[bobmutch]

I am wondering of hutcheson's account was hacked over at SeachEngineWatch or is this post from hutcheson for real.

Quote

But it’s mostly gone now. Declining appreciation gifts, fewer applications to become editors, less frantic appeals for inclusion than ever before. But the big blow is that people use search engines to find websites, and the search engines don’t value us the way they once did. Not so long ago a website couldn’t be in America Online’s search index unless we approved them. And we still form Google’s directory. But nobody uses Google’s directory.

http://forums.search...read.php?t=8318

[bobmutch]

Ok looks like they just pulled the post. I guess some one hacked his account.

[giz]

Yeah, and George W Bush posts on my blog, in person, you know!

Surely a fake.

[Alucard]

Speaking of potential fakes, did someone fake an EBay account in your name, Bob?

[pvgool]

:splat: :ill:
ah, now he knows we know

[bobrat]

No problem as long as he doesn't put his editor account up for sale :D

[hutcheson]

Search Engine Watch is a fairly reputable forum, as SERP perp forums go. But I don't recall ever actually posting there -- it's certainly not in my normal beat, and I'm absolutely sure I haven't posted there in the last five years.

As a rational being, I can't imagine thinking that "less frantic appeals for inclusion" being a bad thing. Desperation for an ODP listing is not something that anyone who deserves an ODP listing will ever have.

[hutcheson]

Added -- I finally read it at SEF. It's nothing more than a spammeister's power fantasy. The ODP the "Gatekeeper of the Undernet, ... Interworld," whatever, "Abandon all hope all ye who want to enter here", blocking new spammers wanting to be editors right and left, "serotonin rushes", the smell of burnt e-businesses in the morning, ... celebrity status: are there actually people that think that way? Is that actually _thinking_?

Funny thing is, I took a break from proofing Jonathan Swift's pamphlets at Project Gutenberg to read this. And ... it's a pretty feeble parody. Not a pun, not an iron, not a literary allusion ("serotonin rush" probably comes off of morning TV, hmmph, I think THAT author was on Valium instead), not an analogy (beyond that "celebrity" simile: _I_ define a celebrity as "someone who's famous for achieving high name recognition"), not a single word you couldn't have learned from Dan Rather, not a single interjected phrase ... you call that a post?

But it is, in its own way, a fascinating look at the vacant space on the inside of the skull (I won't call it a "mind", I won't!) of a typical affiliate spammer. The envious or ambitious emphasis on power and prestige (no interest in accomplishment at all!). The greedy emphasis on money ... the fond belief that people actually send money to PayPal accounts of other people who don't provide any good or service. The emphasis on deceit ... defrauding social welfare programs under false pretences, to be able to defraud consumers under false pretences. The ambitious emphasis on "order" (that is, control": I've probably praised the virtues of randomness and freedom (as Siamese-twin virtues) so many times you all are ready to join the SS in reaction.) Would you believe anything anyone who admitted being that kind of liar said about himself?

And in any case the contrafacts are obvious enough: the ODP isn't and has never been a gatekeeper to anything, and that's a good thing. Wholesale corruption simply wouldn't create something like the ODP. Google is using ODP descriptions as snippets now -- that's a new thing. As for the other search engines -- who really knows how they use the ODP? But that bit about spammers sending money to PayPal accounts in gratitude -- now THAT'S what I call incredible.

Well, back to Jonathan Swift -- my employer has an internet policy that in my judgment precludes visiting random sites, so I moderate this forum and proofread at Project Gutenberg. (My manager knows what I do in slack times; I'm an IT professional with a brain, so physical disabilities aren't all that debilitating.) Maybe on my next proofing break I'll work on a "Modest Proposal for Getting Some Social Good out of Affiliate Spammers." Swift's proposal wouldn't work, I fear, and would be too painless to be socially acceptable in any case.

[bobmutch]

Aulcard: Speaking of potential fakes, did someone fake an EBay account in your name, Bob?

No that was me. I bid $666 on that editorship and then PM'ed one of the Meta's here so they would know I had no plans on using the account if I won it. (If I won I promised to turn the account over with out logging in.)

I thought the hutcheson piece was pretty bad, but as most ignorant people I believed it for a minute.

[bobmutch]

pvgool: "ah, now he knows we know "
Come now I may be stupid but not that stupid. If I have an account named bobmutch that I use everywhere else and has a picture of me in the user area of eBay, don't you think I would know your smart DMOZ editors would know it was me.

[hutcheson]

As for the e-bay: there are people that dumb, bob, but I truly don't think you are one of them. As for the other, thanks for the alert. I heard about it from several directions, but I think you were the first.

[bobmutch]

hutcheson: Thanks for the vote of confidence. Others would differ with you :)

Any way I found a really nice site for the Aylmer category and added up a couple of other average ones with it. I think I have just about all the websites and am going to move to adding websites from a town that is close to Aylmer.

I am working on correcting a number of things on my sites that I feel may have weighted against me in getting approved as an editor here.

I have a new page on my site (coming soon) that enhances the SEO firms lists in DMOZ by adding there Country, State, City, where they are in the Yahoo directory, and provides the ability to email them with a RFQs (each email will require approval by one of my workers). All the pages that display sites parsed from the DMOZ RDF are complying fully with the DMOZ license agreement by display the correct notice and links.

The other sites/pages of mine that have DMOZ entries that don't comply with the license are being corrected as we speak (quite a few pages).

The other issue I am wonder about is my charging my clients for doing DMOZ entries. I get quite a few of them and they usually are clients that don't time to do a DMOZ entry or to learn how to.

What would be your position on a DMOZ editor doing this? Would you personally feel that would be a conflict of interest? While I make good money with this service I am now considering offering it as a free service to remove that from being an issue that might hinder a future application I may make to become a DMOZ editor.

[pvgool]

Quote

The other issue I am wonder about is my charging my clients for doing DMOZ entries. I get quite a few of them and they usually are clients that don't time to do a DMOZ entry or to learn how to.

What would be your position on a DMOZ editor doing this? Would you personally feel that would be a conflict of interest? While I make good money with this service I am now considering offering it as a free service to remove that from being an issue that might hinder a future application I may make to become a DMOZ editor.

No only is that a "conflict of interest" it is absolutely forbidden. A DMOZ editor may in no way ask or get any payments (money or otherwise) for activities related to DMOZ (listing sites, reviewing sites, suggesting sites ...)

[windharp]

In many cases it's a borderline decision which has to be investigated on a case by case basis, so this advice will only be very broad. In general terms, it's okay as long as you:
- submit their sites like anyone else could do
- don't advertise "I am an editor and will make your site appear in ODP faster"
- treat those sites like you would do with any other sites as an ODP editor
- don't list sites for money (or other advantages) (note the difference between "submit" and "list")

I could write down some more do's and don'ts, but IMHO that should give you the right idea :-)

[EDIT1]

Quote

No only is that a "conflict of interest" it is absolutely forbidden. A DMOZ editor may in no way ask or get any payments (money or otherwise) for activities related to DMOZ (listing sites, reviewing sites, suggesting sites ...)

I disagree on that. An editor may not use his editorship to gain benefit. When he is just submitting sites from the outside for money, that is not connected to his editorship. Everybody could do that. As long as there is no additional benefit for the editor by him being an editor, I doubt there is something to say against it.

[EDIT2]

Example: We have a lot of professional webdesigners as editors in the ODP. They suggested all their sites before they were editors (and in some way charged customers for this, even if it's included in a package). Of course they don't need to stop doing so.

[pvgool]

I can see what Windharp is saying.
- if you suggest these sites through the public interface and not the editor interface
- if you mark all these sites as being affiliated with
- if you never review, list or change these sites yourself
it might be acceptable. But it is walking on a very thin line between honest and corrupt.
Any editor who accepts payment for sites he lists himself in my eyes is corrupt. That inlcudes IMHO webdesigners and seo-people who list sites they (or their company) has been working on.

[bobmutch]

pvgool: I think windharp gives the letter and you the spirit. Some one once said that you not only have to be impeachable but you have to appear to be impeachable.
I am now seeing better if I am adding DMOZ submissions for clients and charge for it and then I am applying for a DMOZ editorship the application reviewers may kind of smile and think ya right.

Especially when I am frank and honest about one of the reasons I applied for an editorship (status in the SEO community). But hey that is me, I just can't help myself. Often I am stupidly honest. I would note of course that is not the only reason I applied.

I am considering ending the DMOZ charge submission service and move to a free submission, but...

>>>Any editor who accepts payment for sites he lists himself in my eyes is corrupt. That inlcudes IMHO webdesigners and seo-people who list sites they (or their company) has been working on.

Now I can understand your position on taking payment but you take it a step further where being a DMOZ editor directly effects your job if your work in the SEO industry.
There currently is a surge in opinion in the SEO community on the value of having your site in DMOZ (especially those that are in DMOZ).

With the demise of Pagerank (PR) as a means to rate text link ad purchases, the perceived value of having inbound links from sites in DMOZ and has be ratched up. Of course if having links from sites in DMOZ is perceived as having high value, having your site in DMOZ holds even more.

With this in mine it would seem that your position would be that anyone in the SEO community should not submit there client sites, IF they are a DMOZ editor.

We could even take it a bit further. Offering a free service to add sites to DMOZ as a promotional item could also be seen as the same thing as charging for the submissions.
If a SEO consultant offers a free service to add up sites to DMOZ he thereby attracts prospective clients to his site with this service. Some of these clients that came for the free service will purchase other products. Hereby his free service benefits the SEO consultant on a financial level.

Would it be your position that not only charging for submits that are submitted from the public interface but also doing it for free from the public interface would be "walking on a very thin line between honest and corrupt"?

If this is the case, and you are in good company in this position this would be that it probably would be advisable for an SEO consultant to offer neither.

If this is the case this means for a SEO consultant to be come a DMOZ editor will limit him to a small degree financially.

The amount my SEO work made this month dwarfs what I make on DMOZ submission or the promotion I would receive from offering a free DMOZ submission service. So for me to stop doing DMOZ submission is not a financial issue.

But on the other hand a SEO consultant having to tell his clients he/she can't do a DMOZ submission for them as there are a DMOZ editor is going to cost them business.

I feel strongly that what is stopping me from getting being accepted as a DMOZ editor is not the quality of the sites I have submitted or the quality of my titles and descriptions (yes I know there is more to it than that). Of the 21 sites I have submitted to DMOZ 19 have been accepted (in the Ontario/Aylmer category). A number of my last submissions have been approved with few or no changes.

The only two things I can see, that I can do anything about, that could have been keeping my application from being approve is that I offer a DMOZ submission service on my site that I change for and that some of my sites pages having RDF parsed titles and description with out following the DMOZ license.

The first I am willing to change the latter is in the process of being changed now.
Keep in mind my motivation here is to find out how I can become squeaky clean and increase the change of my next application being successful, not to debate or take your position to task.

Thank you for you time!

[spectregunner]

Allow me to state the obvious: there is a vast difference between actually adding a site to the directory (as an editor) and suggesting a site to the directory (as an editor).

The suggestion process is open to anyone.

[oneeye]

Let's be clear here, letter and spirit. Editors may add sites they are affiliated with if they have the editing rights to do so and the sites are listable and the affiliation has been declared. The affiliation may be ownership of the site, or it may belong to a client, employer, family member or friend.

Here is what the Guidelines say on conflict of interest:

In some cases, an editor's business affiliation overlaps their involvement in the directory, such as with Search Engine Optimization (SEO) professionals and Professional Content Providers (PCPs), whose participation may benefit both the editor and the directory. Instances when the involvement is mutually beneficial are acceptable, however, the primary focus and goal should always be to serve the best interests of the ODP and the editing community.

Here's what they can't they do according to the Guidelines:

--Self-promotion (such as site cooling, and title or description manipulation, and adding/promoting only one's own sites).

--Discriminating against or tampering with competitors' listings for the purpose of harming a competitor.

--Conducting unfair and deceptive activities to promote and support client listings will result in removal of editing privileges.


There is nothing in the Guidelines specifically about accepting money for listings. I would guess that might be because this could catch the web designer or SEO who lists their clients' sites quite legitimately - someone could intepret that listing as having been done for money even if an insignificant element in an overall package. Then you have the editor who sets themselves up as a "professional" lister - that is their product or service, listing sites in DMOZ. Even if they only do it once that is clearly an unfair activity and usually done deceptively so they don't get caught engaging in the unfair bit. With or without deception, unfair editing make an editor corrupt and they must be removed permanently. Between those two are vast tracts of grey area where intent and balance and editorial track record come into play - a complex judgement that meta editors usually get spot on. Not being a meta I don't get to see the discussion but there are few removals you can't work out very quickly.

The important principles are that editors should not treat sites they are affiliated with any differently in terms of judging listability than any other, and they should not edit in such a way as to give an advantage to affiliated sites or disadvantage others. In practice this is usually pretty easy for an honest editor with web service interests to do. If you list a site you are affiliated with you also list a substantial tranche of competitor sites at the same time and do not in any way attempt to manipulate titles or descriptions to your advantage.

How is it possible for an editor to advertise they will list a site for money or for free when that means someone who doesn't respond to the advert is disadvantaged. What about editors charging just for submission though. Well anyone can suggest a site and there are firms that will charge for it but no-one needs to pay someone else to submit their site - editors will correct poor titles and descriptions when they review the site. So if an editor offers a DMOZ submission service (on its own) then IMO it is misleading their customer into thinking they are getting an advantage and in that way incompatible with being an editor. I'm an editor, use me to submit your site - what does that say to the customer - that they are getting an edge over their competitors maybe? And how does that make DMOZ look? Corrupt maybe? Even though there is no advantage in listing terms - the editor is being deceptive to their customers and therefore not the sort that is needed.

When it comes to a new editor application, metas will want to satisfy themselves that the individual they are considering does not have a track record of engaging in activities which might present ethical issues if they accept them. So saying you'll stop doing things of that nature, now please let me in, is unlikely I would have thought to stir much in the way of reconsideration. That said there are plenty of web services who have no editing connections but who have taught themselves to submit great sites to correct categories with compliant titles and descriptions, and therefore do their customers a lot of good. They don't get caught in ethical dilemmas because they are under no obligation to submit non-affiliated sites but nevertheless their efforts to get their submissions right are always appreciated.

[motsa]

Quote

That said there are plenty of web services who have no editing connections but who have taught themselves to submit great sites to correct categories with compliant titles and descriptions, and therefore do their customers a lot of good. They don't get caught in ethical dilemmas because they are under no obligation to submit non-affiliated sites but nevertheless their efforts to get their submissions right are always appreciated.

As an example of that, somewhere in this forum there is a post from someone complaining of editor abuse because a particular web design company's sites got listed quickly in Regional while his didn't. He presumed that meant that the editors working in that area of Regional worked for the company. What he didn't understand, even after much explanation, was that the web design company in question always made a good submission -- used the right title, gave a decent description, and submitted to the right locality.

Think about how quickly the sites you're suggesting to the Ontario localities are being listed -- it's partly because you're taking the time to write decent titles and descriptions and you're picking the right categories.

[bobmutch]

spectregunner: "Allow me to state the obvious: there is a vast difference between actually adding a site to the directory (as an editor) and suggesting a site to the directory (as an editor)."

In my above discussion I was referring to suggesting sites to the directory not adding them. I think it would be unacceptable to charge for a listing in a category where you had the rights to add them.

motsa: "Think about how quickly the sites you're suggesting to the Ontario localities are being listed -- it's partly because you're taking the time to write decent titles and descriptions and you're picking the right categories."
Thank you! That is another confirmation to me that the issue with me not being accepted for the regional category of Aylmer where I live is not the quality of my titles, descriptions, and sites, but it is some thing else that the Meta's felt would cause more problems than good.

I am very interested to find out what this is and to correct it if it is correctable.

[edit1]
Self promtion link and paragrahp removed.