Editors with Conflict of Interest??

shame you didnt see the posted examples..which were removed!!!! they were pretty specific....

The examples were removed because they violated the terms of this forum, which are articulated here.

We do not discuss specific sites.

We did provide you with generic answers to your initial quesitons, which apparently did not satisfy you as evidenced by your comment:

cant be bothered any more

Click to expand...

and by your comment following additional explainations which also provided you with a path you could puruse if you had evidence of wrongdoing:

Lol!

Click to expand...

We also explained that the information you requested in your second question was not something that we share, and directed you to our FAQ.

Is there anything else we can assist you with that falls within the guidelines of this forum?

ROFLMAO!

your definition of general responses is a wide one. To totally ignore the point of the examples but still offer specific reasons for the examples being listed is no different than saying a murder trial cannot have any witnesses for the defence but the prosecution can have a free hand. It kinda skews the likely outcome!

It was interesting to note talk of editors and their own sites and of editors that particpate in seo forums through this thread.

Im really not knocking you guys. The title of the thread that caught my eye was

"Editors with Conflict of Interest??"

and since most neutral observers with some understanding of its working would find much to support the statement i could see that all posters to the thread had been met with the same collective response.

a: accuse of the poster of being sore his own site didnt get added whether or not he even mentioned having his own website.
b: pick small points from posts that suited their defence and place their own misinterpretation upon those choice points and reply to that instead of the entirety of the posts.
c: always propose the improbable if the probable did not suit their defence

also worth noting the editors who spoke of their own websites being added (i liked the one where his description was cut down so thats ok) and then told us how they prefer editors to go out and find sites in the wild rather than through suggestions. It was also interesting to see that editors also participate in seo forums.

Just to clarify. I do not have a grievance from a personal standpoint. I just thought this thread was not balanced and wanted to contribute (and i do enjoy a good discussion ). I do not say every editor is biased with a conflict of interest. However i do say that in many of the commercial cats conflict of interest is there. To listen to the replies in this thread replies you would be lead to believe that it doesnt exist or is a tiny problem, i would say that is underplaying it. And even where i know to my own mind it exists it not a huge deal to me. People doing best by themselves is pretty natural, good luck to those guys who are in that position. I just say lets keep the thread real.

also worth noting the editors who spoke of their own websites being added (i liked the one where his description was cut down so thats ok) and then told us how they prefer editors to go out and find sites in the wild rather than through suggestions. It was also interesting to see that editors also participate in seo forums.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure which post you're refering to, but, I think I did post once a long time ago, that when I first joined 6 years ago, instead of adding my own site to the category myself (which I had every right to do), I asked a meta editor to review my site for me, so there would be absolutely no question of fairness on my part.

After that, I edited my listing and cut the description down even further to demonstrate that I was putting other sites ahead of my own, so I think you misread my intent.

The truth of the matter is that I was being unintentionally abusive to my own site by showing a reversed discrimination, and I was wrong to do that because I wasn't being unbiased in my editing (though my intentions were good). I was being a little overly careful to be fair.

I have a furniture refinishing business, and I have no competition, so it wouldn't have been an issue anyway, but I take unbiased editing very seriously and when I hear accusations of conflict of interest, I get a little po'd because I haven't seen any in the 6 years I've been here.

As far as seo forums go, even though I have no sites of my own anymore (and don't intend on having any), I do participate at DP to give the facts about the Directory as I know them, and dispell some of the misinformation that's being handed out, and I don't hide who I am.

but how it be said on the one hand site suggestions can wait for months or longer without review and its no big deal because its preferred that editors go out and find sites on their own, and then its ok for editors to add their own sites? Is that not a conflict of interests or at least a conflict of intent?

but how it be said on the one hand site suggestions can wait for months or longer without review and its no big deal because its preferred that editors go out and find sites on their own, and then its ok for editors to add their own sites? Is that not a conflict of interests or at least a conflict of intent?

Click to expand...

Not at all.

Sites can be found any place, at any time. Why would we not list a site we owned, as long as it qualified to be in the category we edit in?

That's not always the case either. If our site belonged in a category we didn't edit in, we are allowed to submit it to that category, but, it would wait right along with every other site suggestion there, and contacting any editor about it could be considered editor abuse and cause to be removed.

In my case, my site belonged in the category I edited in, and I could have legitimately added it myself, but I chose not to, I asked a meta editor to review it and make that decision. But I wasn't required to do that, I did it to go one step beyond fairness.

The important thing about adding your own site to a category you edit in, is to also list all of your competitors sites, and treat them all as equally as you treat your own site. (If they all qualify to be listed)

And, no editor owns a category, they just have permission to edit there. Many other editors can also edit there, and do, so no one editor ever has complete control of a category.

The Directory allows the public to suggest sites as a help to us in building categories. We're not listing sites, we're really building categories, so whether we use the sites that are suggested to us by the public, or whether we find sites by following links on existing sites, local ads, forums, or using search engines doesn't really matter, they are all part of the same pool of sites that are available on the Internet.

Suggested sites are just one part of that whole, so it's just one slice of the pie, not the whole pie.

so your saying its legitimate to add your own site to your own category. Im sorry but that is a conflict of interest by any interpretation. You may argue its legitimate and you would not be wrong. But conflict of interest does not require illegitimacy, it simply means your own interests conflict with the nature of your actions. An editor is not the best person to judge his own sites merits.

You seem to suggest that an editor should not ever list their own sites. That is, IMO, an unsupportable position. Editors should not abuse their positions as editors to list their sites to the exclusion of others.

If we wanted to prohibit editors fom listing their own sites, then we would not allow them to include one of their own sites in the editor applications.

Editing is, to a great degree, about balance.

Editors need to keep their eyes on the good of the overall directory and not take individual editing actions that harm the directory. That's why editors spend so much time moving inappropriately or even maliciously suggested sites into the correct categories.

We write category guidelines that are regularly ignored.

We spend time surfing for new sites because, in many categories, the quality of suggestions are simply so poor as to make spending much time workaing the pool highly unproductive. Yet, other categories have pools of suggestions that are highly relvant and valuable. Editors need to balance these things.

For example, within Regional, there is not that much pure spam, and the further into the directory tree you go, the better the quality of the suggestions. Yet, at the top levels of Regional, the quality of suggestions is often poor as lazy/malicious suggesters decide to dump sites at the highest possible level.

Most specialized topical categories have pretty good suggestions. Few spammers are going to bother trying to mess with a category about the B-1 Lancer bomber.

Huge portions of shopping are a great wasteland in terms of suggestions.

Editors need to look at the suggestion pool with a practiced eye and do what is best for the directory and the people who use it.

Becoming an editor is also a position of trust, and we don't tolerate any monkey business, as some ex editors have found out. We don't judge a sites worth, per se, but the unique content it either has or doesn't have. Judgement is a subjective thing, and requires personal opinion which will vary from editor to editor.

Unique content, on the other hand, is very objective, and it can be seen in black and white, allowing any editor to make an objective decision about any sites qualification to be listed.

Editors do have some discretion, and not all editors agree, but as every category is open to multiple editors, and as editors are required to list any afilliations they have right on their dashboards, it would be difficult and very unwise for an editor to be biased towards a site he owned, or against a competitors site. Especially, when we encourage the reporting of any suspicians by the public via the prominently displayed abuse form.

Accusations are not taken lightly, and get a thorough investigation.

you didnt address the fundamental issue and that is allowing editors to add their own sites is in itself a position of conflicting interests. Its a very basic point. It doesnt matter if you can make the case that the sites are added by merit or not. If anyone adds their own site they automatically enter a position of conflicting interests.

To pickup on the offtopic point about unique content being objective, that's really not the case at all. Unique to you means to your knowledge, to your understanding, in your interpretation, it is very much subjective. Unique text is not the same as unique content so even the term unique becomes subjective.

you didnt address the fundamental issue and that is allowing editors to add their own sites is in itself a position of conflicting interests.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did. It is an allowed practice.

allowing editors to add their own sites is in itself a position of conflicting interests

Click to expand...

We disagree.

If anyone adds their own site they automatically enter a position of conflicting interests.

Click to expand...

You are welcome to your opinion.

To pickup on the offtopic point about unique content being objective, that's really not the case at all. Unique to you means to your knowledge, to your understanding, in your interpretation, it is very much subjective. Unique text is not the same as unique content so even the term unique becomes subjective.

Click to expand...

Wow, you are really stretching on that one. If someone posts a photograph that they took, and they have the only copy, then that is unique. If you originally author a text, then that is unique. If you paraphrase an article out of Wikipedia, that is not unique.

Once you have reviewed thousands of webistes, spotting non-unique content get easier, just as experienced college professors can spot a less-than-unique term paper a mile away.

It is called judgement.

Environments that lack judgement, or that don't trust people to use judgement, often intitute "zero tolerance" rules. Look at your typical school district, where 5 year-olds can get suspended for drawing certain pictures. We are a community where we expect editors to apply their personal knowledge, with the shared community's knowledge, with the editing guidelines.

We have guidelines not rules because we trust our editing community, and that trust is almost always rewarded. We do not need a lot of rigid rules that take away the ability of our editors to make judgement decisions. That is why any editor has the right to re-edit a site -- even if it was added by a meta editor. Actually, it is not a right, it is an obligation if there is something patently wrong with a listing.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you are not trolling. I do suspect, however, that you are looking at this project from an entirely different perspective (not right, not wrong, just different) -- which is driving this discussion.

I strongly recommend that you take a few minutes and read through or editing guidelines -- they will provide a great perspective on how we approach the task of editing. You'll find lots of uses of the word "should" and very, very few uses of the word "must."

If you have two cookie cutter Real Estate sites, but one of them has the personal profile of the real estate agent on it, that would be unique content and very easy to spot. One would get listed, the other wouldn't.

The question is almost always, "Would the information provided on the site benefit the web surfer looking for that kind of information."

The generic site would not. The other site has the additional information about the agent, which would be something the surfer looking for an agent would find useful.

No judgement is really required, the information is there, and any editor can spot it. It's objective, the unique content is either there or it's not. Subjective would be, do I think it's well written and informative enough. That's not a judgement I should be making, the web surfer will judge that.

yes unique is objective but judging what is unique is subjective. You seem to be suggesting when an editor reviews a site he knows what is unique. There is no way for an editor to have complete knowledge of the entire internet.

Unique content can be something very minor, like one photo of a personally built watergarden (a category I have an interest in and edit). There can be no other watergarden that's exactly like that one, and no commentary about how it was done would be the same. It's a hobby of mine.

It varies from category to category, and an editor will know what is unique content for that category.

Take fishing charter guides, something else I edit, unique content in that category is never an issue there, but it is in a real estate category because those kind of sites are all very similar and contain the same standard information on every one of them, so we look for anything that's different.

Even though I'm not a fisherman and have no interest in the topic, that category needed an editor badly, and it's a lot of fun editing there really, so though I'm not familiar with a lot of the terminology, and it takes me longer to look the sites over, I use the same basic editing Guidelines we use in all parts of the Directory.

I could edit in any part of the Directory that was handed to me, because we have the Category Descriptions which tells us what the scope of the category is and the existing listings to look over, lots of other editors to ask advice from, and our Guidelines apply to all parts of the Directory. Unique content is usually pretty easy to spot, once you familiarize yourself with the category.

"Even though I'm not a fisherman and have no interest in the topic,"


thats quite funny. The number of people that ive come across that cant get to be editors in topics they are amongst the knowledgeable for and then people can be editors for something they know nothing about and could care less about. Words like "own goa"l and "shot self in foot" in come to mind.

Expertise in and passion for a topic are not required -- most areas of the directory can be edited quite capably without either. ODP editing skills or the potential to attain them are what is important.

people can be editors for something they know nothing about

Click to expand...

Yes indeed. In fact many editors comment that they have learned about a subject because of building and improving a category, rather than the other way around.
It's one of the often unexpected pleasures of being an editor.

makrhod said:

Yes indeed. In fact many editors comment that they have learned about a subject because of building and improving a category, rather than the other way around.
It's one of the often unexpected pleasures of being an editor.

Click to expand...

ROFLMAO!
So you think someone who knows nothing of a topic is well placed to judge the best sources? Crikey!
That explains why a cat that i have hobiest interest in is full of rubbish. Its because the subject is an area of fast moving updates and the vast majority of websites retain old out of date information. The only people aware of this are those intimately involved in the topic. Its sad that editors let loose on a cat with no understanding of it go with the majority of websites stating the same thing as being a sign they must be correct. Oh well, perhaps this is why i have yet to come across anyone who knows about dmoz and doesnt have an interest in online commerciality.

Anyway enjoy your hobby of pretend authorative editing. Hey at least your learning a topic! Or are you? Hum!

nicetoseeyer said:

So you think someone who knows nothing of a topic is well placed to judge the best sources?

Click to expand...

No, but DMOZ is not about listing the "best" sources.
All sources which meet our guidelines can be listed.

Anyway enjoy your hobby of pretend authorative editing.

Click to expand...

We do not pretend to be authorative of the subjects me edit. But we are authorative of the DMOZ guidelines which describe which sites we will list and which we won't.

Hey at least your learning a topic! Or are you? Hum!

Click to expand...

Yes, I learned a lot of some topics beacuse I 'worked' on these topics in DMOZ.

That explains why a cat that i have hobiest interest in is full of rubbish.

Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree. The activity of one or more editors in a particular category in no way stops any other editors for also working there. So if we had an editor with expertise in that particular topic who wanted to work there, it wouldn't matter whether or not we also let people work there with less of an interest.

Sites found by the editors (either from their own searches or from the pool of sites suggested by the public) can be added if they meet our site selection criteria. While less knowledgeable editors may not be adding the sites you would like to see listed there, they will at least be improving the directory in terms of the number of listable sites that are listed.

I'd say the reason the category is in poor shape is that no-one has taken enough of an interest in improving it. (For editors that are already knowledgeable that just means volunteering to edit there. For others 'enough of an interest' would mean also being prepared to take the time to become knowledgeable.) Unfortunately that's the nature of any volunteer organisation, and something we have to live with. Perhaps you would like to volunteer to help?

i have yet to come across anyone who knows about dmoz and doesnt have an interest in online commerciality.

Click to expand...

Well, you've come across me now... ;-)