makrhod
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,899
So basically your criticism is "constructive", but our arguments are "insincere?
Sounds like a case of "Heads you win, tails we lose".
Sounds like a case of "Heads you win, tails we lose".
I wonder why?
- Thread starter Jay Anderson
- Start date
makrhod said:
Well, that depends on what discussion and which editor(s) you're talking about, right?
I never meant to imply that *every* discussion with *every* poster and *every* editor involves constructive criticism and insincere counter-arguments. Note that my posts have referred to certain types of discussions and certain editors.
So I wasn't making a blanket statement like you try to make it out to be.
(I suppose you're guilty of an "Either-or fallacy" -- according to the link you provided above)
So to answer your question, I honestly don't know if your arguments will always be sincere but your statement above certaintly is not, and is a good example of the kind of run-around I've been referring to.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 10,093
No. I never said that.Stern123 said:
Me posting here does not have any influence on my abilty to list sites more quickly.
I volunteer to edit at DMOZ and I volunteer to answer questions here.
I and only I can determine what is important for me.
I am not telling people to shut up. I am just telling that we will only discuss those things that the editor community has decided that can be discussed. You are free to discuss all other things, just not at R-Z.
What can you discuss
stern, you are correct when you say that uninformed suggestions about changes to the ODP governance invariably get a response that consists of information about how the ODP actually works.
And that seems to you like a cop-out. But it's not. It's the only possible true response.
A suggestion that involved ANYBODY (let alone webmasters) given the power to tell editors what to do and when, is invariably going to run into the basic facts: the ODP is a volunteer community, in which nobody who can tell anybody else what to do; its members are people who joined the community because they are comfortable with that approach; and its active members are people who (in their opinion) work more effectively here, this way, than they could work somewhere else another way. There's no point in discussing such an idea further here.
There are other directories that see their mission as serving site suggestors. And people who like that mode of working, or people who want those services, are free to go there. They serve their purposes, I suppose. But they don't serve the ODP purpose as well as the ODP does. And there's no point in trying to make the ODP into a cheap imitation of some other, less-successful, less-respected project.
So anyone who thinks anyone can set up procedures to tell editors which sites must be reviewed when, is simply so uninformed as to not be able to make any constructive suggestions. What they need is not learned discourse on how unworkable their particular scheme is; what they need is information.
And what they invariably get in response is the most important information: that this is a volunteer community based on members who enjoy volunteering in this environment.
Now, you've asked, what is the use of that community and its activities? And if you say it's no use at all to you, I will not disagree with you. I know there are other people like you. But when I decide what to do with my free time, that simply won't matter. I know the ODP it's useful to me and to some people who are important to me, and I've heard it's useful to some people whom I don't even know.
And the community may do other things, such as this forum, that are of no use to you. But that doesn't mean it's no use at all! There are other people in the world. And the forum remains useful to some people, both editors and non-editors.
And that seems to you like a cop-out. But it's not. It's the only possible true response.
A suggestion that involved ANYBODY (let alone webmasters) given the power to tell editors what to do and when, is invariably going to run into the basic facts: the ODP is a volunteer community, in which nobody who can tell anybody else what to do; its members are people who joined the community because they are comfortable with that approach; and its active members are people who (in their opinion) work more effectively here, this way, than they could work somewhere else another way. There's no point in discussing such an idea further here.
There are other directories that see their mission as serving site suggestors. And people who like that mode of working, or people who want those services, are free to go there. They serve their purposes, I suppose. But they don't serve the ODP purpose as well as the ODP does. And there's no point in trying to make the ODP into a cheap imitation of some other, less-successful, less-respected project.
So anyone who thinks anyone can set up procedures to tell editors which sites must be reviewed when, is simply so uninformed as to not be able to make any constructive suggestions. What they need is not learned discourse on how unworkable their particular scheme is; what they need is information.
And what they invariably get in response is the most important information: that this is a volunteer community based on members who enjoy volunteering in this environment.
Now, you've asked, what is the use of that community and its activities? And if you say it's no use at all to you, I will not disagree with you. I know there are other people like you. But when I decide what to do with my free time, that simply won't matter. I know the ODP it's useful to me and to some people who are important to me, and I've heard it's useful to some people whom I don't even know.
And the community may do other things, such as this forum, that are of no use to you. But that doesn't mean it's no use at all! There are other people in the world. And the forum remains useful to some people, both editors and non-editors.
pvgool said:
Oops, my mistake. There was a grammatical error that made it confusing to me... it should have been written "then" instead of "than"... but I acknowledge my error and I admit I put words in your mouth, and, for that, please accept my apologies.
Ha, ha, well, if you must adhere to the draconian terms above, then I guess you have to close this thread right now. Which, ironically, would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that ODP doesn't accept criticism period (constructive or not) not to mention the bad PR generated from this authoritarian criticism-will-not-be-tolerated policy.
hutcheson said:
Uh, I never said that.
I never said that either, if you are using the term "tell editors what to do" literally.
Never implied that, and I'll refrain from commenting on the part about respect.
I never asked that.
I never said this forum was useless.
I think the point is, that there are a lot of suggestions that are so ill-informed they can't possibly be construed in any useful way.
So the forum serves two purposes: (1) informing people about how the ODP "works" in the most general sense, which we can do without having any power or interest in changing it, and (2) collecting evidence about cases in which the current mechanism FAILS to work (quality feedback, again in the most general sense.)
Obviously, AOL corporate would be the place to take suggestions about changing the ODP charter, constitution, requirements, etc. We don't change those, and it's pointless to propose that we do.
For that matter, it's pointless to propose a change unless you can show that it addresses a real problem.
Webmasters not being able to find their own sites in the ODP is not a problem. Webmasters not having the free publicity provided by the ODP, is not a problem. And webmasters not getting constructive site reviews provided free by the ODP, is not a problem.
The ODP was designed to help surfers find specific kinds of information. Whenever it fails, that's a problem. And IF it fails, there must be some tangible evidence of failure. Hence the editors' insistence on focusing on what might really be a problem. Editors are, in my experience, very good at solving problems. Find a problem, first, before you start making uninformed proposals about how the ODP could be different.
And explain what problem you're trying to solve. Hint: that problem must have nothing whatsoever with enabling promotion of any website. That problem has to be some way the ODP fails surfers.
Now, showing there is a problem that the ODP ought to address, is a constructive step. But saying it can't be manipulated by webmasters for their own profit, isn't a problem. It's a valued feature.
So the forum serves two purposes: (1) informing people about how the ODP "works" in the most general sense, which we can do without having any power or interest in changing it, and (2) collecting evidence about cases in which the current mechanism FAILS to work (quality feedback, again in the most general sense.)
Obviously, AOL corporate would be the place to take suggestions about changing the ODP charter, constitution, requirements, etc. We don't change those, and it's pointless to propose that we do.
For that matter, it's pointless to propose a change unless you can show that it addresses a real problem.
Webmasters not being able to find their own sites in the ODP is not a problem. Webmasters not having the free publicity provided by the ODP, is not a problem. And webmasters not getting constructive site reviews provided free by the ODP, is not a problem.
The ODP was designed to help surfers find specific kinds of information. Whenever it fails, that's a problem. And IF it fails, there must be some tangible evidence of failure. Hence the editors' insistence on focusing on what might really be a problem. Editors are, in my experience, very good at solving problems. Find a problem, first, before you start making uninformed proposals about how the ODP could be different.
And explain what problem you're trying to solve. Hint: that problem must have nothing whatsoever with enabling promotion of any website. That problem has to be some way the ODP fails surfers.
Now, showing there is a problem that the ODP ought to address, is a constructive step. But saying it can't be manipulated by webmasters for their own profit, isn't a problem. It's a valued feature.
jimnoble
DMOZ Meta
This thread seems to have reached a pointless stalemate. Let's just agree to differ and close the thread now.
@Stern123: Please don't start a similar one.
@Stern123: Please don't start a similar one.