Does dmoz work correctly?

[marekgot]

I have visited this page (http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/JavaScript/Tools/) many times and was extremely surprised.

There are many rubbish JavaScript tools (most of listed there) in that category, but the most popular are not listed.

F.E The following most popular (and world leading) JavaScript Editors are not listed (it seems, will never be listed ):

Aptana JavaScript Editor

JavaScript Plus

1st JavaScript Editor

TinyMCE JavaScript WYSIWYG Editor

 

There is no editor in that category at least some last years.:icon_ques :icon_ques :icon_ques

 

 

So I have some questions.

 

Is the metaeditor above this category working with only affiliated site?

Is dmoz interested in really valuable sites?

Can anybody control editors and add valuable sites?

 

I am a JavaScript developer and I know many good JavaScript tools, but it seems that nobody interested here in really significant sites (maybe only affiliated :icon_ques ).

Am I right?

Please correct me.

[The Old Sarge]

Why, yes, it does. It works exactly as it was intended ... a user directory for users.

 

Have you actually suggested any of your recommended sites?

[hutcheson]

>Is the metaeditor above this category working with only affiliated site?

 

You can check this for yourself rather easily. Are all the listed sites affiliated together? If not, then the answer is "no".

 

>Is dmoz interested in really valuable sites?

 

No, absolutely not, that has nothing to do with our criteria. We're interested in informative sites. Not the same thing, not the same thing at ALL.

 

>Can anybody control editors and add valuable sites?

There are lots of people who want to control editors and add sites that are valuable (to them.) We call them "abusers", and we make it as hard as possible for them. So I think it's fair to say, for practical purposes, the answer to this question is "no" also.

[marekgot]

>yes, it does.

 

I doubt.

 

> a user directory for users.

 

It seems that this is the editor's directory for high PR of their sites and so for making money.

 

> Have you actually suggested any of your recommended sites?

 

I have suggested all these sites and many other JavaScript tools(without success:mad: ).

But it is evident that the editor above that category

firstly – does not accept any editor to that category (nobody wants to share his [her] power),

secondly – does not accept any really worthily sites, because they are either his (her) competitors or they are not his (her) affiliates.

Maybe he (she) simply does not want to work?

 

As I know, most of editors (not all) work accordingly.

Anyway it reduces significance of dmoz directory.

 

 

>Are all the listed sites affiliated together?

 

No, only one or two and other are rubbish.

 

>Not the same thing, not the same thing at ALL.

 

Very strange. Maybe you should to do something else (not only to prevent really valuable and informative sites to be listed in dmoz?

 

>the answer to this question is "no" also.

 

So dmoz is something like mafia? Nobody can control you. Nobody can punish you. Nobody can even make remark you.

You can do what you want. You are lucky!

I am not sure that this is the ideology of dmoz. Try to apply your effort in other place and do not discredit dmoz.

[hutcheson]

>But it is evident that the editor above that category firstly – does not accept any editor to that category (nobody wants to share his [her] power),

 

The simple fact is, the editor above that category simply DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to SEE applications for editing the subcategories, let alone accept or reject editors there.

 

There are many editors who can edit in every category. People who can't share responsibility don't survive as editors. Because there are no editing responsibilities which are not shared.

 

That's not "ideology", that is the reality. You're welcome to adjust your ideology to it.

[marekgot]

>let alone accept or reject editors there.

 

Than why does this category have not an editor for some years? There is no really appropriate person?

The answer is above.

 

>There are many editors who can edit in every category.

 

Than why are rubbish sites (most in this category:eek: ) listed there (some of them have broken links) and the most valuable, popular and informative sites (which I mentioned above) are not?:icon_ques

 

> You're welcome to adjust your ideology to it.

 

It is very simple.

Be honest. That is all.

But I think that this is impossible.

[hutcheson]

Nobody can assign editors to a category. It's always up to the people who volunteer there. And so there is no one answer as to "why this category has no editor..." There are six billion answers, because every single person on earth has the answer to why HE doesn't edit that category himself. But nobody can know why any OTHER person doesn't edit it.

[motsa]

secondly – does not accept any really worthily sites, because they are either his (her) competitors or they are not his (her) affiliates.

It is a very broad leap from a category not being updated recently to the assumption that there is editor abuse.

Maybe he (she) simply does not want to work?

Perhaps. Editors are not required to make a certain number of edits or put in a certain amount of time editing every day/week/month.

 

Very strange. Maybe you should to do something else (not only to prevent really valuable and informative sites to be listed in dmoz?

Hutcheson's point was that "valuable" and "informative" have different meanings from each other as well as different meanings to different people.

 

So dmoz is something like mafia? Nobody can control you. Nobody can punish you. Nobody can even make remark you.

The only way for us to edit fairly is for no one to "control" us. That doesn't mean that editors don't have a set of guidelines to follow or senior editors to oversee them. But that doesn't equal "control". "Control" would imply the ability to force editors to do something that would go against our guidelines.

 

Than why does this category have not an editor for some years? There is no really appropriate person?

If a category hasn't been edited in years, then obviously no existing editor has chosen to edit there and no new editor has written an acceptable application for it.

 

Than why are rubbish sites (most in this category ) listed there (some of them have broken links) and the most valuable, popular and informative sites (which I mentioned above) are not?

Again, because no one has chosen to edit there. And, to be honest, not all of the sites you listed in your first post would actually belong in that category (TinyMCE, for example, is an HTML editor that happens to be written using Javascript; it isn't a tool for writing or debugging Javascript).

 

Do you really want your questions answered or have you already decided that editors are abusive and just want to tell the world your opinions? You don't seem to have been too open to the replies you've gotten so far.

[marekgot]

>There are six billion answers

 

I think that there is only one compos answer why a category has not an editor for some years.

It is evident and very simple.

NOBODY WANTS TO SHARE HIS [HER] POWER:icon_excl

 

Other 5999999999 answers are only craftiness.

 

 

 

>to the assumption that there is editor abuse.

 

But it is evident! I doubt that you do not understand.

 

> Editors are not required to make a certain number of edits...

 

Pity:( . And many people are waiting in that time.

 

> Hutcheson's point was that "valuable" and "informative" have different meanings...

 

Maybe we should start new topic – difference between "valuable" and "informative" words?

You and Hutcheson both understood what I was talking about.

 

> The only way for us to edit fairly is for no one to "control" us.

 

So this is a reason why most of listed sites in dmoz are rubbish and why people do not any more trust dmoz

 

> no new editor has written an acceptable application for it.

 

Are you kidding?:icon_ques :icon_ques :icon_ques :icon_ques

There was no one new editor who had written an acceptable application for it during some years?

It seems that you are looking for the God or something so.

But I am sure you can find answer above.

 

> TinyMCE, for example, is an HTML editor

 

I almost agree. But other tree sites are the most popular JavaScript Editors. Why they are not listed?

And why are listed sites with right click prevent and popup makers or so?:icon_ques

 

>have you already decided that editors are abusive

 

I have not decided yet. But the more I see editor's answers the more I am sure in it.

[shadow575]

And many people are waiting in that time.

Waiting for what? Most of them made a suggestion and have moved on with their other projects and are not waiting on anything.

 

>have you already decided that editors are abusive

 

I have not decided yet. But the more I see editor's answers the more I am sure in it.

Yet you start your comments off accusing editors of abuse and being a mafia (hmm, where have I heard that one before??) but before anyone even tries to answer your questions you have dismissed all possible answers as rubbish.

[marekgot]

>Waiting for what? Most of them made a suggestion and have moved on with their other projects and are not waiting on anything.

 

Seriously?:icon_ques :icon_ques Are you up in the clouds?:icon_ques

Everybody knows that if you are listed in dmoz you have height PR and so big money.

So everybody is waiting after suggesting. I am sure you are not, because your sites are listed in few instants.

 

> you start your comments off accusing editors of abuse and being a mafia.

 

Not all editors (only one). But now I see that there is more than one abusive editor.

 

> (hmm, where have I heard that one before??

 

Try to find in the Google. I am sure you will find many, many ones.

[shadow575]

Seriously?:icon_ques :icon_ques Are you up in the clouds?:icon_ques

Everybody knows that if you are listed in dmoz you have height PR and so big money.

Only the misguided believe that one link will boost PR, either misguided or completely naive to how ranking works but that is of NO concern to dmoz or its editors.

 

So everybody is waiting after suggesting. I am sure you are not, because your sites are listed in few instants.

And exactly what 'are my sites' since you seem to know me so well?

 

If you have evidence of my (or any editors) abuse by all means report it: http://report-abuse.dmoz.org

[marekgot]

>Only the misguided believe that one link will boost PR

 

Could you tell sometimes the truth?:icon_ques You are an editor and you do not know that thousands sites copies dmoz content?

So if you are listed in dmoz you have thousands links (and height PR:icon_excl ).

Did you know it?

If you did not, what are you doing here?

 

> since you seem to know me so well?

 

Give me categories which you are editing and I am sure that I will find your abuse and tell everybody about it.

 

> report it: http://report-abuse.dmoz.org

 

Did you try to do it?

I have tried many times. There was no answer.

I conjecture the reason.

[shadow575]

Besides the obvious attempts to discredit any editor that disagree's with you, what exactly is your purpose of being here? You asked questions and were given answers. Whether you choose to accept those answers is up to. Beyond that I see no purpose in this thread beyond the first 5 posts.

[marekgot]

>I see no purpose in this thread beyond

 

Are you afraid of control of users? If you work well you can not to dread. Everybody will like you (even me:) ).

 

> what exactly is your purpose of being here?

 

I repeat one more time. I want to know why rubbish sites are listed in the category mentioned above and the best ones are not.

I presumed the reason. You (and other editors) do not like my arguments.

I think that this is the main sickness of dmoz.:icon_excl

You do not want to hear anything about dmoz problems.

Maybe you are very busy promoting your sites. :icon_ques And you do not want to change anything.:icon_ques

[gloria]

If you see poor quality sites, please report them in this thread in the Quality Control forum.

 

Editors are volunteers this is a hobby. They edit where they wish within the scope of their permissions. If someone force me to edit in that category instead of where my interests are, I'd quit.

 

Please, by all means find where I've listed "my sites" - instantly or otherwise.

[hutcheson]

We've seen a lot of people who weren't interested in giving details, but were intensely interested in the "value" of their site (to themselves). They often complain about the "quality" of something, but never give details.

 

By behaving in this same way, you've type-cast yourself as a self-promoting abuser or manipulator. Which is fine, but don't be surprised if you get treated like one.

 

However, if you act like a VOLUNTEER -- someone who actually DOES something USEFUL, someone who actually GIVES relevant INFORMATION -- then you'll see a completely different reaction (from other people who volunteer to give useful information.)

 

Try, for instance, suggesting some actual facts -- specific sites that shouldn't be listed -- in the "quality feedback" forum. And see what happens.

 

THAT'S the difference between being a slanderer and being a public benefactor.

[marekgot]

>If you see poor quality sites, please report them in this thread in the Quality Control forum.

 

I repeat, most of sites listed there are poor and the best ones are not listed (why:icon_ques ).

F.e. right click prevent, popup makers and so on.

 

> Editors are volunteers this is a hobby.

And probably big business (at least for some of them)?

 

> Please, by all means find where I've listed "my sites"

 

I do not know where you have listed your sites, but if you want I can try to find out something about it

 

> were intensely interested in the "value" of their site…

 

I am interested only in the value of the tree most popular sites mentioned above.

 

> They often complain about the "quality" of something, but never give details.

 

Did you read this post attentively? Maybe you should to reread that post.

 

> you've type-cast yourself as a self-promoting abuser or manipulator.

 

I agree to be a manipulator (in good meaning of this word:) ), but you should to search abusers in your environment.

I am sure you will find at least several.

 

> However, if you act like a VOLUNTEER -- someone who actually DOES something USEFUL, someone who actually GIVES relevant INFORMATION -- then you'll see a completely different reaction (from other people who volunteer to give useful information.)

 

Have you read any other topics here?

If anyone gives only weak remark to editors, he (she) gets squall of attacks, offences and silly advises.

I am not surprised by reading your answers because I have read many others.

 

> Try, for instance, suggesting some actual facts

 

Reread this post.

 

> THAT'S the difference between being a slanderer and being a public benefactor.

 

Give me one case when I slandered. I only supposed.

But when I read editors answers I am almost sure in it.

[hutcheson]

We've seen a lot of people who weren't interested in giving details, but were intensely interested in the "value" of their site (to themselves). They often complain about the "quality" of something, but never give details.

 

By behaving in this same way, you've type-cast yourself as a self-promoting abuser or manipulator. Which is fine, but don't be surprised if you get treated like one.

 

However, if you act like a VOLUNTEER -- someone who actually DOES something USEFUL, someone who actually GIVES relevant INFORMATION -- then you'll see a completely different reaction (from other people who volunteer to give useful information.)

 

Try, for instance, suggesting some actual facts -- specific sites that shouldn't be listed -- in the "quality feedback" forum. And see what happens.

 

THAT'S the difference between being a slanderer and being a public benefactor.

 

<added>Note the world of difference between a blanket slander like "most of the sites/editors are bad" and a specific bit of helpful information: "based on the fact that the site xyz.com only contains programs from other sources (that is, abc.com, def.net, and ghi.info), it should not be listed."

 

Information can be SPECIFIC without being USEFUL: for instance, it's really pointless to tell editors about things that don't matter, like whether a site has a green background, or blocks right clicks, or offers socially unacceptable technology (whether land mines or MS-Windows-Vista or popup windows.)

[marekgot]

hutcheson,

I get tired with your answers.

When do you finish the torrent of void words?

I give you details:

The following most popular JavaScript tools are not listed in this category (http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/JavaScript/Tools/):

Aptana JavaScript Editor

JavaScript Plus

1st JavaScript Editor

Why?

 

That category does not have an editor for some years.

Why?

 

I supposed some answers above.

If you have any else clear answers (except doubtful given earlier), please give me.

[hutcheson]

The category does not have an editor because there's no qualified volunteer. And who knows why no qualified person has volunteered? Nobody, that's who.

 

Things that haven't happened don't ever have reasons. Only things that DO happen, can have reasons. So far, you haven't seen anything happen with those sites -- that's what ALWAYS happens when there's nobody to make it happen.

[motsa]

Your questions have already been answered but you apparently don't like the answers.

 

I give you details:

The following most popular JavaScript tools are not listed in this category

He didn't ask you what sites aren't listed in the category. We already know that; you've mentioned them several times. He suggested that you use the Quality Control Feedback forum to tell us what sites are already listed there that you think don't meet our listing guidelines. We don't list sites on demand -- I'm sure someone will eventually choose to edit there, though your attitude here is not likely encouraging any editor reading this thread to make that category their next editing stop -- but we always want to know about sites that shouldn't be listed any longer.

 

If you have nothing to say here but what's been said already, then I would suggest that this thread has more than run its course.

[arubin]

I'm getting tired of your ranting. The situation from our side, is clear:

 

• That the "best" things that belong in the category are not listed, it is almost certainly due to a lack of interest.
  
• If there are sites listed in the category which do not belong there, we want to hear about it. We want to hear about it so much that we provide two "express" avenues for reporting it, the thread in the Quality Control forum, and "update suggestion" on DMOZ itself.
  

[marekgot]

>because there's no qualified volunteer.

 

He he:D , the Day of a marmot.

Reread the topic.

 

>Things that haven't happened don't ever have reasons. Only things that DO happen, can have reasons. So far, you haven't seen anything happen with those sites -- that's what ALWAYS happens when there's nobody to make it happen.

 

You are a philosopher. Maybe you should to become an editor on the corresponding site?

I have understood than no one editor can give me a clear answer.

Why? Because the answers were given above and you can only add some philosophic (not valuable) touches.

 

>Your questions have already been answered but you apparently don't like the answers.

 

It seems that you do not like the questions.

 

>to tell us what sites are already listed there that you think don't meet our listing guidelines.

 

I am only wondering why rubbish sites are listed and good ones are not.

If you work well you would already removed the bad sites and added good.

 

> If you have nothing to say here but what's been said already, then I would suggest that this thread has more than run its course.

 

I am only user here and there are many editors.

Each one gives me many (sometimes silly) questions.

So I think that this thread will live for a long time (maybe forever?).

 

> I'm getting tired of your ranting.

 

Then quit this thread and find where users will flatter you. You will be pleased.

 

> If there are sites listed in the category which do not belong there, we want to hear about it.

 

Editor Hub - JavaScript - List of editors with JavaScript support with reviews. Sorted by platforms and licenses(broken link).

Do you want more?

[motsa]

So I think that this thread will live for a long time (maybe forever?).

Yeah, I don't think so.

 

Since we're just going around in circles here, this thread serves no further purpose. If you would like to report other broken URLs, please follow the instructions you've been given and use the " Report Hijacks, Dead Links, Inappropriate ODP Content, and other issues here ONLY" thread in the Quality Control Feedback forum. Beyond that, please do not start up any new threads or posts regarding this particular category.