Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Is there any way you can find out category editor affiliations (sites he's related to)
And specially: Is there any way you can find out category meta editor affiliations (sites he's related to)
Notice that META editors are "bosses"
It's not true, but it's true that most of Meta are webmaster and SEO.
It's like in a big company: you do not need 51 % of the shares; several time you can have the power with just 10 %....
Often dmoz editors abuse it's privileges, and 99% are webmasters with it's own business and interests
You've just made a very unpleasant accusation towards pretty much everyone who could anwser your question.
Give me the statistical evidence for your 99% assertion (easiest way may be to download an RDF, extract all editor names, and then analyse their profile pages) and I'll suggest a way to do the analysis you want.
Now to say that the 99% figure would piss off those who could answer is a bit off. This is a webmaster forum and there is no way somebody that read that and was an editor could say they have no websites they control. I agree the number is just made up and is probably way off. Remember that 85% of all statistics are made up. :)
I don't know many people who *aren't* editors who don't have a least one website so it would hardly be surprising for the same to be true of editors as well.
Of the 3 I met, one was a school teacher who edits as part of an ongoing class project (the students find sites for her - i really like this and wish more could do it); another was a university academic who edited in his specialist area (I assume the university has a website that is nothing to do with him) and the 3rd was a MD who edited in the area of his discipline (I assume the hospital has a website that is nothing to do with him).
2 of them did not know what 'SEO' stood for!
Well, first of all, I can see how you got the opposite impression, but in reality: webmastering, in and of itself, is not a dishonest or contemptible activity!
I don't do it (much), but that's not because I think it's evil: it's just that people have wanted to pay me more for doing other things, and other people have been willing to provide me all the webmastering I've needed for free.
[Here's where webmastering (like lawyering) gets such a bad name, though: there are far more webmasters out there than society needs -- or that society can supply content for. So a lot of webmasters end up (like lawyers) drumming up business with faux content, preying on society with spams and scams.]
But there are genuine, honest businesses that didn't have websites -- and either hired one done, or did it themselves. There's no evil in that. There are people and organizations with genuine interests to share -- I mean natural interests, interests nobody had to pay them to have. There's no evil in sharing them.
Secondly, some editors became editall by LISTING the competition: political activists trying to make a complete catalog of political organizations (even ones that they personally found repugnant), real estate agents who wanted to list all the businesses in their hometown (then their state or province, then country, then continent...), religious people trying to catalog all kinds of religious activity (including the heretical forms!), ...
Thirdly, some editors by definition don't HAVE competition. I'm trying to place a small (tightly focussed) part of human experience and creativity online. Who is my competition? Who COULD be my competition? Anyone who announces their intention to do the work of publishing some content in my area of emphasis will find out -- what I've done that overlaps their work is theirs for the taking (with or without asking)! What they do, I'll leave for them to do, and more power to them, and any help I can give is theirs for the asking! I'll go on to the next item in my list. No point in duplicating effort, we're all cooperating. And the more effectively we cooperate, the more successful my efforts will be.
You can't use affiliations to investigate abuse on your own account, because you don't have the editor logs, so you don't know who did the edit(s) that you consider inappropriate.
I agree with most of your assertions!
ODP is a great resource, but there are areas where few meta SEOs act in a manner that is close to be unfair.
Sometimes they act in a way that comply with the DMOZ guidelines but in fact do collateral damages....
I do not want to be polemic here... If you like I can send you a sticki mail...
Which would actually be an issue of the appropriateness of 1, 2 or more specific guidelines. If adherence to guidelines creates, to use your phrase, collateral damage, then it should be completely irrelevant who followed the guidelines, and equally irrelevant whether he or she was a new editor, experienced editor, meta editor or some other editor level, and thus equally irrelevant to the original Q in this thread.
However, there are several other Shreadin' in the Threadin' 11/05 Events on tap this week, and many, some or whatever you wish to describe it do feature the same
tag teams. :)
You might run some honest editors off -- it's never a good management idea to make stupid rules with no justification other than to show your people you da boss and you don't trust them anymore.