Editors with Conflict of Interest??

[crowbar]

As I told you in a PM you sent me about these examples. Those are worthy deeplinks intended to help the disabled web surfers who may need that kind of assistance, and they are placed in the proper categories for that.

 

We do not care about the site owner, we are building a Directory for web surfers only.

 

As I also explained to you, those aren't mirrors, those are deeplinks to specific unique content for the disabled.

 

There is no conflict of interest by an editor, I would list those myself, and I have no websites at all, am not affiliated with any website, and don't edit in that area of the Directory. They seem to be perfectly logical deeplinks intended to help the disabled.

[chaos127]

I would imagine that whenever the sites were added to the category, each link was the most useful information that the editor could find for that particular airport. If you think there are better options which would make those deeplinks redundant, then why don't you go ahead and suggest them?

 

Given the number of editors and the number of categories within the ODP, it's far more likely that categories with the appearence of "low quality" are in that state due to a lack of editor attention over a period of time, rather than any deliberate malicious intent.

[mybanman]

yes you also missed the point in the private message and didnt reply to the last one. You even quoted a totally separate site.

 

Nobody said the sites were mirrors. I said they had mirror placements. Each in the main airport cat and then in the disabilitily cat. This would no raise eyebrows if it was a single site. But here we have multiple sites under the same ownership. They are not unique in an area like travel where many sites do the same thing. yet they alone manage multiple listings. In the sub cats the information isnt even theres, its taken from the generic site as in the example above. So you may well argue that it wasn't a big deal that the editor didn't use the best and original url for placement but when he does it multiple times for the same network its stretching credibility to say there is no bias. In reality commercial sectors are rife with bias.

I did not want to get into a round of naming other peoples sites. If they are listed then good luck to them. But i am trying to illustrate that the idea as hutcheson tried to say, that sub listings are done by editors for pages they come across on their own and think worthy of a listing, is just not true.

[mybanman]

If you think there are better options which would make those deeplinks redundant, then why don't you go ahead and suggest them?

 

because its a waste of time for many sections where bias is rife which is why im posting in this thread. Many worthy sites are thrown out by the editor or nobody even bothers looking at it when they are made as suggestions.

[crowbar]

Meaning your site is worthy but hasn't been listed, so that proves that there is rampant editor abuse? If, however your site suggestion is listed, then all is well and we won't hear from you again.

 

Same song, different singer.

 

Here's something I can tell you about that category though. There is no resident editor in it or anywhere near it, that I can see, so that means there are 200 to 300 possible editors who can edit there, not just one, so it's kind of hard to imagine that all of those are corrupt in not listing your site.

 

A more likely reason is that your particular site suggestion is the type of site we won't list, or that an editor just hasn't felt like, or gotten around to reviewing yet.

[pvgool]

because its a waste of time for many sections where bias is rife which is why im posting in this thread.

You are ofcourse free to have such an opinion but as has been stated in this thread there is no bias.

Many worthy sites are thrown out by the editor

Within DMOZ editors decide if a site is worthy.

Worthy sites are listed.

So sites that get rejected or removed are by definition not worthy in the aspect of having a DMOZ listing.

These sites can ofcourse still be worthy for their owner, their visitors and in many other aspects.

 

or nobody even bothers looking at it when they are made as suggestions.

Yes, that is one of the main aspects of DMOZ. Editors will only "work" where and when they want it themself and will only do the "work" they are interested in.

Looking at the pool of suggested sites is only one of many things an editor can decide to do or not to do.

[mybanman]

guys you are making my case for me. Nice!

 

 

Meaning your site is worthy but hasn't been listed, so that proves that there is rampant editor abuse? If, however your site suggestion is listed, then all is well and we won't hear from you again.

 

Once you argument relies on personal abuse your position is lost. I made a series of valid points and instead of directly addressing them, because clearly you cant, you decide to make a personal attack based on your own BIASED assumptions that I never once mentioned. So you have self-proven editor bias. I could not have hoped for a more conclusive ending.

 

Same song, different singer.

 

Again a comment that decides not address the points raised but to imply I AM BIASED. That’s brilliant. I have given a great example but you sling mud and not facts. Quite scary for anyone hoping DMOZ really is an unbiased directory run by reasonabl and rational editors.

 

Here's something I can tell you about that category though. There is no resident editor in it or anywhere near it, that I can see, so that means there are 200 to 300 possible editors who can edit there, not just one, so it's kind of hard to imagine that all of those are corrupt in not listing your site.

 

This was a pure gift. Never once did I mention my site. And I don’t have a site with anything to do with airports.

 

So not one of my points could you reply to!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

A more likely reason is that your particular site suggestion is the type of site we won't list, or that an editor just hasn't felt like, or gotten around to reviewing yet.

 

This thread is about editor bias. I have given a good example of it. Your only reply is to say my suggestion is a site you wont list. I haven’t suggested a site.

 

Honestly this would be very funny if it wasn’t about a serious subject.

[chaos127]

because its a waste of time for many sections where bias is rife which is why im posting in this thread.

As I'm sure has been said before, if you have proof of editors failing to follow the guidelines, then please file an abuse report at http://report-abuse.dmoz.org/ . If you do not have proof, then you're just wasting everyone else's time by moaning here without specifics.

 

Many worthy sites are thrown out by the editor

If you replace "worthy" by "meeting our site selection criteria", then this would either be poor editing, or abuse -- either way we would like to take corrective action. If you have proof, please provide it. If not, please stop making such allegations.

 

or nobody even bothers looking at it when they are made as suggestions.

 

I suspect that what you're actually seeing is the combined effect of the (relatively small) number of editors, the (large) number of categories, and the (very high) rate of site suggestions by the public (including large amounts of "unworthy" spam we have to wade through). Given those numbers it's not surprising that there are some categories haven't been editing for some time, and that contain sites that were listed some time ago. Both the editing guidelines and the sites themselves can have changed over time, meaning that currently listed sites, may not be deemed suitable for listing if they were to be reviewed again today.

 

You, and any other members of the public, can help us find and deal with those by using the "Update URL" link on the category pages, or posting specific sites in the "Report Hijacks, Dead Links..." thread here at RZ.

[pvgool]

This thread is about editor bias. I have given a good example of it.

No, you have not given a good example.

It has been explained to you why these listings are valid.

[chaos127]

Actually, I think it was explained why those may be appropriate listings now, and also why it's most likely that there were appropriate listings when they were originally made.

 

Lets suppose for a moment that their continuing existence in the directory is down to systematic editor bias by an editor who happens to be involved with that network of sites. Perhaps you could explain why not all of those access guides are listed there? Additionally there is only one editor before you get to UK level (and I can personally vouch for him not being associated with the sites). Therefore if this is down to a biased editor, he/she also has permissions in http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/United_Kingdom/Transport/Aviation/Airports/ and all its sub-categories. This begs the question why not all of that network of sites are listed in the individual airport categories...

 

To conclude, thank you for pointing out a potential problem, though it almost certainly wasn't due to any abuse on the part of the editors who listed the sites.

[crowbar]

When you have nothing but vague insinuations of editor abuse, mybanman, and the points you've raised have been addressed, not once, but three or four times by different editors, your credibility takes a real nose dive.

 

If you want to get serious, my friend, then give us something concrete to work with, and a meta will be more than happy to investigate it. We treat crooked editors the same way we treat crooked submitters, we don't tolerate it.

 

As far as my being biased, you may have a point, I'm very biased against anyone who tries to work the system for their own personal benefit, and after reading hundreds of posts, your posts are starting to sound like some of those that I have less than admiration for.

 

Those kind of accusations don't really offend me, because I know they're untrue, , and I can look at them objectively and consider them. A little self examination is always a good thing to do, but other than what I've stated, I see no bias on my part, just plain truth.

 

Even then, I'm still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, if you can produce something besides hot air.

[mybanman]

When you have nothing but vague insinuations of editor abuse, mybanman, and the points you've raised have been addressed, not once, but three or four times by different editors, your credibility takes a real nose dive

 

nowhere near as yours when you use smiley's

 

As far as my being biased, you may have a point, I'm very biased against anyone who tries to work the system for their own personal benefit, and after reading hundreds of posts, your posts are starting to sound like some of those that I have less than admiration for.

 

again the personal attack. I can rest easy knowing anyone UNBIASED reading me example and then your response (using the term 'response' loosely here) will be in no doubt as to the reality of genuine unbiased directory placements in dmoz.

 

You guys have made this so easy for me. I thank you.

[hutcheson]

We all have biases. Mine are in favor of people who're willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, and in favor of being extremely suspicious of ulterior motives of people who WON'T give others the benefit of the doubt. And mybanman, you made it very easy for me also.

[nea]

You guys have made this so easy for me. I thank you.

 

And that, as well as several similar utterances in your post before that one ("pure gift" - gift of what??) indicates that you were not really interested in finding out what was going on. You apparently wanted to see abuse all along, or you wouldn't have expressed yourself in that way; one of the very few things I remember from secondary school psychology is this thing called "selective perception", in other words, if you want to see something you are very likely to do so.

 

However, like the other editors posting here, the only thing I care about is the integrity of the directory, and this thread will have caused several different editors to check the listings. (That's inevitable. Editors, good editors, are curious about this sort of thing. That's one of the things which make them good editors.) If the deeplinks aren't legit and relevant, if there are better resources for the same subject, they will be changed; if they have more listings than is reasonable from the view of the directory user (as opposed to the webmaster, of that or any other site) some listings may be removed. Otherwise they won't.

[mybanman]

And that, as well as several similar utterances in your post before that one ("pure gift" - gift of what??)

 

Yes in the rush to ignore the actual points made you have even lost the whole topic of the thread. Well I will explain what is meant by a gift, although given the onslaught of mediocre attempts at a personal assassination of me rather than a discussion on bias, im sure you will twist to mean anything you want. A gift because dmoz editor bias is rife and well known. I added a small part to the thread to illustrate that fact. The replies became a torrent of personal abuse and not an addressing of the facts. This my friends was what the whole concept of bias is about. Let me put it another way. Its much like someone saying I told you a million times not to exaggerate, or I never $%^&ing swear. Although your words were meant as a denial the actual content was proof of bias. Perhaps you really don’t understand that. So it’s a gift because I no longer need to put forward my argument as to why I believe bias is rife, you have proven it for me. I guess you will come back with another round of personal bashing and continue to made the argument for me. I know of no better gift.

 

 

indicates that you were not really interested in finding out what was going on. You apparently wanted to see abuse all along, or you wouldn't have expressed yourself in that way; one of the very few things I remember from secondary school psychology is this thing called "selective perception", in other words, if you want to see something you are very likely to do so.

 

 

So you have taken my words of “You guys have made this so easy for me. I thank you.”, and invented a whole new meaning to them to continue the personal attack. That would be a brilliant strategic move if it didn’t miss one crucial point. Anyone with a basic grasp of English can understand that those words were in the context of explaining how personal abuse rather than telling me specifically why my points were invalid was making the argument for me. I had already said the examples given were not why I was posting. I was simple using them to show why the title of this thread EDITOR BIAS was a fact.

 

 

 

 

However, like the other editors posting here, the only thing I care about is the integrity of the directory, and this thread will have caused several different editors to check the listings. (That's inevitable. Editors, good editors, are curious about this sort of thing. That's one of the things which make them good editors.) If the deeplinks aren't legit and relevant, if there are better resources for the same subject, they will be changed; if they have more listings than is reasonable from the view of the directory user (as opposed to the webmaster, of that or any other site) some listings may be removed. Otherwise they won't.

 

Again it was not about those sites. It was about illustrating the directory has been undermined by bias. It really is that simple. It’s not isolated bias. It’s rife. That really is the point and I think many of you are in denial judging by your attempts at a character assassination .

[crowbar]

Interesting. So, you came here to proove to yourself that 7,000 + editors are all biased, or most of them are, by talking to 3 or 4 editors in here, and your mind was already made up before you ever opened your mouth.

 

Why is it that you hate volunteer editors so much, when you really don't have any clue, other than pure speculation, about what we really do?

 

It really does sound like you're bitter because certain sites of your own have been found to be less than desirable for listing, and you came here to unleash your frustrations on us by making unsubstantiated claims of editor abuse.

 

What other conclusion can we come to?

 

We're on the inside, you're not.

 

We know the real truth about what goes on and why, and you don't.

 

Nothing you say can really upset us, because what you're saying is so far from the truth that it's more of a bewilderment than something we can actually address.

 

I don't hate you, personally, and I'm not angry with you, but, you're just not making much sense. <no smilie>

[crowbar]

You know, editors like myself and others come here of our own free will to interact with the public. We're not obligated to, it's something extra we do, besides our actual editing, and we do it because we want to.

 

I, personally, do it because I know how frustrating it can be to not be able to talk to a human being who is on the inside of something, and can give you a personal glimpse of how something works, or who can show you where to find certain information and help clarify it.

 

Often times, by doing so, we open ourselves up to a lot of abuse from people who are trying to promote their own self interests or take out their frustrations on us, and we accept that fact, but, it doesn't mean we're going to let someone walk all over us without responding to it, either.

 

We also know that there are people who just read these forums and may never post, and hopefully some of what we try to do will help them.

[chaos127]

Again it was not about those sites. It was about illustrating the directory has been undermined by bias. It really is that simple. It’s not isolated bias. It’s rife. That really is the point and I think many of you are in denial judging by your attempts at a character assassination.

I'm afraid you've done nothing to convince me that there is widespread and systemtic abuse by editors within the directory. (I'm using 'abuse' rather than 'bias' since it's something that's more clearly defined according to our guidelines -- and that's what matters here.) It also seems that we editors have had little success in convincing you that your picture of abuse is not the case.

 

If you would like to continue this conversation, I would invite you to re-read my posts in this thread and explain why my arguments that explain how what you described is unlikely to be the result of abuse are incorrect. If you are unable to do so, and do not have any clear evidence of abuse, I must ask you to refrain from posting any further allegations here.

 

To be clear: Current listings not meeting our guidelines today could well be the result of some combination of the sites themselves and/or the guidelines having changed over time. The fact that the listings are still there is not necessarily the result of any malicious action on the part of the current editors, but could just be that no-one has actaully taken it upon themselves to check those listings recently. Finally, erroneous listings could well be the result of poor, rather than abusive, editing.

[mybanman]

Interesting. So, you came here to prove to yourself that 7,000 + editors are all biased, or most of them are, by talking to 3 or 4 editors in here, and your mind was already made up before you ever opened your mouth.

 

Well we now see a definite trend to your style. Fabricate a quote and then make a statement as to your opinion on that. Well we still await a quote from the actual example and a reasoned reply. Im sure if you take a deep breathe and think calmly for a short period you will surprise yourself by doing just that. A reasoned discussion would be good practice for unbiased directory reviews. Try it.

 

Why is it that you hate volunteer editors so much, when you really don't have any clue, other than pure speculation, about what we really do?

 

Well I would really welcome the opportunity to respond to an actual quote I made and within context. Shame that this isn’t it. Of course I never said I hate volunteer editors. I said bias is widespread. Do you see the difference? I know exactly what you do because I can see which sites are listed. I can see which sites aren’t listed. I can see that there is a mathematical percentage chance for a site to get listed. I can see that when a certain threshold over that probability is reached for one person to get a large number of sites listed when they are not unique or the best urls weighs very favorably on the chances that they are the result of some sort of bias. I choose my words carefully. Thats it. I didn’t start this thread. I saw a debate was being head and thought I would give my opinion. I wasn’t expecting personal attacks instead of reasoned debate. That was very disappointing.

 

It really does sound like you're bitter because certain sites of your own have been found to be less than desirable for listing, and you came here to unleash your frustrations on us by making unsubstantiated claims of editor abuse.

 

This is very funny because the only site I care about is listed. Listed from years ago when times were very different. The bitter part is a trend you are continuing with. Based on your own bias. Really it is, stop and re-read my threads. There really is nothing there that should have lead you to your conclusion. You should think deeply about your need for your apparent self-victimizing.

 

Lets recap. I never meant to have this discussion in public. I private messaged you. But you bizarrely started quoting a totally different site. When I questioned this you stopped replying.

 

 

 

What other conclusion can we come to?

 

I assume that’s rhetorical rather than serious question.

 

We're on the inside, you're not.[.quote]

 

As the saying goes, sometimes you can’t see the wood for the trees.

 

We know the real truth about what goes on and why, and you don't.

 

Well for the first time in quite a while you make a valid and reasonable point. However knowing WHY something results in a bias is quite different from observing that bias. I am just an observer.

 

Nothing you say can really upset us, because what you're saying is so far from the truth that it's more of a bewilderment than something we can actually address.

 

Well good. Why would I want to upset you? I don’t know you. I don’t care about you. I have no emotions towards you. I am simply holding a debate on a thread that was already started.

 

 

I don't hate you, personally, and I'm not angry with you, but, you're just not making much sense. <no smilie>

 

Im glad you don’t hate me. Hey wouldn’t it be funny if we actually knew each other without realizing it and were great mates? Ok that’s a bit far fetched!

 

This is interesting. I seemed to have only been replying to your assumptions and personal remarks. What was there to not understand. Or are we getting back to the original point? If so then please re-read what I said. I replied to the notion that sub pages were only added by editors coming across them randomly. That they would have to be deemed unique and the best source for that information. I said that it would reasonable to assume if that happened the accuracy rate would something of a hit and miss affair if legit. Its about the laws of probability. If 50% of urls in sub cat failed on all accounts. Not unique, not the best source, and then you find ALL those urls are from the same network, and then you find not only are the sub-pages listed but they are in the main cat too. And in the main cats very few sites are listed even though there are many similar sites. The probability of bias is approaching 100%. Now you are missing the collective result here. You are trying to take an individual point I made and say based on that my point Is meaningless. And that’s why you don’t get what im saying. IT’S THE COLLECTIVE LAW OF PROBABILITY FOR A SERIES OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO OCCUR. If I toss a coin its 50% for either side to result. For the same side to come up 50 consecutive times something else is occurring. That’s collective probability.

[mybanman]

I must ask you to refrain from posting any further allegations here.

 

fair enough. Not much more to add without giving more urls which i didnt want to do to start with. Perhaps editors could also refrain from replying with personal attacks making me feel the need to defend myself.

 

Thanks.

[crowbar]

I think you're making the false assumptions that the site owner is an editor, and that only editors add deeplinks. Many site suggestions are deeplinks, and the editor will usually only list the main url for it, unless there is a very good reason to list the deeplink.

 

Here is an example from a category I edit in:

 

Home/Gardening/Gardens/Water/Personal_Pages

 

Blondie's Water Gardens

http://www.blondieswebdesigns.com/water_garden/

[magicgravy]

"Gimme a break no wonder we have never been included in the directory and only sites affiliated with the editor are chosen."

 

"That would be the wrong assumption, that hasn't been proven that I know of, but, if it is true, that editor won't be around long, and did you bring up this suspicion 5 years ago, and fill out an abuse form?"

 

why not 5 years ago? because we, as honest submitters, read the guidelines and wait. wait wait wait, under a veil of secrecy, resulting in no progress, with intentionally vague reporting of results. if you all work for free, i highly question your motivation for being here. it's not for the glory, it's not because the DMOZ has its finger on anything hip or current, then why are you here, posting 1,000's of posts? for the good of the internet? well, if so, which i highly doubt, the results of your efforts are bleak at best.

 

the only people that deal with DMOZ directly are web designers and web professionals. therefore, most of the people who are editors probably have self interest at the root of their intentions for joining. i don't know 1 person who goes to DMOZ over google to get their information. i don't know 1 person who knows of the DMOZ who isn't a web designer. translation- a vast majority of your submissions come from people in the profession, who, from my experience, are not here under altruistic circumstances.

 

what i feel is missing from these conversations is the end result. and in that respect, the DMOZ has failed.

 

most any category i visit in the fine arts section contain out of date, mis-categorized, and truly uninspiring websites. i speak only of what i am an expert in, and i can tell you the "abstract and experimental photography" section does not contain the leaders in the field, contains mostly mis-categorized content, sites that have no mention of the word "abstract", a few 404's, some incomplete sites, and sites that border on spam. for us to believe this is based on quality and adherence to the submissions guidelines is ridiculous. to ask us why we don't complain 5 years ago is equally ridiculous.

 

so when we are told to "wait" "not ask" and "be patient" and then are asked "well why didn't you ask 5 years ago," makes me actually spend time to post to this forum, which i understand will do no good to anyone, aside from a concerned submitter who can't understand why this directory sucks to the core.

 

my advice to submitters, build a great site, submit it to dmoz, and leave. get traffic naturally and you'll be better off than dealing with this directory- for it is a dying entity that does not reflect the current state of the internet. a failed experiment, if you will.

[motsa]

Despite the insults directed at editors that fill your post, you do give one piece of advice actually does reflect what we tell people all the time: "build a great site, submit it to dmoz, and leave."

 

As for the rest of your post, there's not much point in addressing it since you seem to have just posted to get something off your chest. So, consider that done.

[crowbar]

"Gimme a break no wonder we have never been included in the directory and only sites affiliated with the editor are chosen."

 

I don't have any sites at all, magicgravy, and I'm not afilliated with anything but the ODP and this forum, nothing else, so I think I can actually proove that I'm not biased towards any site, .

 

if you all work for free, i highly question your motivation for being here. it's not for the glory, it's not because the DMOZ has its finger on anything hip or current, then why are you here, posting 1,000's of posts? for the good of the internet? well, if so, which i highly doubt, the results of your efforts are bleak at best.

 

It's very easy to have 7 or 8 windows or tabs open at the same time while editing, so one of them is this forum. If you'd like to know why an editor is an editor, just ask, I'm sure an editor would be happy to tell you.

 

In my own case, it looked like a fun project that I could do right from my computer as a community service to my city (locality). At the time, I was totally clueless about the Internet, webmasters, SEO's, or search engines, and to be perfectly frank, I thought it might not hurt to join the ODP and get my site listed.

 

I was very open about that, and one of my three site suggestions was my own site, so there was no intention to decieve, just the opposite. Maybe it was my honesty that got me accepted, I don't really know, but after I got in I knew I had made a very good decision because the honesty of the ODP system and values matched how I run my own business and my life, perfectly.

 

We believe in exactly the same things, being selective, totally honest and above board, allowing anyone to freely submit a suggestion, giving every suggester a level playing field and an equal opportunity right alongside the professionals in the industry to be accepted, and many other things.

 

I have my own business, that's all the power trip I need, and I dumped my sites because I finally realized that my business depends on my own two hands, not a website, and they were not neccessary for my success.

 

Why I bother coming to this forum is something I ask myself every day. I originally came here to help the mom & pop site owners, who are not pros, to understand more about the ODP and how it operates.

 

Unfortunately, I ran into a buzzsaw of professional webmasters/SEOs bitching about the lack of a system that they can get a handle on and work to their advantage for profit, just the opposite type of folks that I came here to help, .

 

I may or may not continue to visit this forum.

 

The kind of post you've written really doesn't bother me or make me angry because I understand where your point of view is coming from, and I can't honestly say that I would feel any differently than you do, if I were in your position. All I can tell you is that the goals you have are completely different than the goals we have, so it's impossible for us to ever agree.

[mybanman]

hutcheson

 

"We all have biases. Mine are in favor of people who're willing to give others the benefit of the doubt, and in favor of being extremely suspicious of ulterior motives of people who WON'T give others the benefit of the doubt. And mybanman, you made it very easy for me also."

 

Personally im suspicious of editors that are big posters on webmasterworld...clearly showing their hand and interests....you make it easy for me to demonstrate the reality of my point....even if one doesnt anyalsye your very funny statement

 

"extremely suspicious of ulterior motives of people who WON'T give others the benefit of the doubt"

 

first the notion that there is anything to doubt when sections are dominated by networks that arent even the authority or best source for their subject.,...thats quite funny!

 

then you suggest that if theres a slight doubt..then if you do not side with the doubt rather than the probable then you yourself are suspect...clearly you have never worked within the courts system....and goodness help us all if you ever do...