoz founder get the boot

Interesting stuff going on

     
7:11 am on Jan 22, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member powdork is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 13, 2002
posts:3346
votes: 0


Whilst we know this nor the public forum is the place to discuss internal dmoz politics there is some intersting stuff going on involving Mr Skrenta, various DMOZ metas, and rubberstamped.org.
It seems Mr. Skrenta approved the listing for a directory (rubberstamped.org) which doesn't meet the stringent guidelines for directories to be listed in the ODP. There are questions as to whether the listing was approved in return for marketing value received.
Another question which has arisen is the practice of finding a directory with unique content (for a directory I mean this to be qualified listings that are not in dmoz) and then adding the listings to dmoz while removing or rejecting the directory for a lack of unique content.

Anyway, I just find this stuff fascinating and wanted to share.;)

11:02 pm on Jan 31, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 2, 2004
posts:99
votes: 0


Interesting. He can't really be kicked out of his own creation can he?
10:10 am on Feb 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 14, 2003
posts:572
votes: 0

7:45 pm on Feb 1, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 23, 2003
posts:71
votes: 0


He can't really be kicked out of his own creation can he?

He most certainly can. ODP is a social organization. If someone is going to disagree with the consensus and continue to squabble with a group decision, he is excluding himself from society. In a way, ODP doesn't "kick out" anyone; they kick themselves out by turning away from the community.

7:08 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 8, 2004
posts:527
votes: 0


LizardGroupie, I beg to differ. A hint of a disagreement with a certain editor can get you booted out. Even after you have given up on making a point. Even when this argument is about a special case and the finer points of editing.
8:16 pm on Feb 3, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 24, 2003
posts:106
votes: 0


Major coporations routinely kick out the founder of the corporation when the founder no longer has the best interests of the corporation at heart, or when they no longer have common goals
5:14 am on Feb 4, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 22, 2002
posts:193
votes: 0


LizardGroupie, I beg to differ. A hint of a disagreement with a certain editor can get you booted out. Even after you have given up on making a point. Even when this argument is about a special case and the finer points of editing.
Removals are not done lightly and editors are not booted out for disagreeing in a thread with another editor, senior or otherwise. Period.
2:09 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:May 26, 2004
posts:1392
votes: 0


Removals are not done lightly and editors are not booted out for disagreeing in a thread with another editor, senior or otherwise. Period.

You have GOT to be kidding. I have been following the ODP saga for years, both inside and out, and I can say without any doubt at all that your statement is ... well, let's just say "questionable"...

5:04 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 11, 2002
posts:126
votes: 0


your statement is ... well, let's just say "questionable"
It's actually 100% accurate.

Question it all you like, but the procedures - with all their checks, balances and requirements for hard evidence - are laid down and followed to the letter. The meta editors, admins and staff know this and, by and large, other editors without access to the process have confidence in their leaders.

Any contrary claims from removed editors can be safely ignored.

Nobody weeps when an abuser is expelled - except the abuser of course.

Jim Noble
meta

5:27 pm on Feb 5, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 7, 2002
posts:906
votes: 0


How is this any suprise that coruption reaches the highest levels of DMOZ?

The whole idea of "volunteers" directing traffic worth billions is corrupt .

12:20 pm on Feb 7, 2005 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member from GB 

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 22, 2002
posts:433
votes: 0


The whole idea of "volunteers" directing traffic worth billions is corrupt
.

Wouldn't say having volunteers in a powerful organisation is corrupt per se; what is corrupt is when editors ensure their own sites have multiple listings and their rivals are booted out of the directory.

5:09 am on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:July 20, 2003
posts:12
votes: 0


what is corrupt is when editors ensure their own sites have multiple listings and their rivals are booted out of the directory

This is almost becoming a cliché. If there is so much corruption happening, why are people not reporting it? There is a very good system for reporting abuse in the ODP (search on "dmoz report abuse") and yet we see very few reports with verifiable evidence. Just because your web site hasn't been listed it doesn't mean that there is some type of abuse happening.

That's not to say that there aren't editors with their own personal agendas, but for the most part those people are usually dealt with pretty swiftly - and if you really do have evidence that someone is abusing their privileges, please do report it. We can't fix it if we don't know about it.

10:26 pm on Feb 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:July 14, 2003
posts:1782
votes: 0


donaldb, is it acceptable practice to become an editor and include your own site in your particular category?

That obviously would be a motivating factor for me to become an editor, but certainly not the only factor. I'm extremely familiar with the category I'd like to be listed in, and could separate the "chafe from the wheat."

12:09 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member g1smd is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:July 3, 2002
posts:18903
votes: 0


You can edit your own sites, yes; but if that is your sole reason for joining then don't bother.

You see, it will probably take a meta editor more time to review your editor application than it would for that editor to review at least several sites; so if you add less sites as an editor than the meta could have done in the time it took to review your application then the directory has lost rather than gained.

12:54 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 10, 2004
posts:429
votes: 0


I managed to get a couple of sites listed painlessly in 2000/2001 - since then I've had little joy submitting to Dmoz.

The categories suitable for my sites no longer have editors.

I've attemped to volunteer to edit categories, but I never receive a response.

My (small) experience of posting a query on resource zone usually results in a smug retort from some smarmy Dmozling.

That's my Dmoz experience in the last couple of years.

3:01 am on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:May 5, 2002
posts:825
votes: 0


>>The categories suitable for my sites no longer have editors.
The category may not have any "listed" editors but no category is without an editor. There are a number of editors that are able to edit across the directory.

>>I've attemped to volunteer to edit categories, but I never receive a response.
When submitting your application you should have received a confirmation message that you must reply to before your application is accepted for review. If you did not reply to this message you're appplication will never be seen.

3:43 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:July 20, 2003
posts:12
votes: 0


is it acceptable practice to become an editor and include your own site in your particular category?

You should take a look at the section of the ODP Guidelines that talks about this - [dmoz.org...] - the second paragraph answers this question. You'll get a better answer from that then from me just typing the same thing :)
3:53 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 3, 2004
posts:333
votes: 0


foxtunes - ditto.
10:36 pm on Feb 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:July 14, 2003
posts:1782
votes: 0


Thanks, donaldb. I can't see any conflict of interest on my part in becoming an editor.

Just what I need, though: another volunteer position. :=)

4:12 pm on Feb 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 15, 2005
posts:14
votes: 0


This is almost becoming a cliché. If there is so much corruption happening, why are people not reporting it?
4:18 pm on Feb 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 22, 2002
posts:193
votes: 0


Did you really just mean to post a quote? And if so, huh?
4:22 pm on Feb 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 15, 2005
posts:14
votes: 0


This is almost becoming a cliché. If there is so much corruption happening, why are people not reporting it?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

From what I have observed, an "open" project has a very secretive culture. While it may very well be fair, it gives the appearance of being arbitrary and inconsistent - whether, in fact, it is or is not.

Why would people report abuse to a closed, highly structured society when that could result in having their sites banned?

DMOZ SEEMS to be very self-protective and SEEMS to discourage the kind of critical discourse that MIGHT improve its credibility.

11:16 pm on Feb 15, 2005 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 14, 2003
posts:572
votes: 0


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just because so many people post in so many threads in so many forums about there being so much corruption, just perpetuates the myth and fantasy that there is. Produce some evidence and facts rather than untruthful slander. How many abuse reports have you filed?
From what I have observed, an "open" project has a very secretive culture

You have a very serious misunderstanding of what the "open' in Open Directory Project means - editors have discussed this ad nauseum in many theads in many forums - why do so many refuse to "get it". I guess it is easier to petend that the "open" means something that its not, then attack what its not.
DMOZ SEEMS to be very self-protective and SEEMS to discourage the kind of critical discourse that MIGHT improve its credibility.

That one is easy to answer. Get your facts right first. Don't characterize DMOZ as something that its not and then attack that characteization.
12:52 am on Feb 16, 2005 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 15, 2005
posts:14
votes: 0


>>Just because so many people post in so many threads in so many forums about there being so much corruption, just perpetuates the myth and fantasy that there is. Produce some evidence and facts rather than untruthful slander.<<

First of all, the correct term is libel - not slander which applies to the spoken word. I never wrote that there was corruption. What I DID opine is that the argument that "If there is so much corruption happening, why are people not reporting it?" is rhetoric expaining a basic falacy of logic that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Moreover, I wasn't aware that DMOZ published statistics concerning the number of complaints and their ultimate resolution.

>>How many abuse reports have you filed? <<

Zero. The question is irrelevant to my opinion. It's simply more argumentum ad hominem.

>>You have a very serious misunderstanding of what the 'open' in Open Directory Project means<<

My original statement was "From what I have observed, an "open" project has a very secretive culture." Note the quotes around the word open suggesting an expression of irony not fact. But just for you, I'll restate:

"From what I have observed, DMOZ has a very secretive culture."

Rebutting the opinion is accomplished through constructive argument in contrast to the ad hominem approach. I also went on to write ". . . while it may very well be fair, it gives the appearance of being arbitrary and inconsistent - whether, in fact, it is or is not."

You didn't quote that portion. However, it seems clear that I was not being accusatory in any fashion. Of course, that is a greater challenge for you to respond to and the phrase completely refutes your nonsense about attacks and "slander."

>>Get your facts right first. Don't characterize DMOZ as something that its not and then attack that characteization. <<

What I wrote was "DMOZ SEEMS to be very self-protective and SEEMS to discourage the kind of critical discourse that MIGHT improve its credibility."

Your answer does nothing to refute what I expressed as perception. I never expressed any issue of fact, let alone statements that could be challenged as inaccurate. Nice try though.

Oh and by the way, I have no economic dog in this fight. I have three sites; Our corporate site is a closed (password protected) client portal except for avocational Linux materials unrelated to our quality management consulting practice. The second is a pro bono effort and the third is a parked domain. I don't give a rodent's derriere if any of them are ever listed in ODP. It's unnecessary.