ODP Soundly Hammered Due to Negligence

ODP is being soundly hammered (italicized text was a link to vFunk DJ directory) by other human edited link compilations when it comes to the DJ field. With a negligent link operation refusing to employ new editors at a sufficient rate, how many other places will dominate parts of it? It may sound like little potential, but niche link resources are rapidly growing. What happens when they begin to partner and merge? Will ODP be soundly hammered as a whole?

DMOZ/ODP has not refused "to employ a sufficient number of editors." "Employ" implies payment, a certain work quota and a schedule. We are volunteers. We are not compnesated in any way, we have no quota or schedule ... except to do 'something' at least once in four months.

If other directories want to "dominate," let them. DMOZ/ODP are not in a competition. This is a free directory for users. Our motive is just that ... make the best free directory we can.

A very large part of what you mention is business in the true sense. Such directories sell ad space, hire employees, etc., etc. Their primary motivation is making money. Not at all in the same ballpark with DMOZ/ODP.

We always appreciate good competition.
It would be a bad thing if DMOZ was the only directory.

> refusing to employ new editors at a sufficient rate
After the editor application process became availbale we have been accepting many new editors. But we will only accept those people that show a promise of becoming a good editor.

PS please remove the link, putting links in postings is not allowed.

How is the hosting payed for?

AOL sponsors the servers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Directory_Project for historic details.

Do you think AOL does it as a generous donation or to increase their business profits?

Many people and companies do things just because they want to do them.
Many other people can not understand why these people are doing it for free because they themself only can think about a possible profit. I feel pitty for these money people.

I sincerely agree that the issue you presented is a pity. However, I asked about AOL's motive for sponsoring ODP, not many companies.

"Employ" implies payment

Click to expand...

According to the The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, one of the definitions of "employ" is:

To put to use or service.

Click to expand...

I said the same thing as you not too long ago. I was surprised to find out this was a definition. The English language can be confusing...

hypnoticvibe said:

I sincerely agree that the issue you presented is a pity. However, I asked about AOL's motive for sponsoring ODP, not many companies.

Click to expand...

I suspect you would have to ask AOL that question.

hypnoticvibe said:

I asked about AOL's motive for sponsoring ODP,

Click to expand...

Editors are not employed by AOL and can not speak for that company. Here in R-Z we can only express our own opinion, we can not even speak officialy for DMOZ.

I sincerely agree that the issue you presented is a pity. However, I asked about AOL's motive for sponsoring ODP, not many companies.

Click to expand...

I think you've been given the wrong impression about the ODP's relationship with AOL. "Sponsor" implies that ODP is a separate entity that could be receiving funding from anyone, in the same way that I could get someone to sponsor one of my sites but I would still own the site. The ODP is owned by AOL and, as such, is housed on AOL-owned servers. As for AOL's motivation in owning the ODP, well, presumably they see some tangible benefit to it but we're not privy to that information.

As for "being hammered" by a niche directory, that's fantastic. There's room enough on the Internet for everyone.

And, yes, one of the meanings of "employ" is to put into use but you're likely to confuse people if you use it that way in reference to something like the ODP as people are generally going to presume you mean it in the "paid work" sense.

The word "employ" is inappropriate in EITHER sense. AOL doesn't "put" anyone to "use", AOL doesn't "obtain" services from anyone. The word with that meaning even more invidiously distorts reality!

The reality is: volunteers offer their services. And they offer their services (employ THEMSELVES; or put THEMSELVES to use) in categories that interest them.

I can regret that nobody has been willing to volunteer to help build up the DJ category; but, when it comes down to it, I am profoundly disinterested in that kind of activity, and so I've focussed on building up other music categories which impacted my knowledge and piqued my curiosity. So neither AOL nor anyone else can "employ" me (in any sense) there. And I haven't "neglected" the category; I've ignored it. In reality it's those non-editors who ARE interested in the DJ industry who have neglected the categories!

But ... are there people in the DJ community who are less interested in hammering others for not giving enough, than in giving something themselves? There are lots of small (regional) categories where a new editor could start out; there's an active community of music editors who can help a new editor deal with the complexities of musical taxonomy.

When accepting a new editor for a category the employer edits, it can threaten the employer's editing powers. This political motive has entirely collapsed the growth.

Click to expand...

You lost me. Who is the employer, in this context?

This isn't the place to discuss AOL's finances: might I suggest one of the many financial bulletin boards as a more appropriate venue?

nea, I think hypnoticvibe may be under the mistaken impression that regular editors review new editor applications in areas that they edit. In fact, I think there are a few misconceptions in there but his/her insistence on using the word "employ" is confusing things.

AOL is a business that knowingly distributed spyware to gain buiness profits. People worked hard and earned money to use their computer in peace while AOL knowingly deprived that right so they could inflate their own money. It would be really weird if their motive was as noble as pvgool described "some companies". Nice link windharp. It seems my question may be answered.

"windharp said:

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_D...us that you blame the people who don't apply.

Click to expand...

Those who review editor applications and accept/decline them.

Click to expand...

That would be a misuse of the word "employer" in every possible meaning.

ODP is far from free to run. It has to get money from somewhere, and that somewhere is not dishing it out as a selfless act. As the status of ODP diminishes, funds will too. Volunteers would be affected. It's time for ODP to take building the directory seriously, and crack down on the dictatorship behavior required to stay in power.

Click to expand...

No one ever said it was free to run. Nor has anyone ever hidden the fact that AOL owns the ODP (that would be what "asset" means). Not sure what dictatorship behaviour you're talking about or what that has to do with who owns the ODP. Again, you seem to be completely misunderstanding who reviews editor applications.

ODP approves a joke percentage of applications. It's funny you blame the applicants.

Click to expand...

Gosh, you didn't tell us you were a meta editor.

Seriously, though, unless you actually have access to all applications, you have no idea many are accepted to DJ-related categories or in general. The fact that perhaps your applications have been rejected (I don't know that for sure, just guessing based on your antipathy regarding the application process) does not mean that few new editors are accepted. You do know that most DJ sites are listed in Regional and usually at a lower-than-state-or-province level, right?

"motsa" said:

Seriously, though, unless you actually have access to all applications, you have no idea many are accepted to DJ-related categories or in general.

Click to expand...

Seriously, though, what's your honest estimate of declined editor applications to accepted editor applications? No. You won't tell me. You'll challenge how baseful my claim is but hide anything that might support it.

motsa" said:

No one ever said it was free to run. Nor has anyone ever hidden the fact that AOL owns the ODP (that would be what "asset" means). Not sure what dictatorship behaviour you're talking about or what that has to do with who owns the ODP. Again, you seem to be completely misunderstanding who reviews editor applications.

Click to expand...

Again, my point was talking about funding. "Someone has to fund it..."
There is a destructive path the volunteer-run operation is following that will hurt it. If the directory (ran by volunteers) will not benefit the funders (even though the owners don't really operate it), then the funders will have no motive to continue funding.

You'll challenge how baseful my claim is but hide anything that might support it.

Click to expand...

True. I can't/won't pass on the information that you're asking for. But the fact still remains that I made my statement while in possession of that information and you made yours while in possession of none of it. You are more than welcome to keep speculating, though I'd ask that you do it elsewhere.

There is a destructive path the volunteer-run operation is following that will hurt it. If the directory (ran by volunteers) will not benefit the funders (even though the owners don't really operate it), then the funders will have no motive to continue funding.

Click to expand...

What's your point? If AOL dumps the ODP at some point, then either it will completely cease to exist or someone else will pick it up and run with it. I'm not sure how restating the obvious serves a purpose. Are you suggested the volunteers of the ODP rebel against AOL? Vive l'ODP libre?

"motsa" said:

You are more than welcome to keep speculating

Click to expand...

That's a speculation right there. I could be a meta for all you know.

"motsa" said:

Are you suggested the volunteers of the ODP rebel against AOL?

Click to expand...

Or! :icon_idea You could read the suggestions I already posted in this thread and answer your own question.

-----

Other people understood what I'm saying when I posted this. Maybe this will convey better:

-----

"Only the corrupt survive."
Hypnotic Vibe

I once pitied ODP because I thought they could hardly manage and webmasters barked at them when they had a bad day. I think it's noble to defend the weak. Then I realized how uncool the operation really is. The operation rejects approximately 9/10 applications to become an editor. ODP hides this ratio from the public as part of their policy! ODP lacks the respect to provide a reason for application rejection after a volunteer editor applicant took the time to apply. They will repeatedly do this to the same person.
Why does this happen? In most cases, any new applicant is a potential threat to surpass/reduce the authority of the person that approves/declines the applications. The odds of staying in power are higher if they abuse their position. Only the corrupt survive.