--- In xodp@y..., "David Prenatt" <netesq@d...> wrote:
> [hitch-hiker:]
> > Various types of spam filters
> > exists at ODP.
> We're all ears, so please tell us all about ODP's various non-
> existent spam filters:
ODP has various types of spam filters. Both to block out submissions
and to identify if the same site is listed in the same or another
category. The ODP software can also detect various versions of the
same URL. The spam filters at come in many formsm, both automatic and
manual.
> [David Prenatt:]
> > > there's no way to tell whether an unreviewed submission is
> > > already sitting in the category where it has been submitted.
> [hitch-hiker:]
> > It's actually very easy to see that.
> Not if it's in the same category,
Yes, even then. Obviously your information is outdated.
>and certainly not if the submitter has submitted using a different
title and description,
It doesn't matter as long as the URL can be identified as the same.
> [hitch-hiker:]
> > . . . ODP do have a search function.
> Which is so awful, and updates so infrequently, that even ODP
editors prefer using Google to search ODP's listings.
The quality wasn't the issue here, but the existance and ODP have a
search function and it works for me. I actually use ODP as the base
for all my searches and if I don't find what I'm looking for I use
other ways to find it and then add it to ODP so I can find it the
next time I need it.
Btw, the needs of an editor and the needs of a searcher may be
different.
--- In xodp@y..., "David Prenatt" <netesq@d...> wrote:
>
> A truly simple feature would be one that automatically filters the
submissions of suspected spammers into a special queue rather than
leaving said submissions in with all of the other unreviewed
submissions.<
Excellent and simple idea Mr.Prenatt ! Wndp - The Whole Net Directory
Project http://www.wndp.com will look into using this feature.
Nick Sahadi
staff@...
[Keith T.:]
>
> I'm not sure what the point is in mixing the question of the
> number of editors with the question of anti-spam tools.
The questions are related in the context of credibility. Specifically, the
powers that be at ODP are prone to extreme exaggeration.
[Keith T.:]
>
> As I said earlier, there are tools which are fairly effective
> against automated spamming. These tools are not available for
> everyone to use (can you imagine that? there are as many
> definitions of spam as there are editors) but staff is not the only
> group which can use these tools.
" . . . . One trick sites will use to try to get multiple listings in the
directory is to submit their site (or similar versions of their site or
sub-sections of their site – "Deep-Linking") under different registered domains.
For example, Wonder Steak Company might submit both www.wondersteaks.com and a
different URL, www.steaksareus.com, that leads to the same page. . . .
". . . . Sites that repeatedly or persistently spam the directory will be
blocked from submission, and their sites may be removed from the directory.
Sites affiliated with known spammers may also be removed from the directory
and/or blocked from submission."
(ODP Guidelines - Spamming < http://dmoz.org/guidelines.html#Spam >.)
By virtue of the guideline directives listed above, ODP's anti-spam technology
is still limited to blocking individual sites and/or IP addresses, and then only
after an individual and/or a site is identified as a spammer.
Let's assume, _arguendo_, that the spammer in question is smart enough to:
* Submit under different domain names (as mentioned in the quote from the ODP
guidelines above);
* Use a dynamically assigned IP address and/or use a proxy server;
* Change his or her e-mail address with each and every submission;
* Sign up as an ODP editor and covertly monitor any and all activity related to
his or her domains; and
* Purchase expired domain names that are already listed on ODP.
All of the above are rather simple spamming techniques that virtually any
determined spammer will employ, and only the first technique is even identified
in the ODP Guidelines. What's more, if metas now have the ability to block a
site and/or IP address, as you are apparently asserting, there would no doubt be
a set of guidelines for metas to employ this technology, just as there are
guidelines for metas removing an editor's editing privileges. (Cf. <
http://dmoz.org/metas.html >.) However, no guidelines have been published for
metas use of anti-spam tools.
[Keith T.:]
>
> The rest of spam detection comes from human intelligence--
> observation and investigation. Logging what happens to
> unreviewed sites is part of that.
In other words, ODP remains overwhelmed with spam submissions, human editors do
the vast majority of the work in determining what constitutes spam, and only the
most flagrant and obvious offenders are blocked from submitting. This sounds
pretty much like the non-existent spam technology that I remember.
[Keith T.:]
>
> Other features are in the works.
A truly simple feature would be one that automatically filters the submissions
of suspected spammers into a special queue rather than leaving said submissions
in with all of the other unreviewed submissions.
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
I'm not sure what the point is in mixing the question of the
number of editors with the question of anti-spam tools.
As I said earlier, there are tools which are fairly effective against
automated spamming. These tools are not available for
everyone to use (can you imagine that? there are as many
definitions of spam as there are editors) but staff is not the only
group which can use these tools.
The rest of spam detection comes from human intelligence--
observation and investigation. Logging what happens to
unreviewed sites is part of that. Other features are in the works.
There's also nothing wrong with someone on the 'outside'
notifying staff or high-level editors of possible wrongdoing. It
_does_ get investigated if reported.
Keith aka kctipton
meta-editor
[skrento:]
>
> Ah yes the infamous JimsWorld. The most heavly censored forum on
> the planet, that is unless you are one of "them".
Hey! That's just not true! The only reason that you will be censored at
JimWorld is if you try to criticize ODP. And that's different because ODP is,
like, special, ya know?
[skrento:]
>
> JimWorld, the forum that ODP submitters and editors must stumble
> upon if they need help in dealing with ODP problems because they
> are ignored at the ODP by ODP staff,ODP meta editors, and at times
> certain ODP editors.
Don't forget the dead as a doornail Search Engine Discussion boards -- <
http://searchenginediscussion.com/cgi-bin/ubb/Ultimate.cgi?action=intro&category\
=6&BypassCookie=true > where XODP Meta Editor goldm is *STILL* listed as the
moderator of the "ODP Guidelines" forum. But . . .
"Please be advised that all information offered by anyone at
SearchEngineDiscussion.com who represents themselves as an editor for The Open
Directory Project, may speak in references, vaguely, or in some cases refuse to
answer specific questions. The Staff of SearchEngineDiscussion.com respects this
without question, the policies of The Open Directory Project will be adhered to
in these fora. Guidelines set forth at ODP restrict certain communication in
regards to ODP business, and can endanger editorial privileges for an editor to
ignore them. Please respect these boundries[sic] when questioning ANY
representative of DMOZ.ORG."
(The above Orwellian "disclaimer" appeared on all of the ODP forums at Daron
Babin's Search Engine Discussion site shortly after the abrupt removal of my ODP
editing privileges. I am informed and believe that it was a cowardly attempt on
the part of Daron Babin to distance himself from me, which was totally
unnecessary as I had already tendered my resignation as a moderator for Search
Engine Discussion's "ODP Guidelines" forum.)
[skrento:]
>
> As for being disgruntled, was that not how the ODP was born. From
> those digruntled with Yahoo, such as the ODP founder Rich Skrenta.
Yeah, but that's different, because ODP is, like, special, ya know?
[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > . . . WNDP seems like a version of the ODP, without any visible
> > differences whatsoever, at least not at this stage. Is there
> > sufficient consumer interest to justify such a copycat effort?
[skrento:]
>
> Was there sufficient consumer interest to justify such a copycat
> effort as the ODP as Yahoo? No. The interest was on the part of
> submitters and SEO professionals.
>
> But the efforts at WNDP will pick up where the ODP stumbled. That
> is focusing on what consumers want also. Our number one goal is to
> provide users with the most relevant results quickly and with
> ease.The WNDP project will be quite different from the ODP and
> other directories as noted in various other posts here.
Why not join forces with one of the current volunteer indexing communities such
as GoGuide.org or JoeAnt? Is it really necessary to form yet another splinter
group?
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
[Gary:]
>
> Of all the pointless junk-o-pinions you have posted as reply to any
> of my posts, this last piece of disconnected BS took the cake, the
> plate, the table, chairs, and rug.
Hey, thanks. I wasn't even trying. And now, for my next trick . . .
[Gary:]
>
> In my own defense I must state for the record that "I didn't have
> intimate relations with that frog tunnel or any of the referenced
> potholes."
Yes, but what is your position on "Three Snores and You're Out!" . . . ?
[Gary:]
>
> What The Hell, besides providing an irrelevant distraction, was the
> point of your post.
The sum and substance of my post was found in the very first pithy paragraph,
which I repeat here for our mutual posting convenience:
"I think the solution is more non-profit community portals. (See, e.g., the
Davis Community Network < http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/ >.)"
(< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1050 >.)
This in reply to your assertion that Zeal and Yahoo! have failed to provide a
useful index to Web-based regional information.
[Gary:]
>
> I hope it wasn't that tired old rant that because some government
> is out of control and silly all government including traffic lights
> are an abomination-- and therefor there should be no public
> un-billionaire-a-nizeable internet infrastructure.
Now that you mention it, no that wasn't the point of my post. In fact, my
personal take on government regulation is that there are many problems that are
best addressed by organized community efforts -- i.e., government entities --
and I (personally) have no problem with such organized community efforts,
provided that you do not ask me to fund them and provided that I am not
compelled to participate by force or threat of force.
Much of my legal education was focused on researching and formulating practical
methods of transitioning from government bureaucracy to a stateless society.
One result was an advanced writing project for a course I took in "Law of
Elections and Political Campaigns," wherein I proposed the institution of the
"budget ballot" as a necessary addition to the tools of direct democracy. This
proposal has been incorporated into the charter of Wherewithal's Voluntary
Category Owner Association. (See <
http://co.wherewithal.com/forums/showthread.php?s=e15c84e79b642f5e1b8736f7dba80b\
fe&threadid=1311 >.)
For more information on the subject of whether government intervention might be
best for what ails the Internet, I refer you and all other interested parties to
the following Net Action white papers:
* The Origins and Future of Open Source Software - <
http://netaction.org/opensrc/future/ > - by Nathan Newman
"This article [looks] at the past history of the government's support for open
source computing, [examines] the lessons of its success and the results of its
pullback in the early 1990s, and [uses] this history to outline a policy program
for the future."
* The Case for Government Promotion of Open Source Software - <
http://netaction.org/opensrc/oss-report.html > - by Mitch Stoltz
"An alternative method of software development, called open source software,
creates robust, secure software through a process of widespread peer review.
This paper explains the open source concept and attempts to show how government
can use open source as a vehicle for promoting economic development and as a
policy tool which could assist the Justice Department in its antitrust action
against Microsoft."
[Gary:]
>
> I couldn't even figure out what you were saying as regards to the
> City of Davis site In my opinion it isn't much of a solution
> without a homepage link to a list of "other local sites". Than
> there is the problem of locals having to perhaps stumble on your
> post to find a link to the site.
My point is that the Davis Community Network is *NOT* the official City of Davis
Web site. It is a non-profit corporation that can be held accountable by its
membership.
[Gary:]
>
> In the middle of writing this I got an e-mail from David inviting
> me to post my "whatis" proposal here. This has caused my brain to
> explode and left me with only enough brain cells to know that would
> be absolutely pointless, and that now might be a good time to take
> a nap.
I don't think you are giving yourself enough credit, Gary. Who says that your
"whatis" proposal is absolutely pointless?
Of course, what you *MIGHT* be trying to say is not so much that your "whatis"
proposal is absolutely pointless, but that posting it to XODP would be
absolutely pointless. Either way, nothing could be further from the truth: If
not informative, your "whatis" proposal would certainly be quite entertaining to
the XODPers who would no doubt be willing to offer you their feedback.
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
--- In xodp@y..., "David Prenatt" <netesq@d...> wrote:
[David Prenatt:]
> Please note the commentary of "sheesh," reproduced above, in
re "Learning from the ODP." I am informed and believe that a
similar, critical examination of ODP went into the genesis of Zeal,
and (ultimately) one is left to wonder why you (specifically you)
should be entrusted with the leadership of something that requires
the qualities of vision, managerial skill, tact, etc. that would go
into such an ambition project. Unveiling it with a spoof of the ODP
Home Page doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
>
> In other words, what are your credentials? According to the
comments of one of your critics, posted at JimWorld's Search Engine
Forums, "This is the work of a former, and most definately[sic]
disgruntled editor who has spent much of the last year bad mouthing
the ODP in various fora." (<
http://searchengineforums.com/Forum11/HTML/001626.html >.)
[skrento:]
Ah yes the infamous JimsWorld. The most heavly censored forum on the
planet, that is unless you are one of "them". JimWorld, the forum that
ODP submitters and editors must stumble upon if they need help in
dealing with ODP problems because they are ignored at the ODP by ODP
staff,ODP meta editors, and at times certain ODP editors.
As for being disgruntled, was that not how the ODP was born. From
those digruntled with Yahoo, such as the ODP founder Rich Skrenta.
Has not every other directory been born partially form disgruntled
individuals? Rich Skrenta did not hide the fact that he was
disgruntled with Yahoo and neither do I hide whats wrong with the ODP
or other directories. Furthermore, thousands of others do not hide
that they are displeased with certain se/directories. JimWorld is
full of such individuals.
As for my credentials, I have been a part of numerous se/directory
projects and have three years of experience in researching search
engines and directories. I know what the public wants, what
submitters want, and what contributers want. Based upon those wants,
WNDP will have a team of talented se/directory individuals working to
implement what the pulic, submitters, and contributers want. To be a
part of the project go to http://www.wndp.com or email staff@....
[David Prenatt:]
> And WNDP seems like a version of the ODP, without any visible
differences whatsoever, at least not at this stage. Is there
sufficient consumer interest to justify such a copycat effort?
[skrento:]
Was there sufficient consumer interest to justify such a copycat
effort as the ODP as Yahoo? No. The interest was on the part of
submitters and SEO professionals.
But the efforts at WNDP will pick up where the ODP stumbled. That is
focusing on what consumers want also. Our number one goal is to
provide users with the most relevant results quickly and with
ease.The WNDP project will be quite different from the ODP and other
directories as noted in various other posts here.
Nick Sahadi
staff@...http://www.wndp.com
David,
Re: Your reply to "No regional zeal"
Of all the pointless junk-o-pinions you have posted as reply to any of my posts,
this last piece of disconnected BS took the cake, the plate, the table, chairs,
and rug. In my own defense I must state for the record that “I didn’t have
intimate relations with that frog tunnel or any of the referenced potholes.”
What The Hell, besides providing an irrelevant distraction, was the point of
your post. I hope it wasn’t that tired old rant that because some government is
out of control and silly all government including traffic lights are an
abomination-- and therefor there should be no public un-billionaire-a-nizeable
internet infrastructure. I couldn’t even figure out what you were saying as
regards to the City of Davis site In my opinion it isn’t much of a solution
without a homepage link to a list of “other local sites”. Than there is the
problem of locals having to perhaps stumble on your post to find a link to the
site.
WE INTERRUPT THIS “WHAT KIND OF JERK ARE YOU” POST FOR THIS IMPORTANT UPDATE:
In the middle of writing this I got an e-mail from David inviting me to post my
“whatis” proposal here. This has caused my brain to explode and left me with
only enough brain cells to know that would be absolutely pointless, and that now
might be a good time to take a nap.
[Gary:]
>
> . . . From my perspective, Zeals unwillingness to provide a
> regional directory branch is a disqualifying flaw. A bigger "joke"
> directory in this regard is yahoo's "get local" and hopelessly
> lost spamortal (
http://local.yahoo.com/?location_city=Mendham&location_state=NJ&location_lat=40.\
779999&location_lon=-74.596497 )
> I have stated before that if this is the best the public can
> expect, than the internet is going to languish far short of its
> potential.
I think the solution is more non-profit community portals. (See, e.g., the
Davis Community Network < http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/ >.)
Of course, the City of Davis, California is well-known for its almost fanatical
level of citizen involvement, the results of which have been nothing short of
absurdly comical. Specifically, Julie Partansky's demand that Davis provide
toad tunnels for its amphibious residents -- which (by all accounts) remain
unused -- and that Davis preserve its "historic potholes." (See <
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/pcs/cultural/30years/chapt10.htm >.) And then
there's the infamous "no snoring" ordinance:
"The snoring saga began in January 1994, when a university student decided he
couldn't take any more. Tired of hearing a neighbor's snoring through his
apartment's walls, he complained to police, convincing a new city enforcement
officer to cite his neighbor for violating the Davis noise ordinance with her
snoring. A media circus ensued, as television crews descended on Davis to find
out how someone could be cited for snoring, then broadcasting the story
internationally. One television crew even set up shop in the complaining
student's bedroom, apparently hoping to hearing the offending snorer firsthand.
Ultimately, the City Council and Yolo County district attorney's office decided
not to enforce the citation, pointing out that snoring is an involuntary action.
The women who was cited later filed suit against the city, seeking damages of
$24,500 for lost wages, medical expenses and emotional distress. In March 1995,
the city agreed to an out-of-court settlement that paid her $13,500."
(_Ibid._)
Simply one more example of your tax dollars, hard at work.
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
[uespanola:]
>
> . . . [T]he information you [David Prenatt] have is outdated. . . .
>
> ODP have improved the internal tools against spam, and this tools
> are available for regular and meta editors.
No doubt there have been many changes at ODP since my departure, but I am
frequently informed of these changes by rogue ODP editors who are also members
of XODP. To wit, I was recently informed by e-mail that ODP's editing logs now
reflect all edits made to unreviewed submissions (other than deletes), and my
sources have been equally forthcoming about the lack of progress in ODP's stone
age anti-spam technology.
Given the recalcitrant lack of candor that ODP has displayed in its highly
exaggerated claims of ODP editor membership, it seems highly suspect that it
would readily admit to its failure to improve the non-existent anti-spam tools
that it purportedly makes available to its volunteer editors. Indeed, whenever
the topic has arisen in the past, we have been told that a public discussion of
ODP's non-existent anti-spam technology cannot take place for "security
reasons." Now we are asked to believe that these non-existent anti-spam tools
are readily available to thousands of volunteer editors.
In sum, ODP's claims about its non-existent anti-spam technology are as dubious
as the highly exagerrated, oft-repeated, and ever growing claim that ODP
currently has 39,874 editors -- i.e., the BIG FAT LIE found on ODP's Home Page.
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
[David Prenatt:]
> > >
> > > This brings us back to the question of whether Zeal has already
> > > implemented [the] reforms [that WNDP hopes to implement]. Do
> > > you see Zeal as an enterprise worth emulating in this way? If
> > > so, what drawbacks do you see to the system that Zeal currently
> > > has in place?
[skrento (aka Nick Sahadi):]
>
> They (Zeal) have not gone far enough. There is still a wall between
> the Zealots and the powers that be.
I, too, am a strong believer in keeping even the highest levels of upper
management accessible to the rank and file members of an organization, and in my
work as Wherewithal's Chief Evangelist I have made a point of doing this. To a
large extent, I have been able to maintain the fiction that I have nothing
better to do than respond to the individual inquiries of each of Wherewithal's
thousand or so Category Owners. But familiarity breeds contempt, and there have
to be boundaries of some sort; (IMHO) where those boundaries are set is a
question of personal style.
In "Learning from the ODP," an ODP insider writing under the pseudonym of
"sheesh" commented:
"Positives:
"1. The spirit of volunteerism is a powerful thing. It inspires a level of
loyalty that is impossible to duplicate through other means.
"2. Volunteer efforts run by commercial entities need at least one layer of
abstraction between an unpaid worker and the organizations profiting from his
effort.
"3. Encouraging a sense of community is vital to the long-term survival of the
project. Communal goals and a unified vision will do more than all the
technology and venture capital in the world.
"4. Humans do, in fact, do it better.
"5. Open distribution of the core data opens the door to technological
innovation in the realm of directory presentation.
"Negatives:
"1. A big directory packed with dozens of links per category is comprehensive.
It is also a functional nightmare from the end-user's perspective.
"2. Communities need real leaders whose first loyalty is always to the people
who make up said communities.
"3. Alphabetical sorting is perhaps the worst possible way to present a list of
websites.
"4. `Cooling' a site in an effort to make a category more immediately relevant
is not evil. It is merely an inadequate first step.
"5. Never create a category to do metadata's job. Asking a volunteer labor force
to expend substantial effort hacking up categories (Regional reorganizations,
alphabars for large categories, an so on) in lieu of software upgrades that
address the underlying problems is foolish at best, lazy and inconsiderate at
worst.
"6. Speaking of upgrades: release often, if not early. The community needs to
see a constant stream of activity from above that mirrors and enables its own.
When the editorial community puts more effort into the production of interface
enhancements than the staff, there is something wrong.
"7. Leaders must be an active and visible part of the communities they create.
There is simply no better way to understand the needs of the people they serve
than sharing those needs.
"8. A useful directory will be dynamic on the front end as well as the back.
(<
http://pub14.ezboard.com/ftraffickcommunitytheotherdirectoryproject.showMessage?\
topicID=81.topic >.)
One of the most important reforms that I have encouraged at Wherewithal is a
constituency-based Voluntary Category Owner Association. (See generally <
http://co.wherewithal.com/forums/showthread.php?s=f7de65ab636480861a8edd1007b61a\
d5&threadid=1312 >; <
http://co.wherewithal.com/forums/showthread.php?s=f7de65ab636480861a8edd1007b61a\
d5&threadid=1311 >.) Do you think that something like this might benefit Zeal
and/or WNDP?
[skrento:]
>
> Zeal seems like a version of the defunct GoGuides, perhaps improved
> slightly.
And WNDP seems like a version of the ODP, without any visible differences
whatsoever, at least not at this stage. Is there sufficient consumer interest
to justify such a copycat effort?
[skrento:]
>
> . . . I believe that there is cloud of distrust and lower moral in
> the community due to the relationship with Looksmart.
What makes LookSmart the bad guy? Indeed, isn't LookSmart exactly the type of
professionally managed organization that you would hope to emulate?
[skrento:]
>
> So, no WNDP will not emulate ZEAL.
Please note the commentary of "sheesh," reproduced above, in re "Learning from
the ODP." I am informed and believe that a similar, critical examination of ODP
went into the genesis of Zeal, and (ultimately) one is left to wonder why you
(specifically you) should be entrusted with the leadership of something that
requires the qualities of vision, managerial skill, tact, etc. that would go
into such an ambition project. Unveiling it with a spoof of the ODP Home Page
doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
In other words, what are your credentials? According to the comments of one of
your critics, posted at JimWorld's Search Engine Forums, "This is the work of a
former, and most definately[sic] disgruntled editor who has spent much of the
last year bad mouthing the ODP in various fora." (<
http://searchengineforums.com/Forum11/HTML/001626.html >.)
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
[David Grant:]
>
> At local level Google delivers good results, at regional level
> Google delivers good results...however at country or worldwide
> level Google's results are not only eccentric but also alter
> drastically every month at the larger level.
I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "good results." But as far as I can
tell, a standard Google search for geographic information at the local/regional
level delivers mediocre results, at best. To wit, the official city site will
usually come up within the first ten hits (if such a site exists), and a
substantial number of sites that are referenced by the official city sity will
usually come up within the first ten hits.
I am fond of using the example of Mendota, a small town in central California,
population 7,844 as of January 1, 2000. (See < http://www.google.com/search?
hl=en&safe=off&q=mendota+california&btnG=Google+Search&cat= >.) A standard
Google search returns 13,300 hits, and the first ten hits? . . .
1. The ODP/Google cat for Mendota, California, which contains exactly *ONE*
listing, the official city Web site.
2. The official Mendota, California city Web site.
3-10. Regional spam -- i.e., template generated geographical information that
is of dubious accuracy and can be obtained from the official city Web site
and/or any decent set of yellow pages.
The "good" results for Mendota appear haphazarely among the other 13,290 hits.
Compare this with what I put together in a couple of hours one afternoon. (<
http://www.wherewithal.com/cat_show.html?id=984240 >.)
In sum, the Google algorithm is dumb, and it is easily fooled, operating by the
brute force of link popularity. A human editor who imitates the Google spider,
following the Web links from the official city Web site will be able to
determine with much greater accuracy the relevancy of the various Web sites he
or she encounters. This is even more true if he or she is familiar with the
geographic region in question.
This is not unlike the failed attempts of chess-playing computer programs of the
past that operated by brute force, calculating the mathematical probability
and/or importance of losing a particular chess piece. Over time, computer
programmers learned that expert systems must be spoon fed information on a
particular topic to have a fighting chance in a contest of wits against a human
expert. And unlike expert computer systems, human experts can take the thinking
skills they have acquired and apply them to other problem solving
tasks.
IMHO, the failure of most automated taxonomy builders -- i.e., e.g.,
Web-indexing systems like Quiver -- is that they ignore the value of human
experts in processing information in a much more meaningful way than expert
computer systems can. [Note that Quiver no longer even *HAS* a Web directory on
their Web site.} This is not to say that expert computer systems of the future
will have the same limitations of the expert computer systems of today. Rather,
it is to say that human beings and their technology have become very
interdependent.
I am reminded of how my father used to have to assure people that computers
would not be stealing their jobs. "This computer system is only intended to
help you do your job better and faster." Three decades later, I am now able to
assure people, "You haven't even *BEGUN* to work! The sheer volume of truly
useless documentation that a properly functioning computer system can generate
is beyond your wildest imaginings."
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
The fact that more of you seem to be realizing that the internet gods are not
giving the using public any clean, efficient way to look locally on the web is
encouraging. From my perspective, Zeals unwillingness to provide a regional
directory branch is a disqualifying flaw. A bigger "joke" directory in this
regard is yahoo's "get local" and hopelessly lost spamortal (
http://local.yahoo.com/?location_city=Mendham&location_state=NJ&location_lat=40.\
779999&location_lon=-74.596497 ) I have stated before that if this is the best
the public can expect, than the internet is going to languish far short of its
potential. Almost famous for my "simple" solutions here is another-- Why not
oblige some search provider to allow the user to search for word elements within
domain names? Conveniently "many" local interest site owners do have the wisdom
to put locality information (state, town) in there domain name. Inconveniently,
you can't do this kind of search (on a complete database) anywhere on the
internet (as far as I know) Google like, whole URL searches are a pretty useless
imitation and have me wondering Why? this simplest of search options is
available nowhere. Being able to easily add this functionality is I think
another reason to support my "whatis" proposal ( http://donotgo.com/whatis.htm )
> No doubt there are automated ways to deal with automated spam, as >you [ODP
Meta Editor kctipton] asserted, but -- correct me if I am >wrong -- they are not
made available to the average rank-and-file ODP >editor. Rather, only the most
flagrant violators are dealt with by >banning a particular submitter, and this
type of action typically >requires the intervention of an ODP staff editor.
I have to mention that the information you have is outdated, for example the
thread you mentioned is 1 year and 1 month old and things in the ODP are not
the same since then.
ODP have improved the internal tools against spam, and this tools are available
for regular and meta editors.
ferrando
ODP meta editor
> [skrento:]
> There are better ways of dealing with problems than flame wars.
> Such as having a staff that will listen to problems and help
> solve them in a professional manner.
> [David Prenatt:]
> > Agreed, public forums are seldom the right place to resolve
> personal issues, but what about freedom of speech?
> [skrento:]
> I am a true believer in freedom of speech. However, I also believe
in respect. Since nothing is perfect, I beleive in trying to have
> balance between the two. You can speak your mind in a civil manner
> or hoot and holler. I beleive the former will be recieved better.
> [David Prenatt:]
> > This brings us back to the question of whether Zeal has already
> > implemented such reforms. Do you see Zeal as an enterprise worth
> > emulating in this way? If so, what drawbacks do you see to the
> > system that Zeal currently has in place?
They (Zeal) have not gone far enough. There is still a wall between
the Zealots and the powers that be. Zeal seems like a version of the
defunct GoGuides, perhaps improved slightly. Furthermore, I believe
that there is cloud of distrust and lower moral in the community due
to the relationship with Looksmart.
At WNDP The Whole Net Directory Project http://www.wndp.com/
management will have a closer relationship with contributers and
submitters in regards to communication. The problem of communication
at some of the other dirctories is just awful. Its just not a
priority to them.
So, no WNDP will not emulate ZEAL.
Nick Sahadi
staff@...
[Keith:]
>
> Don't confuse a spam filter with detection of inappropriate
> submissions.
>
> Human intelligences (meaning informed and alert editors) are needed
> to combat human deviousness. There aren't quite enough of those to
> go around, sad to say.
>
> There _are_ automated ways to deal with automated spam.
Coping with an ever-mounting tsunami of spam submissions is one of the primary
reasons for editor burnout at ODP. And yet we are told:
". . . . There are . . . filters which track submission abuse, but, for security
reasons, it's not appropriate to hold a public discussion on them."
(Post by XODP Meta Editor goldm on Search Engine Forums, "The New ODP Forum";
entire thread subsequently deleted by JimWORLD's Thought Police.)
This type of security through obscurity is tantamount to security through
absurdity. Or as XODP Editor gamiziuk narrated previously at the Traffick
Community forum known as "The Other Directory Project":
"We already know that the ODP software is `smart' enough to recognize certain
addresses are the same:
"www.mydomain.com/
"mydomain.com/
"www.mydomain.com/index.html or default.html or index.htm or default.htm (and a
few more variants)
"The software recognizes that these are `the same' address and notifies the
editor when an address is already listed in ODP.
"This is not really a `security' issue. In fact, ODP should readily advertise
this fact, to warn Spammers, `Don't bother trying to submit these variants, the
software will detect you!'
"Repeat Spammers are sent off into ODP purgatory, a category named
Test/See/Editor/Notes/ or a variant on that name. When an editor pulls up a
domain in his editing software, he is immediately tipped off on his dashboard
that something is up with this domain.
"Again, not really a security issue. This is something that should be pointed
out to Spammers, `Don't bother repeatedly submitting because we will catch
you!'"
(<
http://pub14.ezboard.com/ftraffickcommunitytheotherdirectoryproject.showMessage?\
topicID=126.topic >.)
No doubt there are automated ways to deal with automated spam, as you [ODP Meta
Editor kctipton] asserted, but -- correct me if I am wrong -- they are not made
available to the average rank-and-file ODP editor. Rather, only the most
flagrant violators are dealt with by banning a particular submitter, and this
type of action typically requires the intervention of an ODP staff editor.
Rumor has it that spam submissions continue to be a very big problem at ODP, and
-- as there is no central repository for URLs waiting in unreviewed -- that (by
and large) such submissions are still being dealt with by human beings and their
editing tools rather than by filtering algorithms.
Incidentally, Keith: I really appreciate your taking the time to post in this
forum, and I do not pretend to hold you accountable for anything and everything
that may be wrong with ODP. Rather, I believe that the existence and nature of
spam filters at ODP is a legitimate subject of inquiry for all ODP submitters
and licensees.
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
[David Grant:]
>
> . . . I do not share Netesq's enthusiasm for New Zeal.
I wouldn't call it enthusiasm, more like optimistic curiosity about how things
are going at the New Zeal. What I *DO* like about Zeal's new policies is that
they are being straightforward about attempting to draw the lines between
commercial and non-commercial speech. At ODP, these lines are very much blurred
in the context of AOL's major accounts, who are given easy editing access to
their own listings as Professional Content Providers (PCPs).
Notwithstanding the various attempts at obfuscating the obvious, it is just
plain wrong for ODP to roll out the red carpet for AOL's major accounts on the
one hand and to persecute small time search engine optimization (SEO)
professionals when said SEOs are "caught" paying an inordinate amount of
attention to their own clients site listings on ODP.
In the context of politics, sunshine laws require candidates for public office
to disclose any and all contributions to their campaign coffers, and the public
can hold said candidates accountable at the ballot box for being beholden to
special interests. No such remedy exists for ODP's volunteer corps.
[David Grant:]
>
> The ring fence that Looksmart has put round "commercial" categories
> is, to say the least, Draconian. As an example, a volunteer editor
> cannot edit ANY category in the whole of Travel, it has all been
> deemed to be commercial.
Once again, in the context of PCPs, this is an honest admission by LookSmart of
the increasingly commercial nature of the World Wide Web. If ODP were making
the decision, Travelocity and Expedia would get high-level editing access and
the small time travel agent would be expelled from the project, all under the
pretense of an all volunteer Web-indexing force.
[David Grant:]
>
> A (polite) request I made to Zeal staff to at least make some
> Travel cats editable elicited no reply. Perhaps Zeal staff went to
> the same charm school of correspondence as ODP staff!
Assuming that this is true -- and I have no reason to doubt you -- this lack of
courtesy is just plain wrong. Hopefully, a lurking LookSmarter/Zealer will take
notice of this fact and contact you to remedy the situation.
[David Grant:]
>
> Such across the board exclusion of suitable topics to edit make
> Zeal less than attractive, and I am not at all sure that they can
> ever get enough editors to make Zeal viable as a directory in its
> own right, or indeed as a feed for "non commercial" sites to
> Looksmart. That may be the intention!
Stranger things have happened. To wit, one can only sit and wonder why AOL
bothered to acquired Netscape.
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
> ODP's non-existent spam filters
Don't confuse a spam filter with detection of inappropriate
submissions.
Human intelligences (meaning informed and alert editors) are needed to
combat human deviousness. There aren't quite enough of those to go
around, sad to say.
There _are_ automated ways to deal with automated spam.
Keith aka kctipton
volunteer meta-editor since Nov 2000
"I've been spending a great deal of time researching geographic portals of
late, and I seldom find the good ones by doing a standard Google search for
the most relevant terms -- i.e., the keywords associated with the name of
the locality in question."
This is a most interesting point. I run some 50 travel sites, ranging from
individual hotels, through regional travel sites within the UK, through
countries, through to worldwide travel sites.
At local level Google delivers good results, at regional level Google
delivers good results...however at country or worldwide level Google's
results are not only eccentric but also alter drastically every month at the
larger level. Those readers who play with Google's www2 and www3 options
can see easily the changes.
My conclusion is that whilst Google's algorithm is very good for local
sites, they have not sorted out an algorithm for worldwide searches. This
may well be the reason why their top 10 sites at country wide level are
changing monthly, as they try to fine tune the maths. How long before you
get the algorithm right Google?
David
Zeal has been mentioned quite a bit recently here.
I don't know how many readers of this forum have had the opportunity to look
at the "new" Zeal in detail, I have, and I do not share Netesq's enthusiasm
for New Zeal.
The ring fence that Looksmart has put round "commercial" categories is, to
say the least, Draconian. As an example, a volunteer editor cannot edit ANY
category in the whole of Travel, it has all been deemed to be commercial.
A (polite) request I made to Zeal staff to at least make some Travel cats
editable elicited no reply. Perhaps Zeal staff went to the same charm school
of correspondence as ODP staff!
Such across the board exclusion of suitable topics to edit make Zeal less
than attractive, and I am not at all sure that they can ever get enough
editors to make Zeal viable as a directory in its own right, or indeed as a
feed for "non commercial" sites to Looksmart. That may be the intention!
David
[skrento (aka Nick Sahadi):]
>
> Zeal made the right choice and I support that. However they have
> fallen short in other areas such as the partnership with looksmart.
> While this may have been a good for business it hurt the
> relationship between the Zealots and Zeal.
In your opinion, how did Zeal's partnership with LookSmart hurt Zeal's
relationship with its Zealots? What's more, given the business realities of
last year's dot-com crash, what choice did Zeal have but to get acquired or
simply shut its doors altogether? How will WNDP avoid the same fate?
[skrento:]
>
> . . . Along with the GOGUIDES suddenly and tragically finding
> themselves on the side of the Info highway and homless I beleive
> that loayalty to Zeal is tarnished.
And what of the various attempts to reconstitute the diaspora of the former Go
Guides? How does WNDP stack up against:
- GoGuides.org < http://www.goguides.org/ >
- JoeAnt < http://www.joeant.com/ >
Specifically, what are your thoughts on the viability of these
constituency-based, volunteer-driven efforts?
[skrento:]
>
> There seems to be a reoccuring theme in which directories are not
> forthcoming with their intentions nor respectful of their
> contributers. Urls are what they want and when they get enough they
> are likely to sell out.
As the former Category Owner of Wherewithal's default Top-level subcategory
"Online Shopping" and the former owner of your own Custom Directory "Angler
Search" (< http://www.anglersearch.com/ >), what are your thoughts on a
decentralized system of proprietary content ownership?
You've commented elsewhere that there were two Wherewithal Category Owners whose
actions had a profoundly bad impact upon you and prompted you to leave the
Wherewithal community quite abruptly, abandoning hundred of hours of work and
pulling the rug out from under a coalition of Category Owners who had hoped to
offer a SecondOpinion(TM) for the default version of Wherewithal's Top-level
subcategory "Regional and World." Is this type of abrupt and controversial
departure not a recurring theme as well?
[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > . . . [H]ow does WNDP plan to pay its bills?
[skrento:]
>
> . . . Again, defering to the newness of the project nothing has
> been set in stone. Hopefully, by offering a superior pruduct
> investors will become interested. As you are an expert in this
> area, you are aware that times are slow to say the least.
Yes and no. As an independent Internet consultant, I have found that the
purveyors of useful and interesting information are still interested in how to
get out the good word and drive traffic to their Web sites, and as a member of
Wherewithal's senior management, I have found that there is indeed a market for
various Internet technologies in the context of private enterprise-wide
intranets.
But selling online content is different from the promotion of my clients'
infomercial-like Web sites -- who will gladly pay thousands of dollars each
month for pay-per-click services like GoTo -- and (with some notable exceptions)
high quality online content providers continue to drop like flies. The vast
majority of online content providers who are holding on are holding on by the
skin of their teeth.
[skrento:]
>
> . . . I believe that the timming is right for this project and that
> the market will pick back up. I believe that we are nearing the
> bottom and WNDP will be well positioned to take advantage of the
> inevitable turn around. It will be slow at first, but keep in mind
> that Yahoo did not become what it is over night.
No doubt the current dark pessimism in the market is just as unrealistic as the
wide-eyed optimism of the dot-com boom, but the fact of the matter is that no
business has any reasonable chance of success unless its principals have a
practical, workable business plan -- i.e., a business plan that ties revenues to
expenses. Where does WNDP hope to obtain its revenues?
[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > . . . [D]o you think that ODP simply assumes that the needs of
> > the end user are being met by ODP's downstream licensees? If so,
> > what (in your opinion) is wrong with this division of labor?
[skrento:]
>
> . . . [T]he only SE that I have seen make any sense of their data
> is GOOGLE. But I have noticed that even GOOGLE seems to be loosing
> pace with that data.
Speaking of Google, have you read Andrew Goodman's recent Traffick article,
"Google Wins by Not Hiding the Banana"? (<
http://traffick.com/story/2001-08/googlewins.asp >.) He is of the opinion that
Google has achieved total market dominance. Be that as it may, I am of the
opinion that Google does a really poor job of distinguishing between useful and
interesting information and boilerplate spam, particularly in the context of
regional and/or geographical information.
Intentionally misrepresented geographical provenience is one of the primordial
wellsprings of spam. Type any geographic location into Google, and you will get
tens of thousands of Web sites, most of them bereft of any unique content. An
official town site is hardly a hidden resource, so it is quite likely to come up
in the search results for any given town as it will likely be referenced by the
other 99,999 sites that pretend to offer reliable and useful information, but
the indexing of the Web is hardly something that should be left to Big Brother.
As a scrupulous researcher, you would now be required to work your way through
the first couple of hundred search results (at least) just as you would at the
local library. To wit: If you find an encyclopedia article on your subject,
your work is far from done. Having done this type of research myself, I have
found that Google rankings are quite useless beyond the first ten hits, with the
truly useful and interesting Web resources interspersed haphazardly along
the way.
I've been spending a great deal of time researching geographic portals of late,
and I seldom find the good ones by doing a standard Google search for the most
relevant terms -- i.e., the keywords associated with the name of the locality in
question.
ODP is not much better. Notwithstanding its dubious claim to 39,838 editors --
which is more accurately reflected by the numbers of 30,000 XODP editors, 9,000
editors who occasionally log in to check on their own listing, and 838 editors
who spend most of their time in the forums -- the vast majority of regional
locales do not have an editor assigned to them, much less the individual
regional topics.
Yahoo! does much, much better. However, it still fails to unearth some of the
more hidden gems among the various geographical portals, the very complaint that
gave rise to various community-built Web searches such as ODP. Basically,
looking for geographical information on the Web and expecting to find anything
more than government-run Web sites is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
The problem of locating useful and reliable regional information is not the
worst problem facing end users of the Web, but it is the easiest for the average
Web user to appreciate and grasp. Similar problems arise for every popular Web
topic.
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
> [skrento:]
> >
> > Do away with meta editors and use a professional managment team
> > that among other duties will listen to "aggrieved parties" and
help to solve problems in a fair manner. Have clear guidelines that
are for everyone.
> [David Prenatt:]
> What are your thoughts on the attempt of Zeal to do just this? Are
> you not reinventing a wheel that's already been reinvented?
Zeal made the right choice and I support that. However they have
fallen short in other areas such as the partnership with looksmart.
While this may have been a good for business it hurt the relationship
between the Zealots and Zeal. Along with the GOGUIDES
suddenly and tragically finding themselves on the side of the Info
highway and homless I beleive that loayalty to Zeal is tarnished. Add
to that the fact that the Zeal directory now sits behind looksmart
and I would say the level of reluctance to joining that project has
increased. I must also add that the ODP selling out was a disgrace
from a loyalty standpoint.
There seems to be a reoccuring theme in which directories are not
forthcoming with their intentions nor respectful of their
contributers. Urls are what they want and when they get enough they
are likely to sell out. On the other hand Yahoo is still chugging
along.
[David Prenatt:]
> On this note, for all of its high-minded ideals, Zeal never had a
> viable business plan. Is this something that WNDP has taken into
> consideration? In other words, how does WNDP plan to pay its bills?
I knew you would ask that question. Again, defering to the newness of
the project nothing has been set in stone. Hopefully, by offering a
superior pruduct investors will become interested. As you are an
expert in this area, you are aware that times are slow to say the
least. However, I believe that the timming is right for this project
and that the market will pick back up. I believe that we are nearing
the bottom and WNDP will be well positioned to take advantage of the
inevitable turn around. It will be slow at first, but keep in mind
that Yahoo did not become what it is over night.
[David Prenatt:]
> Once again, this brings up the issue of how WNDP might stack up
> against a class act like Zeal. What are your thoughts on the
various
> programs that Zeal has used, both past and present?
My take? They have moved in the right direction in atleast trying to
give the impression that they value the Zealots. While they don't
offer anything such as profit sharing at least they offer tokens of
appreciation and incentives. I believe that if nothing else, this
gesturing has a positve effect on moral. If you are at the ODP you
have about a 70 in 8,000 chance of recieving a dinosaur gif once a
year. The days of free labor are numbered.
[David Prenatt:]
> To what do you attribute ODP's disregard for the end user? Do you
> think it is simply a form of NIMBYism? That is, do you think that
> ODP simply assumes that the needs of the end user are being met by
> ODP's downstream licensees? If so, what (in your opinion) is wrong
> with this division of labor?
Oh I am sure that it was not planned to be that way. Their emphasis
was on attracting URL collectors. I beleive they hoped to become
popular with users when they started out and would still like to.
However, with the emphasis on collecting URLs they shot themselves in
the foot. They did not have much traffick in the begining and even
with all of those attributions every where they still do not have
many users. To put it bluntly, their search is in shambles.
As for them assuming that the needs of users are met downstream the
only SE that I have seen make any sense of their data is GOOGLE. But
I have noticed that even GOOGLE seems to be loosing pace with that
data. To be honest I don't think they really care much one way or the
other anymore. The only thing they seem truly interested in is adding
digits to their fron page.
> [skrento:]
> >
> > There are better ways of dealing with problems than flame wars.
> > Such as having a staff that will listen to problems and help
solve them in a professional manner.
[David Prenatt:]
> Agreed, public forums are seldom the right place to resolve
personal
> issues, but what about freedom of speech?
I am a true believer in freedom of speech. However, I also believe in
respect. Since nothing is perfect, I beleive in trying to have
balance between the two. You can speak your mind in a civil manner
or hoot and holler. I beleive the former will be recieved better.
[David Prenatt:]
> This brings us back to the question of whether Zeal has already
> implemented such reforms. Do you see Zeal as an enterprise worth
> emulating in this way? If so, what drawbacks do you see to the
> system that Zeal currently has in place?
This last question will have to wait as I am out of time.
Best Regards
Nick Sahadi
staff @ wndp
http://www.wndp.com
[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > . . . [W]hat real differences [will] there . . . be between ODP
> > and WNDP[?]
[skrento (aka Nick Sahadi):]
>
> . . . First of all the WNDP or The Whole Net Directory Project
> plan is to implement changes that webmasters, SEO professionals,
> and contributers would like to see. . . .
Changes that are long overdue, IMHO.
[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > * What do you see as ODP's problems?
> > * How (exactly) do you expect to lessen those problems?
[skrento:]
>
> As witnessed on various forum boards the "staff" does not respond
> to email from its editors, webmasters or SEO professionals. I have
> actually seen many posts at forums not that are not a part of the
> ODP from frustrated individuals looking for answers, that are
> ignored by the ODP staff, ODP meta editors and editors. This form
> of communication and problem solving is a joke. Basically if you do
> not stumble upon one of these forums that are not a part of the ODP
> then you are out of luck. The answer here is to provide better
> communication.
Very well put.
[skrento:]
>
> . . . The ODP relies upon meta editors who are not paid nor hold
> managment credentials or previous experience to act as the managers
> of the ODP therefore management is poor. To wit :
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/3
> "It's just a matter of time, what with 9 out of 10 new editor
> applications being rejected and a management team that promotes
> control freaks to positions of authority and then (in most cases)
> fails and refuses to engage in any dialogue whatsoever with
> potentially aggrieved parties."
Once again, very well put.
[skrento:]
>
> Do away with meta editors and use a professional managment team
> that among other duties will listen to "aggrieved parties" and help
> to solve problems in a fair manner. Have clear guidelines that are
> for everyone.
What are your thoughts on the attempt of Zeal to do just this? Are
you not reinventing a wheel that's already been reinvented?
On this note, for all of its high-minded ideals, Zeal never had a
viable business plan. Is this something that WNDP has taken into
consideration? In other words, how does WNDP plan to pay its bills?
[skrento:]
>
> . . . . Keeping in mind that the WNDP is brand new the details [of
> how to show appreciation for its editors] have not been settled yet.
Once again, this brings up the issue of how WNDP might stack up
against a class act like Zeal. What are your thoughts on the various
programs that Zeal has used, both past and present?
[skrento:]
>
> Hardly anyone uses the ODP site to search and they don't seem to
> care.
> Just like the disconnect they have in the area of communicating
> with the outside, they are also disconnected from users.
>
> A.It is the goal of WNDP to be available and attract users, not
> hide or ignore them.
To what do you attribute ODP's disregard for the end user? Do you
think it is simply a form of NIMBYism? That is, do you think that
ODP simply assumes that the needs of the end user are being met by
ODP's downstream licensees? If so, what (in your opinion) is wrong
with this division of labor?
[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > What (exactly) does WNDP mean when it makes [a] claim of
> > equality [amongst its editors]?
[skrento:]
>
> A.There will be a simple and fair set of guidelines for all to use.
> There will be no individual that the guidelines don't apply to. It
> is a well known fact that while the ODP has a set of guidelines,
> certain members of status are not held accountable to following the
> guidelines. This is wrong and WNDP will not operate in this fasion.
To what do you attribute ODP's double standards? How will WNDP avoid
this type of class structure? How will WNDP ensure that its claim of
equality does not becom reduced to a slogan?
[skrento:]
>
> A. There are better ways of dealing with problems than flame wars.
> Such as having a staff that will listen to problems and help solve
> them in a professional manner.
Agreed, public forums are seldom the right place to resolve personal
issues, but what about freedom of speech?
[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > I am curious as to how you hope to enforce your codes of courtesy
> > and/or investigate allegations of unethical conduct. Ultimately,
> > there must be a referee, whether that referee be an individual, a
> > committee, or a mob.
[skrento:]
>
> A.Clear guidelines that apply to everyone. It will be the
> professional managment teams job to " enforce . . . codes of
> courtesy and/or investigate allegations of unethical conduct."
This brings us back to the question of whether Zeal has already
implemented such reforms. Do you see Zeal as an enterprise worth
emulating in this way? If so, what drawbacks do you see to the
system that Zeal currently has in place?
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
[David Prenatt]
> Congratulations, skrento.<
Thank you,
skrento aka: Nick Sahadi
> Pardon me for saying so, but the WNDP bears a striking resemblance
to Netscape's Open Directory Project (ODP). Indeed, the front page
of WNDP seems to be a modified copy of ODP's front page <
The idea is based upon the directory formerly known as GNUHOO and
later known as NEWHOO who emulated the Yahoo site design including
the layout, graphics, and font colors.
> but it does bring into question exactly what real differences there
will be between ODP and WNDP.<
Yes it does. First of all the WNDP or The Whole Net Directory Project
plan is to implement changes that webmasters, SEO professionals, and
contributers would like to see. Some of the differences include but
are not limited to better treatment and respect for contributers, a
quicker turn around for new submissions than the ODP, better
communication such as answering problems via emails, and friendlier
forum atmosphere where one need not fear participating.
> * What do you see as ODP's problems?
* How (exactly) do you expect to lessen those problems?<
As witnessed on various forum boards the "staff" does not respond to
email from its editors, webmasters or SEO professionals. I have
actually seen many posts at forums not that are not a part of the ODP
from frustrated individuals looking for answers, that are ignored by
the ODP staff, ODP meta editors and editors. This form of
communication and problem solving is a joke. Basically if you do not
stumble upon one of these forums that are not a part of the ODP then
you are out of luck. The answer here is to provide better
communication.
Managment. The ODP relies upon meta editors who are not paid nor hold
managment credentials or previous experience to act as the managers
of the ODP therefore management is poor. To wit :
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/3
"It's just a matter of time, what with 9 out of 10 new editor
applications being rejected and a management team that promotes
control freaks to positions of authority and then (in most cases)
fails and refuses to engage in any dialogue whatsoever with
potentially aggrieved parties."
A.Do away with meta editors and use a professional managment team
that among other duties will listen to "aggrieved parties" and help
to solve problems in a fair manner. Have clear guidelines that are
for everyone.
Spam. No filters exist and the ODP is full of it.
A. Implement spam filters.
To many unreviewed sites due to lack of editors. There are more then
enough applying but they are rejected instead.
A. If I was in ODPs shoes I would take a long hard look at what could
be done to solve this problem. I would definately investigate why so
many editors are being rejected. After all you do not need to be a
rocket scientist to edit. Also, most ODP editors do not stay on board.
They join, add their own site and a few others to look kosher. WNDP
would implement programs aimed at keeping its editors onboard.
Appreciation of its editors/contributers.
A.Most other directories offer some sort of sign of appreciation or
compensation. At the ODP the most you will get is
http://www.dmozed.org/special/odpawards/1999/feuders.gif
WNDP will show its appreciation and compensate its contributers in
some form. Keeping in mind that the WNDP is brand new the details
have not been settled yet.
Classes of editors. 8,000 basic editors and about 70 meta editors.
A.WNDP would do away with the meta editors, implement professional
managment team and all contributers would be on equal ground.
Hardly anyone uses the ODP site to search and they don't seem to care.
Just like the disconnect they have in the area of communicating with
the outside, they are also disconnected from users.
A.It is the goal of WNDP to be available and attract users, not hide
or ignore them.
> [The "About WNDP" narrative continues:]
>
> "At The Whole Net Directory Project all contributers are equal."
>
> (< http://www.wndp.com/about.htm >.)
>
> What (exactly) does WNDP mean when it makes this claim of
equality? The idea that "all men[sic] are created equal" originally
implied that all people have the same fundamental right to be
considered as ends in themselves and not as means for another
person's ends. In other words, equality was once paradoxically
synonymous with the sanctity of every individual's right to be
*different* from everyone else, a unique person with his or her own
thoughts, feelings, and will. However, modern thinking on the nature
of human equality has bastardized this conceptual framework, and most
people are now encouraged to believe that equality means the
subordination of individual rights for the greater good of the
community.<
A.There will be a simple and fair set of guidelines for all to use.
There will be no individual that the guidelines don't apply to. It is
a well known fact that while the ODP has a set of guidelines, certain
members of status are not held accountable to following the
guidelines. This is wrong and WNDP will not operate in this fasion.
> "Unlike other directories contributers are not allowed to
form 'lynch mobs' aimed at harrasing other contributers via forums or
email."
>
> (< http://www.wndp.com/about.htm >.)
>
> At what price do we buy such peace of mind?<
A. There are better ways of dealing with problems than flame wars.
Such as having a staff that will listen to problems and help solve
them in a professional manner.
>> [The "About WNDP" narrative continues:]
>
> "Furthermore, no contributer will have the power to remove a fellow
contributer."
>
> (< http://www.wndp.com/about.htm >.)
> You'll get no argument from me, but I am curious as to how you hope
to enforce your codes of courtesy and/or investigate allegations of
unethical conduct. Ultimately, there must be a referee, whether that
referee be an individual, a committee, or a mob.<
A.Clear guidelines that apply to everyone. It will be the
professional managment teams job to " enforce your codes of courtesy
and/or investigate allegations of unethical conduct."
--- In xodp@y..., "David Prenatt" <netesq@d...> wrote:
> [skrento:]
> >
> > I am happy to announce that WNDP The Whole Net Diretory Project
has
> > its own domain now at http://www.wndp.com/
>
> Congratulations, skrento.
>
> Pardon me for saying so, but the WNDP bears a striking resemblance
to Netscape's Open Directory Project (ODP). Indeed, the front page
of WNDP seems to be a modified copy of ODP's front page -- not that
there's anything wrong with that -- but it does bring into question
exactly what real differences there will be between ODP and WNDP.
>
> You might find it worthwhile to examine the merits of XODP Meta
Editor gruban's proposed ODP alternative. (See <
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/2 >; see also <
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/surveys?id=195828 >.) When the
members of XODP's constituency were asked whether they would be
willing to volunteer for a clone of ODP that would provide an
alternative for editors who are not eligible and/or interested in
working with ODP, 20 out of 52 responded with an unqualified "yes"
and another 18 responded "it depends." (<
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/surveys?id=195828 >).
>
> [skrento:]
> >
> > Also see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1023
> > and http://www.wndp.com/about.htm for more information about the
> > project and how you can be a part of this exciting venture.
>
> In the XODP post referenced in the above-quoted passage, you state:
>
> "As the ODP formerly known as NewHoo was built upon removing the
defects inherent in the search engine Yahoo, WNDP or The Whole Net
Directory Project will be built as an alternative to the ODP and less
all of ODPs problems."
>
> (< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1023 >.)
>
> * What do you see as ODP's problems?
>
> * How (exactly) do you expect to lessen those problems?
>
> At WNDP's "About" page, also referenced in the above-quoted
passage, we are told:
>
> "The non paid editorial staffs at certain directory sites can't
keep up with submissions, and the quality and comprehensiveness of
their directories has suffered. Link rot is setting in and they can't
keep pace with the growth of the Internet.
>
> "The Whole Net Directory Project will fill this void and provide
both users and submitters a better directory.
>
> "At The Whole Net Directory Project our number one goal is to
provide users with the most relevant search results quickly and with
ease."
>
> (< http://www.wndp.com/about.htm >.)
>
> The WNDP's goals are laudable, but without a detailed set of
practical and workable plans, any enterprise of such pith and moment
is bound to go awry and lose the name of action. It is like a
rudderless ship: Eventually it will crash against the rocks and be
destroyed.
>
> [The "About WNDP" narrative continues:]
>
> "At The Whole Net Directory Project all contributers are equal."
>
> (< http://www.wndp.com/about.htm >.)
>
> What (exactly) does WNDP mean when it makes this claim of
equality? The idea that "all men[sic] are created equal" originally
implied that all people have the same fundamental right to be
considered as ends in themselves and not as means for another
person's ends. In other words, equality was once paradoxically
synonymous with the sanctity of every individual's right to be
*different* from everyone else, a unique person with his or her own
thoughts, feelings, and will. However, modern thinking on the nature
of human equality has bastardized this conceptual framework, and most
people are now encouraged to believe that equality means the
subordination of individual rights for the greater good of the
community.
>
> To be sure, one should first respect one's own equality -- i.e.,
one's own rights as an individual. This is the foundation upon which
one can build respect for the rights of others:
>
> "All infractions of love and equity in our social relations are
speedily punished. They are punished by Fear. Whilst I stand in
simple relations to my fellow man, I have no displeasure in meeting
him. We meet as water meets water, or as two currents of air mix,
with perfect diffusion and interpenetration of nature. But as soon
as there is any departure from simplicity, and attempt at halfness,
or good for me that is not good for him, my neighbor feels the wrong;
he shrinks from me as far as I have shrunk from him; his eyes no
longer seek mine; there is war between us; there is hate in him and
fear in me."
>
> (_Compensation_ by Ralph Waldo Emerson.)
>
> [The "About WNDP" narrative continues:]
>
> "Unlike other directories contributers are not allowed to
form 'lynch mobs' aimed at harrasing other contributers via forums or
email."
>
> (< http://www.wndp.com/about.htm >.)
>
> At what price do we buy such peace of mind?
>
> ". . . [W]hat country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers
are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them
right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives
lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's
natural manure."
>
> (Letter From Thomas Jefferson to William Smith, Paris, November 13,
1787.)
>
> [The "About WNDP" narrative continues:]
>
> "Furthermore, no contributer will have the power to remove a fellow
contributer."
>
> (< http://www.wndp.com/about.htm >.)
>
> You'll get no argument from me, but I am curious as to how you hope
to enforce your codes of courtesy and/or investigate allegations of
unethical conduct. Ultimately, there must be a referee, whether that
referee be an individual, a committee, or a mob.
>
> [The "About WNDP" narrative continues:]
>
> "Again, unlike other directories email from contributers and
submitters will not be ignored and will be answered promptly."
>
> (< http://www.wndp.com/about.htm >.)
>
> You'll get no argument from me here, but there are practical
limitations to this, and sometimes even very important correspondence
can slip through the cracks. One thing that I try to make clear to
everyone who is trying to reach me by e-mail is that if I do not
respond to an e-mail within 48 hours, you should feel free to send me
a followup e-mail, referencing the prior communication. Not every e-
mail calls for a personal response from me, so sometimes I forward e-
mail to other people and ask them to take care of it; other times I
just ignore it. If I don't hear back from someone whom I have
neglected to answer, I will often assume that the underlying problem
has taken care of itself. As well, my paying clients come first, so
if you *REALLY* want to reach me by e-mail, mention the fact that you
are willing to pay me a retainer for a consultation.
>
> To be clear, there are a small handful of people who are in my dog
house, people who have gone out of their way to make me regret any
courtesy that I have ever shown them and whose e-mail correspondence
I am not even willing to acknowledge, but I can count these truly
toxic losers on one hand.
>
> Humbly Yours,
>
> XODP Moderator netesq
[skrento:]
>
> I am happy to announce that WNDP The Whole Net Diretory Project has
> its own domain now at http://www.wndp.com/
Congratulations, skrento.
Pardon me for saying so, but the WNDP bears a striking resemblance to Netscape's
Open Directory Project (ODP). Indeed, the front page of WNDP seems to be a
modified copy of ODP's front page -- not that there's anything wrong with that
-- but it does bring into question exactly what real differences there will be
between ODP and WNDP.
You might find it worthwhile to examine the merits of XODP Meta Editor gruban's
proposed ODP alternative. (See < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/2
>; see also < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/surveys?id=195828 >.) When the
members of XODP's constituency were asked whether they would be willing to
volunteer for a clone of ODP that would provide an alternative for editors who
are not eligible and/or interested in working with ODP, 20 out of 52 responded
with an unqualified "yes" and another 18 responded "it depends." (<
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/surveys?id=195828 >).
[skrento:]
>
> Also see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1023
> and http://www.wndp.com/about.htm for more information about the
> project and how you can be a part of this exciting venture.
In the XODP post referenced in the above-quoted passage, you state:
"As the ODP formerly known as NewHoo was built upon removing the defects
inherent in the search engine Yahoo, WNDP or The Whole Net Directory Project
will be built as an alternative to the ODP and less all of ODPs problems."
(< http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1023 >.)
* What do you see as ODP's problems?
* How (exactly) do you expect to lessen those problems?
At WNDP's "About" page, also referenced in the above-quoted passage, we are
told:
"The non paid editorial staffs at certain directory sites can't keep up with
submissions, and the quality and comprehensiveness of their directories has
suffered. Link rot is setting in and they can't keep pace with the growth of the
Internet.
"The Whole Net Directory Project will fill this void and provide both users and
submitters a better directory.
"At The Whole Net Directory Project our number one goal is to provide users with
the most relevant search results quickly and with ease."
(< http://www.wndp.com/about.htm >.)
The WNDP's goals are laudable, but without a detailed set of practical and
workable plans, any enterprise of such pith and moment is bound to go awry and
lose the name of action. It is like a rudderless ship: Eventually it will
crash against the rocks and be destroyed.
[The "About WNDP" narrative continues:]
"At The Whole Net Directory Project all contributers are equal."
(< http://www.wndp.com/about.htm >.)
What (exactly) does WNDP mean when it makes this claim of equality? The idea
that "all men[sic] are created equal" originally implied that all people have
the same fundamental right to be considered as ends in themselves and not as
means for another person's ends. In other words, equality was once
paradoxically synonymous with the sanctity of every individual's right to be
*different* from everyone else, a unique person with his or her own thoughts,
feelings, and will. However, modern thinking on the nature of human equality
has bastardized this conceptual framework, and most people are now encouraged to
believe that equality means the subordination of individual rights for the
greater good of the community.
To be sure, one should first respect one's own equality -- i.e., one's own
rights as an individual. This is the foundation upon which one can build
respect for the rights of others:
"All infractions of love and equity in our social relations are speedily
punished. They are punished by Fear. Whilst I stand in simple relations to my
fellow man, I have no displeasure in meeting him. We meet as water meets water,
or as two currents of air mix, with perfect diffusion and interpenetration of
nature. But as soon as there is any departure from simplicity, and attempt at
halfness, or good for me that is not good for him, my neighbor feels the wrong;
he shrinks from me as far as I have shrunk from him; his eyes no longer seek
mine; there is war between us; there is hate in him and fear in me."
(_Compensation_ by Ralph Waldo Emerson.)
[The "About WNDP" narrative continues:]
"Unlike other directories contributers are not allowed to form 'lynch mobs'
aimed at harrasing other contributers via forums or email."
(< http://www.wndp.com/about.htm >.)
At what price do we buy such peace of mind?
". . . [W]hat country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned
from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them
take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.
What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's
natural manure."
(Letter From Thomas Jefferson to William Smith, Paris, November 13, 1787.)
[The "About WNDP" narrative continues:]
"Furthermore, no contributer will have the power to remove a fellow
contributer."
(< http://www.wndp.com/about.htm >.)
You'll get no argument from me, but I am curious as to how you hope to enforce
your codes of courtesy and/or investigate allegations of unethical conduct.
Ultimately, there must be a referee, whether that referee be an individual, a
committee, or a mob.
[The "About WNDP" narrative continues:]
"Again, unlike other directories email from contributers and submitters will not
be ignored and will be answered promptly."
(< http://www.wndp.com/about.htm >.)
You'll get no argument from me here, but there are practical limitations to
this, and sometimes even very important correspondence can slip through the
cracks. One thing that I try to make clear to everyone who is trying to reach
me by e-mail is that if I do not respond to an e-mail within 48 hours, you
should feel free to send me a followup e-mail, referencing the prior
communication. Not every e-mail calls for a personal response from me, so
sometimes I forward e-mail to other people and ask them to take care of it;
other times I just ignore it. If I don't hear back from someone whom I have
neglected to answer, I will often assume that the underlying problem has taken
care of itself. As well, my paying clients come first, so if you *REALLY* want
to reach me by e-mail, mention the fact that you are willing to pay me a
retainer for a consultation.
To be clear, there are a small handful of people who are in my dog house, people
who have gone out of their way to make me regret any courtesy that I have ever
shown them and whose e-mail correspondence I am not even willing to acknowledge,
but I can count these truly toxic losers on one hand.
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > ODP's non-existent spam filters
[hitch-hiker:]
>
> That is another "BIG FAT LIE"(tm). Various types of spam filters
> exists at ODP.
We're all ears, so please tell us all about ODP's various non-
existent spam filters:
| How to spam ODP - tricks of the trade
| -----------------------------------------------------------------
| pchere posted 07-17-00 04:17 AM PT (US) [edit]
| ------------------------------------------------------------------
| How to spam ODP - tricks of the trade
| --------------------------------------
| I send in my main URL - it gets added.
| I send in the same URL to a related cat. - it gets added.
| I am happy . I want more. I am a spammer.
|
| I change the site name, I send in a mirror page / redirecting page
| - it is listed.
| I again change site name, I send in a mirror page / redirecting
| page to the related cat - added
| I am soooooo happy
|
| I add a subpage to a subcat - it gets added (URL does not show as
| Already listed in because the URL is different)
| I add another subpage to a subcat - it also gets added (URL does
| not show as Already listed in because the URL is different)
| I keep on sending deeplinks - they keep on getting added.
| I am such a cool spammer. I have 30 sites in ODP and no one
| knows. All those hits to my dear site - thanks to ODP.
|
| -----------
|
| Oh, Oh someone finds out about this.
| Frantic posts in the forum.
| All my mirror and deeplinks deleted
|
| Never mind. I am a spammer.
|
| I restart the submission cycle. Different cats, different URL's.
| Fresh URL's and unsuspecting new editors, no editor notes and
| yesssssss. Added.
|
| Someone still knows me and deletes it.
| Added to See editor notes.
| I am a spammer.
|
| I resend the submissions. The editor goes crazy. He emails me to
| stop.
| I recieve such emails daily. That does not promp me to stop
|
| I resend deeplinks again.
| The editors go bonkers.
| They email staff@...
| Staff sends me a strict warning.
| Hey I am a spammer. Its my job. Its my craze. Do you think it
| will stop me.
|
| I resubmit again. The editor deletes my unreviewed again.
| I resubmit again. The editor deletes my unreviewed again.
| I resubmit again. The editor deletes my unreviewed again.
|
| Stop me if you can
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------
| sready posted 07-17-00 05:11 AM PT (US) [edit] item1
| ------------------------------------------------------------------
| argh!
| One of my favourites would have to be variants of:
|
| www.CaseSensitiveAddresses.com
| www.caseSensitiveAddresses.com
| www.caseSensitiveaddresses.com
| www.casesensitiveaddresses.com
| www.CasesensitiveAddresses.com
| www.Casesensitiveaddresses.com
|
| and then submissions of all the above with trailing slashes.
|
| and then submissions of all the above with "-" placed between each
| word.
|
| and then submissions of all the above with trailing slashes and "-"
| placed between each word.
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------
| mwaf posted 07-17-00 11:18 AM PT (US) [edit] item2
| ------------------------------------------------------------------
| you forgot the case on www (www WWW Www wWw wwW) amd com (com COM
| Com cOm coM) if this make any difference....
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------
| gamiziuk posted 07-17-00 12:23 PM PT (US) [edit] item3
| ------------------------------------------------------------------
| The latest craze in Regional:
| http://miami.hotelspammer.com
| http://jacksonville.hotelspammer.com
| http://orlando.hotelspammer.com
| http://tampa.hotelspammer.com
| http://daytonabeach.hotelspammer.com
| http://more-and-more-cities.hotelspammer.com
|
| Prepare 700+ such domains for every city in Florida. Submit the
| corresponding site to every city in Florida.
|
| Editor visits the site, but they all redirect back to the same
| domain, content unrelated to the city name in the domains above.
|
| ------------------------------------------------------------------
| stewart posted 07-17-00 01:54 PM PT (US) [edit] item4
| ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Domain names are case-insensitive, and the ODP also-appears check
| recognizes this. You can see this if you try adding
| http://WWW.YAHOO.COM, for example.
| The local part of a URL /is/ case sensitive, though.
| ------------------------------------------------------------------
| rpfuller posted 07-17-00 01:59 PM PT (US) [edit] item5
| ------------------------------------------------------------------
| Submit your site as:
| http:// www.site.com/
| or
| http://www,site.com/
|
| or some variation.
|
| Submit your site, and make use of a bug in the ODP software, so
| that when the editor goes to the edit page a piece of Javascript
| executes that adds the site to the category. Submit your site to
| many categories.
|
| Submit your site as
| http://www.site.com/index.html
| http://www.site.com/site.html
| http://www.site.com/main.html
| etc.
|
| Sign up as an editor, go unnoticed for over a year, and during
| that time add
| your own site in multiple categories, and cool it. Get accepted for
| the parent category, and add and cool it there too.
[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > and its catmvs that take days to complete
[hitch-hiker:]
>
> That is another "BIG FAT LIE"(tm). I have never heard that they
> would take days.
Apparently you were not paying attention during some of the larger catmvs in
Regional/ , but they are well documented in the ODP Editor Forums.
[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > and leave thousands of editors stranded without their editing
> privileges.
[hitch-hiker:]
>
> Not necessarily.
Once again, apparently you were not paying attention during some of the larger
catmvs in Regional/ , but they are well documented in the ODP Editor Forums.
[David Prenatt:]
> >
> > there's no way to tell whether an unreviewed submission is
> > already sitting in the category where it has been submitted.
[hitch-hiker:]
>
> That is another "BIG FAT LIE"(tm). It's actually very easy to see
> that.
Not if it's in the same category, and certainly not if the submitter has
submitted using a different title and description, the category in question has
hundreds of listings and hundreds of unreviewed submissions, and the editor in
question is a member of the click-through brigade.
[hitch-hiker:]
>
> . . . ODP do have a search function.
Which is so awful, and updates so infrequently, that even ODP editors prefer
using Google to search ODP's listings.
[hitch-hiker:]
>
> Well, the directory is there to help people find what they are
> looking for, not to provide a billboard for advertisers.
The vast majority of Web sites on the Internet are commercial in nature, and (as
evidenced by the unparalleled success of search engines like GoTo) commercial
speech that is clearly labeled as commercial speech is something that end users
very much like and want.
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
--- In xodp@y..., "David Prenatt" <netesq@d...> wrote:
> ODP's non-existent spam filters
That is another "BIG FAT LIE"(tm). Various types of spam filters
exists at ODP.
> and its catmvs that take days to complete
That is another "BIG FAT LIE"(tm). I have never heard that they would
take days.
> and leave thousands of editors stranded without their editing
privileges.
Not necessarily.
> there's no way to tell whether an unreviewed submission is already
sitting in the category where it has been submitted.
That is another "BIG FAT LIE"(tm). It's actually very easy to see
that.
> When drilling down through ODP's directory structure, an end user
may be redirected to another part of the directory by way of a
symlink.
True.
> Directory style databases need a search function to be complete;
these two functions are too closely related to have one without the
other.
And ODP do have a search function. However downdtream data users may
use different types of search and present data differently. Some
interesting examples are http://maps.map.net/http://www.oingo.com/
and http://www.webbrain.com/
> As it is, ODP's decontextualized data (i.e., no data entry field
for keywords) creates a huge blindpsot for Web sites that have been
optimized for other search engines. This puts the typcial SEO expert
between a rock and a hard place.
Well, the directory is there to help people find what they are
looking for, not to provide a billboard for advertisers.
Btw, ODP do have keywords, but not on sites.
> You'd be well advised to read through the various ODP Guidelines
for this kind of information.
It's also a good idea to have a look at
http://dmoz.org/help/geninfo.html
[balladofjayne:]
>
> Serious? We're supposed to believe:
>
> 1) Nick Sahadi impostering as "skrento".
Can you say, "satire"? (Cf. "Netscape Acquires NewHoo! Community Directory
Project for $40.05 Billion" < http://www.denounce.com/newhoo.html >.)
> 2) Nick Sahadi stealing an entire site's design. (And don't think
> Brinkster hasn't already been informed of your theft, child.)
There's two ways that these statement might be reasonably interpreted:
1. "balladofjayne" is asserting that Nick Sahadi stole Brinkster's site design;
or
2. "balladofjayne" is asserting that Nick Sahadi stole ODP's site design, and
"balladofjayne" has informed Brinkster of the "theft."
Since the first interpretation makes no sense whatsoever, I will proceed with
the assumption that "balladofjayne" intended the second.
1. As the skrenta himself -- i.e., the *REAL* skrenta -- once asserted:
"Regarding the look of GnuHoo: You can't copyright look & feel; this was
established by the Apple-MSFT lawsuit. Yahoo even has a category in their own
directory for other web directories and search engines that look just like them.
We picked this look because it has become a default standard for organizing
content on the web. We could deviate from it with an unfamiliar interface, but
this would make it less usable to the public that is already familiar with
Yahoo-like hierarchical structures."
(Slashdot: Gnuhoo Web Directory <
http://slashdot.org/articles/older/980613118210_F.shtml >.)
2. ODP is open content.
> 4) Nick Sahadi period? Nick Sahadi serious?
He's definitely full of surprises. Indeed, one might wonder if you were not
Nick Sahadi himself, posting under a pseudonym. Stranger things have happened.
But since we're on the subject of Nick Sahadi, I was actually quite impressed
with his performance as the default Category Owner for Wherewithal's Top-level
subcat "Online Shopping," as the Custom Directory Owner of (the I believe now
intentionally defunct) Angler Search (< http://www.AnglerSearch.com/ >), and as
the former leader of a coalition of Wherewithal Category owners who hoped to
offer a SecondOpinion(TM) for Wherewithal's Top-level subcat "Regional and
World."
Nick left Wherewithal very abruptly, and he took quite a bit of original content
with him -- as was his right under his Wherewithal Category Owner Contract, but
it was still very disappointing to me and the hundreds of other people who so
valued his selfless contributions to the Wherewithal community.
Humbly Yours,
XODP Moderator netesq
Send Email
