meta hutcheson posts on ODP decline on SEW?

[bobmutch]

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

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.searchenginewatch.com/...ead.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]

ah, now he knows we know

[bobrat]

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

[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]

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]

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.