Remove Listing from DMOZ

OK, I've heard it before and if I recall it would have turned DMOZ into something entirely different, but for the benefit of others who may have missed it, why don't you explain your process to stop abuse. The one that is unacceptable for virtually every editor currently serving not just some senior editors. Also, assuming I recall correctly, your lock-down on abuse would completely remove editor discretion, one of the basic concepts, force people to edit in places they had no interest in, stop editors from sourcing sites independently of submissions, turn it into a webmaster listing service. The ability to say "today I am interested in green energy, I've found 12 brilliant sites that would really enhance that category, I'm going to list them" would disappear.

 

I think what you really mean that will disappear, is the ability to say, "today I am interested in green energy, I have signed up as affiliate and made 12 brilliant sites that would really enhance my bank account, I'm going to list them".

Will new editors be more interested to volunteer in a category that they are interested in or some BS category because it doesn't have editor and has 30-40 listings?
Why should it make any difference for them when they find interesting sites that qualifies for listing, if it is added through submission system or directly by them unless it does not really qualifies?
I understand that such system that stops corruption will not be popular with senior editors since they have worked so hard for the privilege of being corrupt but I am sure none of the real editors or new volunteers will have anything against it and appreciate the possibility of accepting more volunteers, clearing submission lines and improving DMOZ image at the same time.

 

No, I mean what I said first time. That is the way I used to edit as an editall and major green energy companies where I live don't have affiliate schemes.

It's no good saying things like that without explaining your fantastic abuse-free system. But if I recall it correctly it was the sort of proposal that would be universally opposed by editors. You have free rein here to explain, so explain and let people comment on specifics.

 

I am sure all the bank tellers also would like a system that the money is not checked and counted on daily basis. In fact, I remember a girl that I knew who was working in a bank and was complaining that 5 people had to stay in the bank for almost 2 hours after closing because they were short about $20 dollars. The bank spent $150 in wages to find the $20. Why? Because no matter what the cost, being short on the money is not acceptable.
The same must be true about DMOZ. What is more important, Having a procedures that stops the abuse or the feelings of some editors that might not like such procedures?
The other important question is, why these editors don't like to implement procedures that stops the abuse if they are not abusing the system?

 

Why don't you answer brizzie's question?

By the the way the ODP is not bank. Would you like me to explain the difference between a bank and a website directory? Or perhaps you might like to to look it up for yourself?

 

I think it is the same. I want to learn more. Can you please explain me?

 

Also, can you please explain the difference to me between nebuchadrezzar (or lmocr for that matter, who I see is reading this thread) and a completely clueless troll?

 

Yeah that is what you said in the other thread. I guess you are not interested in the answer to brizzie's question.

 

No, neb, you've missed the point yet again. I am not interested in your pointless posts. I actually respect brizzie, even when I disagree with him. You (and lmocr) aren't in that league at all.

 

I don't think anyone is in brizzie's league (when are you coming back?).

I'm glad to welcome neb to minstrel's bad list.

 

But what are these procedures - explain them, allow comment. How can people support or oppose some generic statement with nothing backing it up?

When it comes to Most Long Winded and Most Evil - maybe, when you're good, you're good, no sense in false modesty As to the question, according to insider gworld I'd be black-balled.

 

You have previously stated that stopping corruption is not an acceptable alternative for editors, so what is the point?

Just to start the discussions, what is the big problem if all new additions have to go through the submission lines instead of being added directly to the directory? The only problem that editors won't like will be the simple fact that they can not add their "special" sites fast enough or there will be more control that the site really qualifies.

 

You know brizzie never said stopping corruption is not an acceptable alternative for editors.

Gworld, I know you're an editor, but do you actually edit? I don't mean the bare minimum required to keep your account, I mean do you edit productively, on a regular basis? Do you actually review sites and build categories? For example, have you ever seen submissions for schools, police, emergency services, parks, museums, and sites of that nature? Do you think we shouldn't list them since they don't submit?

 

You missed the point, I didn't say that we shouldn't list those sites because they don't submit, I said that editors should add the sites they find and want to be listed to the submission line instead of directly adding it.

 

Are you saying that editors who only do the bare minimum are not valuable and excellent editors?

 

I don't recall ever saying such a thing. But I may have said that your way of stopping corruption would be unacceptable. You may have refined since, there may be other views. That's the point. On the one hand you have the battle against abuse, on the other you have editor satisfaction and productivity and there is a point where anti-abuse measures impact on the other side so severely it cripples the actual purpose of the directory. When terrorists force democracies into taking police-state powers who actually wins? The biggest winners are the terrorists because their action has forced democratic society to change to the detriment of the citizens. In DMOZ the terrorists are the abusers. Solutions should not destroy the satisfaction and rewarding experience of good honest editors. To oppose Guantanamo Bay does not mean you are in favour of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism though there are those who would label you as such. To oppose draconian anti-corruption methods in DMOZ where these impact on non-abusive editors is not support of corruption no matter how much you try and label people with that.

 

OK. Instead of adding the 12 green energy sites directly I added them to the unreviewed pile using the external link. Then I go to the unreviewed pile and list them? Two steps instead of one, more time, no difference in end product. How did that in any way prevent corruption?

 

Since you brought the politics in to this, your postings actually reminds me of the Bush speech on torture. "WE don't torture people, we just don't want a law that forbids us to torture people."

 

Well DMOZ does have a law against corruption. It is a question of how you enforce it. Or are you suggesting the US introduce a law to forbid torture by banning every possible device that could be used as a torture implement? Sorry, no Internet, we've just banned electricity in case someone decides to misuse it by attaching electrodes to gworld's scrotum.

 

Personally I would say that, but it's not up to me. If it were up to me they'd be gone unless there was a good reason for it, especially the ones who make a habit of it.